post 3

Justin Wright

makes his third post.

A) The experience of viewing Triumph of the Will was, for me, mesmerizing. I put aside my anti-Nazi feelings to really feel what Riefenstahl intended when she made the film - to show a glorious leader, saving the nation from the darkest time in its history, and how the people show their loyalty to him and his ideas. Although many consider the film as propaganda, anyone who compares it to other propaganda will surely notice a difference. Certainly, the film was used as propaganda by the Nazis, and Hitler had to have had this in mind when he commissioned it. But Riefenstahl was given unlimited freedom in the budget, filming, and editing, and even some sway in planning the rally for ideal filming. Thus although Hitler asked Riefenstahl to make the film, he did not supervise it at all, and did not see it before the premiere. Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister, also was not allowed to supervise. So from before it was even made, Triumph of the Will differed from films that were pure propaganda, such as The Eternal Jew, commissioned by Goebbels.

The film focuses on the skies first, in the film’s opening. The cameras follow clouds as they pass by the windows, and soon the city of Nuremburg is visible below. This was one of the first major uses of aerial photography in film. There was no other way to capture the beauty of the heavens, and the city in such a way. The parts of the city seen are very beautiful – artistic architecture of German styles, unlike the roofs of modern utilitarian buildings that would cover most areas today. It appears that Hitler is descending from the skies to come lead his people. The shadow of the plane follows along a road where soldiers are marching. This must have been very difficult to get right, and emphasizes Hitler’s leadership and power. The plane lands and Hitler is seen for the first time, to the joy of all watching. He leads a parade through the streets, while people cheer for him. While Hitler is being driven though the streets, cameras pan to focus on him, while occasionally switching to shots of statues, or people cheering. Everything is in motion, and the music is triumphant. It is important to note that the footage was taken without sound, and the sound was rerecorded, to match perfectly.

The military formations in the film are simply breathtaking. Between eighty and one hundred thousand Germans are standing in meticulous rows, columns, and blocks. All of this is visible from a camera positioned up with the banners. The only flaw is that the camera is looking at the formations from a slight angle, instead of straight on. But this is overlooked because these are the last enormous, real formations of troops that will probably ever be filmed, since war is not fought the same way today, and rallies on this scale will probably not happen again. Hitler walks down the central aisle with Himmler and a general accompanying him, and the camera watches him from above. When they reaches the podium, a camera tracks across to the side. This was a new technique at the time, created by Riefenstahl for this film. More people, possibly soldiers, march in carrying banners, and then around the formations in a circle. All of the people blend together, forming a mass expressing pure power. Triumph of the Will is definitely aesthetically beautiful.

B) I do not think that Riefenstahl should have apologized for creating Triumph of the Will. She was not a Nazi supporter when she made the film (or so she claims) and even if she was, she did not support the anti-Semitism of the party in her film. Neither did she create the film for use as propaganda. Even though Hitler asked her personally to make it, she gave her too much freedom in doing so for it to be true propaganda. He may have intended this indirectly, but what he was probably trying to do was create a film that was unifying, glorifying, and purely German, to boost nationalism and identify the Nazi party as a true German government to the core. It still could be considered propaganda in a general sense because of its subject matter, but I would not rank it along with other Nazi propaganda. The film is too artistic. Propaganda produced by other directors was heavily political, such as the infamous The Eternal Jew.

The fact that Hitler gave Riefenstahl both infinite control over the film’s production, as well as a grand budget, are important considerations in determining why she made the film. Since Hitler never saw the film until its release, this strongly suggests it was not commissioned as pure propaganda. If it was, either he or Goebbels would have had some supervising authority. But then Riefenstahl helped plan the Nuremburg rally for ideal filming, and was funded by Hitler, which he would not have done unless he did commission Triumph of the Will to be propaganda of some sort. I think that the former outweighs the latter, and that part of what makes images propaganda is production by the government, not just government involvement.

Riefenstahl tried until her death to soften up her involvement with high ranking Nazis. There were diary entries of one official which document her as being present for evenings with him and Hitler several times. Riefenstahl claims this never happened, becoming truly outraged during an interview. Most likely it did happen, because there would be no reason to lie in a diary, but Riefenstahl has plenty of reasons for wanting to distance herself from the Nazi party. Although she almost certainly was more involved with the party than she claims, anti-Semitism and other hate speech is not included in Triumph of the Will, which is why the Nazis are regarded as evil in the first place. Therefore the film is purely the aesthetics of the party rally, and the message of national unity under Hitler.

Riefenstahl never apologized for the film, which is an even further reason to say that she should not have done so. If she did not apologize for the film because she supported the Nazi movement, she would have had no reason to have continued for sixty years denying that she created the film as propaganda.

Fatema post 3

Fatema Kermalli

PART A

Aesthetically speaking, Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will is a beautiful piece. A large part of its formal beauty lies in the way that the film is able to take otherwise stationary events, which the producer worried would bore the audience, and film them in such a way that the images are always moving. This method of catching and keeping the attention of her viewers was achieved through various means, including filming whilst roller skating and having tracks built all over the site of the rally. The way in which Hitler himself is filmed is, perhaps, the most important. Rather than having a stationary view of the leader speaking to the people, Leni Riefenstahl opted to film from a track built around the speaker’s podium, so that the audience’s view of him is always changing. The footage, in this sense, in unpredictable, and creates a feeling of anticipation within the viewers.

Another formal component which enhances the beauty of the film is the alternation between showing large masses of people and individuals, Hitler in particular. (One method used for capturing the large amounts of crowds was the installation of a camera that could take footage from a flagpole high above masses.) A kind of rhythm is created going from one to the other, and it is through this rhythm that the film itself is carried forward. The same is true for the way in which Riefenstahl deals with other opposites. Solemn scenes give way to excitement, and liveliness is followed by a more somber tone. The audience is never left with the same conditions for too long for fear of their losing interest. Instead, they are carried perpetually forward along with the events being shown to them on the screen. Riefenstahl’s method of building up to a climax through an increase in the tempo of the film and the activity seen within it is also necessary for keeping the audience’s attention.

Considering the facts that Leni ignored chronological order in putting the film together and had so much initial footage to choose from, another great achievement of this piece is the way in which each scene flows into the other. The average person watching may not have any idea that the events shown did not actually occur in the way that they are represented. From an artistic point of view, this in itself illustrates sheer brilliance. Being able to reorder the past without your audience being any wiser is testimony to great expertise on Leni’s part. This she herself alluded to in one of the clips where she mentioned the need for a “good eye” with regards to the colors and subjects when weaving so much footage together into a single, seamless film.

The last formal quality which I found to be extremely important for Triumph of the Will’s beauty as a film is the way in which Leni deals with sound. To go along with the rhythmic quality of the film itself, putting music to the images as opposed to simply allowing the natural sounds to filter through may be seen in itself as the artist’s masterstroke. The music is able to set the tone for the images. It also enables the producer to highlight what she feels are the most important sounds coming from the rally itself. As all other noise is covered over, those sounds that do filter through and are allowed to be heard above, or in the absence of, music are given special importance. In this way, the sound itself follows a type of rhythm, alternating between three main types of sounds: the music, the voice of the Fuhrer speaking, and the chants and cries of the masses at large. These chants also, formally speaking, add to the beauty due to the way in which all the people are shown to be acting as one. This theme also runs through the actions of the crowd, which is seen moving as one body, just as it speaks with one voice.

PART B

I believe that Riefenstahl ought to apologize for her work. Life in this world is interconnected; like ripples in the water, each thing that we do affects those around us. In the same way, art has the ability to lead the views of people in a specific direction. Films, such as Riefenstahl’s, have the power to affect a large amount of people. This ability in itself must have been known to Leni, as all artists are aware of the evocative nature of their works. The ability to awake a sense in others is indeed the reasoning behind art itself, for it is the only way through which the piece may be understood for its genius. Like was discussed in class, it is not possible for an artist to go into creating their masterpiece without any kind of direction; the way in which the film is put together lends itself to specific messages and motifs. These messages Leni must have been aware of, and messages are meant to be understood by the receiver. Thus we may say both that Riefenstahl knew of the ability of her film to send a message to large groups of people and that she herself created or polished this message so that it would be able to shine through Triumph of the Will.

Now the question that remains is: Is the message within Triumph of the Will reprehensible and evil? This question appears to me to depend on history itself. There are obvious themes within the film, but to say that the ideas of unity, discipline, obedience, admiration, or even “One People. One Leader. One Empire.” led in any way to the events that followed, such as the Holocaust, seems to be a bit of a stretch. Even if it were true, however, one could not blame Leni for not being able to see into the future. Thus, the only way to attach blame is by looking at events that occurred either before or during the film’s creation.

The main idea which the piece seems to propagate is the “beauty” of Hitler himself, both as a firm ruler to be admired (during the second two “portions” of the film mentioned by Devereaux and through views of him taken by a camera from below) and as one of the people (primarily during the beginning part where he is shown accepting flowers and such). The question as to whether this message in itself is evil, as stated earlier, depends on what Leni knew about Hitler. Had he done anything reprehensible himself that Leni would have known about such that advocating him as a leader would have, in itself, been reprehensible?

According to the facts stated in Devereaux’s piece, the footage was taken from a 1934 Nuremberg party rally and was shown as a film in March 1935. By the beginning of 1934 (before the filming and editing process), Hitler had been in power for about a year. The Gestapo (police force) had already been created and people were losing their freedoms. Jews had been banned from various positions and jobs within the community. And in the spring of 1933, Dachau-a concentration camp that ended up serving as a model for all those that followed-had opened (www.historyplace.com).

All of this would most likely have been known by Leni Riefenstahl, who apparently had close contact with Hitler himself. According to Sontag’s article, Riefenstahl, called “my perfect German woman” by Hitler, “was precisely the only German filmmaker who was not responsible to the Film Office (Riechsfilmkammer) of Geobbels’s ministry of propaganda.” This fact was also alluded to in the article by Devereaux which stated that nobody had seen her film in advance (it did not have to go through the censorship board). Besides this, the actions taken by Hitler against the freedoms of Jews, at least, were actual laws… leaving no room for ignorance on Riefenstahl’s part. Due to these historical facts, it would appear that Leni knew what Hitler was doing, and despite that, chose to support the regime and show him in a positive light. This, I believe, is a cause for apology by the artist.

*****

According to Devereaux, Triumph of the Will is powerful due to the vision it creates of Hitler and National Socialism. In the way that the film is put together, this vision appears to be good; not only the formal aspects of the film, but also its vision of a united people with a strong leader are appealing to the viewer. This, however, contrasts with the actuality of Hitler and his form of government. In other words, good and evil are extraordinarily intertwined within this film, a fact that causes a moral dilemma in deciding whether or not it is acceptable to praise and enjoy the work as art. Devereaux states that whilst the formal aspects can be appreciated separately, the vision of a strong leader is in itself flawed because of its misrepresentation of the truth, thus rendering the entire work of art flawed. It cannot be given the highest aesthetic praise, as good as it otherwise is.

As for Devereaux’s supposed answer to the question of an apology, I believe that she would indeed have put some of the blame on Leni Riefenstahl. This is evident in certain parts of the article, where, for example, she discusses the use of motifs in order to establish the ideas (in order) of one leader, one people, and one empire. The fact that Devereaux believes in Riefenstahl’s intentional use of editing to create such a message indicates that she would find it possible to lay some of the blame on her if the message were found to be harmful. This also appears apparent due to her calling the vision itself flawed and referring to it as a misrepresentation of the truth. Also, near the end, the article lists “preventing a recurrence of fascism” as a reason for watching the film itself, because doing so “involves understanding how fascism came to be thought attractive….” Thus we can see that Devereaux does indeed believe that Triumph of the Will shows the vision on Germany and Hitler in a false light, and that this “misunderstanding” is in itself an important factor in understanding why fascism came to be, and how to prevent it in the future.

*****

Sontag, I believe, would also agree that Riefenstahl and her art ought to apologize. The article itself talks about the “purification” of her reputation and attempts to disprove some of the things which have been said regarding Leni’s separation from the rally itself and her wish to only capture the film in (contrastingly) either a purely aesthetic or historical point of view. According to Sontag, Riefenstahl did indeed take part in planning for the rally, which was, in effect, “the set of a film which was then to assume the character of an authentic documentary.” She even talks about certain parts being re-filmed on Hitler’s orders after the fact. Regarding the idea of separating formal beauty from the content of the film itself, Sontag states: “Without a historical perspective, such connoisseurship prepares the way for a curiously absentminded acceptance of propaganda for all sorts of destructive feelings—feelings whose implications people are refusing to take seriously.” Thus, she appears firmly to believe in Riefenstahl’s accountability in creating a piece of propaganda for Nazi Germany. She makes the point that Riefenstahl knew what she was doing while creating the film, and that even now (within her work with the Nubas), she continues to advocate the same principles as before. Sontag is, in short, against Riefenstahl’s reputation’s “purification”; she apparently does not think that Leni deserves it.

Morgan, Post 3

Morgan Frost

The work produced by Riefenstahl is aesthetically beautiful. In order for people today to see this, we must try see the art without looking through our biased lens. Though our bias is on the side that we deem positive—placing our view of the images on the negative side since they represent Nazism and the obvious connection to the Holocaust—it is still a bias nonetheless. If we see the work only for its formal appeal, we see an artist capturing the grandeur of the public Nazi procession and gathering. Like pictures of the Nuba, the Nazi videos seem to capture reality rather than a staged experience. The camera is as if only following around reality, and it is portrayed as if whatever is happening would continue to happen whether the camera was there or not. With Nuba pictures, Riefenstahl captures the physical traits of the people: the muscles, the body decorations, even the energy as the people are caught in the act of moving around. In the Nazi films, actions and physical features are further displayed since it is video footage. Just as the Nuba pictures capture the beauty of the bodies of the people, the Nazi film captures the beauty of the people in masses. The actions they perform together are shown in overwhelming aesthetic appeal through the view of the entire crown at once. From distant angles, Reifenstahl can truly display the splendor of such a large-scale mass, like footage scanning over an entire herd of animals on the savanna.

I do not think Riefenstahl ought to apologize for this art. Art is an expression that can be interpreted in many ways. For the creator, the interpretation is personal, much like a religion or political views of a person. Whether or not we agree with these views does not give us the right to suppress them in any way. In our country praising liberty, especially of the mind, we respect even the most questionable of groups (the KKK, for example.) As long as no physical harm is inflicted, we recognize a person’s right to think and express freely. Even if Riefenstahl’s work is intended as propaganda, it is still the viewer’s choice to believe in its purpose. As the receiving party of images, we must use dialectic methods of forming opinions, rather than straight consumption. Thus the work, however intended, is Riefenstahl’s own work, and she cannot force anyone to think a certain way simply through its exhibition.

Mary Devereaux does recognize Triumph of the Will as propaganda. But she seems to place the responsibility of the image on the viewer rather than on the art or the artist. “The more critical spectator is the one less likely to be victimized by the text.” Thus gaining background knowledge on the image can strengthen the lens through which a person views the image, making him or her less likely to be influenced naively by the opinions expressed in the propaganda.

Susan Sontag, however, points out the negative affect propaganda can have on people, and consequently the responsibility of the artist in demonstrating his or her views. Sontag claims that some works “prepare the way for a curiously absentminded acceptance of propaganda for all sorts of destructive feelings.” With her views on all the ways propaganda can be detrimentally influential to a person’s opinion, she would be on the side supporting an apology from Riefenstahl for her work. I do not think, however, that she would settle with only the apology.

Rob H post 3

Rob Hoffman

A) The best way to view Riefenstahl’s work would be in a state of total ignorance. A total lack of knowledge of Nazism, Hitler, World War II, and the Holocaust might be the only way that one could hope to obtain any degree of objectivity on what is, for our generation, an already done deal. No one still ponders the morality of the Nazis. They are the most stereotypical example of evil that exists in the modern world, and to question that would immediately label one as some kind of skinhead, neo-Nazi bigot. Due to this conditioning, total ignorance would be our only hope. We cannot be ignorant at will, however, and so instead we must simply attempt to put aside what we know and view Riefenstahl’s works as someone at the time might have.

Having done this, it is easy to see why people, Germans in particular, would have responded to the film. The editing, filming techniques, and vision of the film was, by all accounts, revolutionary. While I hesitate to call the material beautiful in the same sense as images of different kinds, there is a certain aesthetic appeal to the scenes from the Nuremburg rallies (not to mention a certain ironic appeal hidden in the setting). The sense of movement that Riefenstahl went to such great lengths to accomplish does set it apart from the newsreels that we associate with the time period. It is also worth noting here that although Sontag clearly considers the pageantry of the Nazis to be part of a fascist aesthetic that glamorizes sadomasochism, slavery, aggression, violence, death, and basically every other evil thing under the sun, that the style of the ceremonies was not original to the Nazis. Much of the choreography was borrowed from Catholic marches, parades, and ceremonies. Unless Sontag wants to claim that Catholicism celebrates the fascist aesthetic (which is very different kind of discussion), it’s hard to support her arguments.

That is not to say, however, that there is nothing ugly about Riefenstahl’s films. The formal aspects might be striking, but as Devereaux points out, these can only account for so much. Our objections have more to do with content than with the form of the filming. The form is perhaps not above criticism, but it is still kept safe under the protection of art. This protection does not extend to the subject matter. The portrayal of humans in masses, whipped into almost mindless states of group excitement are, to me, highly questionable. Regardless of the overtly militaristic nature, I personally find it disquieting to see so many people acting as a single group without thinking for themselves. This was to Riefenstahl one of the strengths of the film, but I personally find little beauty in it.

B) Apology necessarily connotes responsibility (or the illusion thereof). For an artist to apologize for his or her creations, he or she must be morally responsible for the art, and subsequently the effects produced by it. Should we hold artists responsible for what they create, or does art truly represent an amoral field that has an obligation to be honest before it is ethical. On the one hand, considering art to be itself moral is a rather absurd notion; without humans, the morality or immorality of a piece of art would be non-existent. Perhaps, then, the art itself is neutral but the artist is responsible.

If the artist is responsible, it becomes a question of intention vs. outcome. If we take a deontological perspective, then Riefenstahl’s intent becomes of supreme importance. Whether or not she intended to glorify Nazism greatly affects the moral quality and tone of the work. However, there is another way to view the question. If we consider Riefenstahl’s films from a utilitarian perspective, then all that matters is the effect that they produced. This conception of morality greatly deemphasized Riefenstahl herself and places more of the blame on the shoulders of the viewers of the work.

Neither Sontag nor Devereaux wants to place any blame on the shoulders of the viewers; this to me is troublesome. At least some fault must be distributed among those who saw the film and accepted it without consideration and criticism. They do both, however, see Riefenstahl as being greatly at fault. Sontag takes this even further, devoting the majority of the article to what is little more than personal attacks on Riefenstahl. If there is a purpose to these attacks other than to prove that she is not the person she claims to be, I know it not. Sontag loses much of her credibility for me by choosing to devote such effort to vilifying Riefenstahl and the Nazis, a task that is in some senses all too easy. Yes, the Nazis did bad things. Yes, Riefenstahl helped the Nazis either intentionally or otherwise by creating for them a very moving film.

What is far more interesting is whether or not she ought to apologize for doing this. If the film is truly art and art itself is truly amoral, then maybe she need not apologize for creating the film. But this doesn’t get her off the hook completely. She is not morally responsible for the art, but she is still morally responsible either for the intent or for the effects the art produces, or both. In a bizarre sense, this could lead us to say something to the effect that although she need not apologize for the art, she should apologize for creating the art. The fact that she has never been made to feel guilty about her art is a sign of integrity; the fact that she has never been made to feel guilty about what her art did is a sign that she is a thoroughly deplorable, pernicious reprobate.

Ally, Post 3

Ally Best

I do not believe that there is anyway to deny that Leni Riefenstahl’s documentary is a beautiful piece of artwork. The images had minimal shadows, which caused the viewer’s eye to focus on the enormous crowd itself rather than be drawn to dark spots in the picture. The music was timed well with the images and seemed to almost “flow” with them. Perhaps one of the most spectacular elements of the film was the camera angles from which Leni shot the footage. They were truly magnificent, and varied enough to retain the audience’s attention. At one point during the filming she attached the camera to a lift so that the point of reference could rise higher or drop lower. This effect makes the viewer feel almost as if he is descending slow motion on the crowd via parachute. At another point in the film she had her crew wear roller skates so that the footage would be more interesting and active than a direct shot of Hitler or his crowd. Finally, the images themselves and the way in which Leni pieced them together add to the aesthetic beauty of the work. One shot she captured illustrates an enormous crowd of Hitler’s followers raising their arms and shouting their allegiance to the party in one simultaneous, massive motion. Other shots portray a single face of a woman or young person smiling wholesomely into the camera. Leni pieces these visually appealing images together, mixing footage of an enormous crowd with footage of individual people to create a varied, yet harmonious view of the rally.

I believe that intent is more important than outcome. In addition, I believe that the most essential responsibility a person has is to himself: to remain true to who he is and live by his morals. Having said that, I think the most important thing to consider is not the result of the images, but rather Leni’s intention when she filmed them. After watching her face become passionately alive when she spoke of the filming and the breathtaking shots she was able to capture, I tend to believe that she was truly filming the images as a way of portraying a piece of artwork, as opposed to a piece of political propaganda. Had she created the documentary with the intent to glorify the Nazi party while she believed strongly against them, I would easily lay blame on her for compromising her values for money or fame. However, if she was functioning solely as an artist, as I believe she was, and made no attempt to “trick” viewers into growing an inaccurate or misinformed view of the Nazi’s, then I do not feel that she has any reason to apologize. Susan Sontag, of course, would certainly disagree with me. When speaking of Triumph of the Will, Sontag states that it is “a film whose very conception negates the possibility of the filmmaker’s having an aesthetic conception independent of propaganda.” She cites numerous instances where Leni was found to have connections (both financial and social) to the Nazi party as proof that Leni was motivated by more than artistic inspiration. Mary Devereaux is also opposed to the film and agrees with Sontag that it is “a work of Nazi propaganda.” However, she focuses more on the film’s “conjunction of beauty and evil.” She claims it is troubling, “because it presents as beautiful a vision of Hitler and the New Germany that is morally repugnant.” While Sontag seems to center on denouncing lies about Leni and Devereaux focuses more on the film’s ability to “seduce” audiences, both share the view that Leni needs to take responsibility for her artwork and the effect it had on audiences.

theresa c., post 3

Theresa Chu

The scene unfolds amidst billowy clouds high in the sky. Immediately, the viewer feels uplifted. The camera then provides an aerial view of the city of Nuremberg and its beautiful Gothic style architecture; furthermore, the shadow of Hitler’s plane can be seen on the streets where hundreds of soldiers are marching in formation. Indeed, if morality is not taken into account, Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will is a magnificent work of art. Riefenstahl employs many devices in order to make this film formally pleasing:

• Camera angle and movement:
  Riefenstahl places the camera in ingenious places so that the viewers can acquire a different perspective on the event. The camera that is filming Hitler while he is in the motorcade is placed behind Hitler himself. In those scenes, Hitler can be seen waving to a sea of people below him. This angle seems to allow viewers to feel the power emitting from Hitler as he is driven through the crowd; additionally, Riefenstahl’s use of camera angle furthered the portrayal of Hitler as a god. Many scenes even observe Hitler from a lower angle as if the people are admiring him from below as he is placed in front of a backdrop of blue sky.
  
  The movement of the camera is also crucial in the film. By placing cameras on elevated objects, such as flagpoles, Riefenstahl was able to show viewers the grandeur of this event as well as the many people who were in support of Hitler. The camera often pans over the huge marching German army and thus depicts them as one organized entity. The only individual who is emphasized is Hitler. This effect, then, glorifies Germany as well as Hitler; moreover, these particular scenes may have stirred pride in the German people who had not experienced pride in their country for many years.

• Scene flow:
  Riefenstahl, through skillful editing, smoothly weaved all the scenes of the film together whether or not they were in chronological order. This created one continuous thread that is never broken in the film. The audience, then, never loses interest and feels a sense of connection from one scene to the next.

• Symbols:
  In many scenes of the film, Riefenstahl floods the screen with symbols of the Nazi party as well as Germany. Hundreds of soldiers are seen carrying flags with swastikas; moreover, images of the German eagle are never lacking. The salute is also prevalent in the film along with shouts of “Heil Hitler!” These symbols, once again, gave Germans a sense of pride in their country and hope for a better tomorrow under a new leader.

Although both the art and artist are responsible, the art should be the one to apologize. As mentioned in class, “Hindsight is 20/20.” This holds especially true in this case. Riefenstahl, when making the film, most likely did not know what Hitler had planned for the Jews. If she had known, however, Riefenstahl would be completely responsible. Taking Riefenstahl’s other works to mind, it is obvious that one of her obsessions is beauty, but to claim that she had no political agenda in making Triumph of the Will or that politics were never involved would be ridiculous. In Deveraux’s article, she points out that if Hitler and Germany had won the war, Riefenstahl would not be defending her aims in making this film; however, even though the film is the culprit, viewers of the film are also liable, for they are the ones who choose how to construe and interpret the film and its message.

In regards to who should apologize, Sontag would no doubt point her finger at Riefenstahl herself. Sontag argues that Riefenstahl is a conniving woman who lies to interviewers and writes false things about herself in her books in order to cover up the evil she has done by making this “documentary.” Sontag also disputes Riefenstahl’s position that her main concern was the beauty aspect of film-making. Sontag’s stance on Riefenstahl’s work, then, is that it is intolerable and evil because of the message it portrays

Deveraux, on the other hand, takes a less severe perspective on Riefenstahl; however, she does not doubt the disturbing nature of the film. Although she feels that Riefenstahl is the one who ought to apologize, Deveraux understands how a work can be both evil and beautiful. Deveraux also writes about the character of people who watch Triumph of the Will and find it a stunning work of art. She states that there is no shame in feeling that way about the film; moreover, it is how the viewer takes and interprets the film that is important. In developing a point to Riefenstahl’s work, Deveraux claims that it is not possible to simply analyze the film from an aesthetic aspect, for politics is the “essence” of the film and makes the film what it is. If the political factor is removed, “we will not be in a position to understand its artistic value” (243).

Christopher Post 3

Christopher McCauley

To be completely frank, I absolutely, whole-heartedly, agree 100% with the statement, “art does not apologize.” In fact, I think I would say “art should not apologize for itself.” Yes, I do believe that art can be offensive at times for certain people, but it is also meant not to insult other people. Or perhaps, the artist’s intent was to offend. Why should we or artists apologize for being bluntly deliberate?

When examining the work of Leni Riefenstahl, it is hard to ignore the obvious Nazi themes and mores, because that is obviously why much of her work was created (namely, The Triumph of the Will). Leni seemed to pay a lot of attention to detail, and making her films look artistic. I think she absolutely succeeded. Without looking at the horrible theme of Nazi regime in the film, it is incredibly visually pleasing. Camera angles made the moving images captivating, and the symmetry of the crowds as they were filmed, at least for me, are very appeasing. The addition of music on top of many of the scenes was also very effective, and gave a patriotic flare to the entire film.

I personally believe that neither the art, nor Riefenstahl ought to apologize. As aforementioned, art is meant to offend at least someone, and it should not be sorry for that. There is not one artistic creation in the world that is not going to rub someone the wrong way, and that’s okay because art is meant to be a way of spreading ones thoughts, opinions, ideas, reactions, beliefs, and any other type of feeling. Even art that spreads such infamous ideas, such as The Triumph of the Will is important to hold onto because it shows where the world once was, and where we have advanced from. If we let this art apologize for itself, then we are in a way erasing history by deleting the ideas of people who once lived.

In the passage written by Sontag, much is focused on Riefenstahl’s relationship with Hitler. It is obvious that they had a very close relationship, and that is part of the reason why her work is so famous. Sontag views Leni’s work as propaganda. I would agree with Sontag on this note, however I think that the propaganda almost hides behind the art in Leni’s case. Devereaux has a similar view about Leni’s work, looking at it as propaganda also. She even says that in Triumph of the Will, Hitler is portrayed as “a god-like mystical figure who descends—literally—from the clouds...” and states that he is “the bearer of peoples’ will.” (232).

Ruth D. Post 3

Ruth E. Day

I believe that the argument that art is an extra-moral area is false. Haven’t we always been taught that quality art has a message behind it? I have and for this reason I have always judged art not only by its aesthetic value but by the quality of the message behind it as well. There are two levels of beauty: the superficial and the internal. It is my belief that the internal beauty is much more important in judging a piece of art than is the superficial beauty. Something can be outwardly ugly but still be beautiful because the message it is trying to relay is beautiful. Many works of surrealist artists illustrate this point. It is a commonly held belief that superficial beauty reflects the internal beauty. “Even those of us who are not Platonists are heirs to a Platonic tradition that identifies beauty and goodness, a tradition that conceives of the beautiful as consisting not only in giving pleasure to the senses but also in engaging and satisfying the mind and spirit.” (Devereaux, pg 250) Early followers of the Judeo-Christian religion believed that bodily deformities and diseases such as leprosy were punishments from God for sin. Even modern day culture holds to his belief. In most Disney movies, the villains are portrayed as ugly minions while the heroes and heroines are portrayed as beautiful. These sort of misconceptions give what is superficially beautiful a very dangerous power. For this reason the artist has a responsibility not to portray those things which are internally ugly and evil as beautiful and good.

Riefenstahl is the only artist that I have ever heard claim that they had created something for “purely aesthetic” purposes. “The line taken by Riefenstahl’s defenders, who now include the most influential voices in avant-garde film establishment, is that she was always concerned with beauty. This, of course, has been Riefenstahl’s own contention for some years.” (Sontag) In my experience all poets, painters, novelists, composers, and even filmmakers are proud of the internal message within their works. Indeed, it is my belief that if someone told any other artist that one of their works only had superficial appeal, that all the colors complimented each other perfectly, that the notes flowed in perfect harmony, that all of the words came together naturally, that the scenes flowed together perfectly, but it has no internal message, then the artist would be deeply offended. An artist has to have a purpose beyond the superficial for creating something beautiful. If they don’t, then why put in the effort?

It is for these reasons that I believe, though Triumph of the Will appears beautiful, that it is far from. It is obvious that the purpose of this film is to promote Nazi ideals. Though Riefenstahl may not have known what all of those ideals were, she must have believed in many of them to want to portray them as beautiful. Triumph of the Will portrays Hitler as some sort of deity. “The idea of a great historical figure or great man who has the will and power to actualize the true will of the German people was frequently dramatized in Nazi cinema. But Triumph of the Will is the only Nazi film that directly identifies this mystical leader with Hitler himself.” (Devereaux, 232) This idea of one messianic leader for the people of Germany is called “Ein Führer” (one leader) as is one of the three key ideas of National Socialists (Devereaux). There are shots of Hitler from a very low vantage point. This makes him seem all-powerful and superior to any other human. There is a long opening scene consisting of him coming down from the heavens in a plane and being almost worshipped by all the people around him. This idea of one all-powerful, all-knowing leader is itself evil. It is anti-Ameican. It is Anti-Democracy. It is ant-Christian. It can be said that this idea of a messianic leader coming from the heavens was derived from Christianity but in actuality it is a sick mutation of it, just as Al Qaeda is a sick mutation of the Islam religion. Triumph of the Will uses Christian symbolism to make Hitler seem like a second Christ. Since the main purpose behind Triumph of the Will is to glorify the idea that Hitler is the “Ein Führer”, the work and the art is evil and not good.

As I have discussed, the art that is Triumph of the Will is internally ugly. Superficially, however, it is beautiful. Riefenstahl makes it so by using ingenious camera angles and piecing together the different shots in an aesthetically pleasing manner. The music used enhances the visual beauty but it also does more to glorify the film’s evil purpose. This beautification of a very ugly idea, makes the art all that more evil and internally ugly. For these reasons, I believe that Riefenstahl and her art should apologize. In making Triumph of the Will she knowingly glorified Hitler, Nazis, and all they stood for. Although she may not have known all that they stood for at the time of the making of the film, she does know now and should have recognized the idea of “Ein Führer” as evil long before the film was even made. In fact, she mad four films that “celebrate the rebirth of the body and of community, mediated through the worship of an irresistible leader.” (Sontag) All four of these films were commissioned by the Nazi party. Devereax would agree that and art can not be judged only on aesthetic merit because she believed, especially in the case of Triumph of the Will, that the art and the message behind it were inseparable, “understanding a work of art consists in grasping and appreciating the relationship between its form and content, that is, the connection between the message and the means used to convey it.” (Devereaux, 244) Sontag held similar sentiments. She even found evidence of Nazi evil in some of Riefenstahl’s works that came long after the party was destroyed, “Riefenstahl is right on target with her choice as a photographic subject of a people who ‘look upon death as simply a matter of fate – which they do no resist or struggle against,’ of a society whose most enthusiastic and lavish ceremonial is a funeral.” (Sontag) Riefenstahl’s art is not good and is not beautiful. The fact that it is superficially beautiful makes it all the more ugly and evil because portraying evil as beautiful and lead people to believe that it is good and therefore foster the spread of evil.

Shea post 3

Leni Riefenstahl created beautiful pieces of film. She is a cinematic talent and there is no harm in admitting that. Consider her work with mountain themed films, the concept of sloth vs. achievement demonstrated by valley’s vs. mountains. Intrinsic within these films is the reoccurring idea of an attainable truth, a meaning. Is this not beautiful? In The Blue Light, her dance on the beach, which Hitler so admired, is a sort of celebration of life. She is physically rejoicing in nature. The Last of the Nuba, as portrayed by Riefenstahl, are isolated and unpolluted by the commercial world beyond their own. They practice control over their bodies and their opponents in ritualistic wrestling matches that exist as tests of character. They live off of the land. Think of this life. Is it not beautiful?

Triumph of the Will is not exempt from this common thread among Leni Riefenstahl’s other films. Firstly, there is her material manipulation of the film and filming. Her work is clean. An expansive film and lighting crew, along with generous federal funding and rehearsal opportunities no doubt contributes to the film’s smooth and favorable presentation. The arrangement of these nice, clean cut scenes is rhythmic and calculated. The amount of time allotted, for example, to Hitler’s descent from the heavens and his lengthy trip through the adoring crowd, expresses a sort of transcendental journey through which Hitler must take time to acclimate himself among mere mortals. He does not speak until after his feet have touched the ground.

Some liberties taken by the creator give the film a fantastic sort of atmosphere. “Riefenstahl ignores chronological order almost entirely, working instead to create a rhythmic structure for the film.” (Devereaux, 230). She mixes scenes between night and day and gives the viewer a sense of suspension within the emotion of the crowd rather than in time. The rally’s enthusiasm is ubiquitous, as if all life has ceased to exist beyond it. “Nowhere do we see anyone engaged in ordinary business” (Devereaux, 232). The images she chooses to emphasize, such as a mother and her child offering flowers to Hitler and “healthy bare-chested youths”, appeal to the viewer’s sentimentality and intuition.

More importantly though, in my opinion, is that this film is inflammatory. If Triumph of the Will can be considered beautiful, then it is apparent that consideration is not being given to Plato’s theory that beauty is truth but rather to Picasso’s idea that “Art is a lie that points to the truth.” Beautiful art goes about its “pointing” by means of provocation. Beauty must be poignant, stirring and above all, powerful. It must have the power to move, inspire, change, and provoke the height of emotion whether it be adoration or fury. This film does both.

If we are to believe her that she had no political intentions with the film, that her relationship with Hitler did not influence the film’s intent and that “it is all history-pure history” (4, Sontag), then, no, Leni Riefenstahl does not need to explicitly apologize. From a moral high-horse I would say that she needs to express some form of remorse, some form of mourning over the terrible misuse of her piece as propaganda, for which purpose it was never intended. But she need not say “I regret making the film, I wish I had not done it at all” because that would be wrongfully accepting blame for that which she is not responsible

Now let’s say, theoretically of course, and without consideration to the documented evidence presented by both Susan Sontag and Riefenstahl’s interviewer from the clips in class, that she was for some unimaginable reason lying about her objectives in creating this film the way she did. She would, in that case, owe much more than a simple “so, sorry” to the Jewish community as well as to the other communities targeted by Nazism. She would be held accountable at the same standard as any other prominent figure in the business of Nazi propaganda and tried in a court of law. Her admittance to admiration of and direct contribution to the furthering of Anti-Semitic, racial cleansing propositions by the Nazi party would deserve not only the demand for conscious and verbalized remorse, but for penance.

I think Susan Sontag and I are on the same page here. Her irate yet deliberate discussion of Leni Riefenstahl suggests not only that an apology is demanded, but that one will not suffice. We cannot forgive her. Even 40 years later, Sontag is unwilling to accept Riefenstahl’s work on The Last of the Nuba as a work unrelated to her past. “If the photographs are examined carefully, in conjunction with the lengthy text written by Riefenstahl, it becomes clear that they are continuous with her Nazi work” (Sontag, 5). Her praise of their strength, both physical and spiritual, and their cultural purity is labeled as an adherence to “fascist visuals” (Sontag, 5). According to Sontag, the maintenance of these, shall we say, preferences, attest to Riefenstahl’s nerve in the face of those upon whom her work has had the most atrocious effect. Although it is not explicitly stated, she rejects formalism by implying that neither the art nor the artist can be regarded separately from its/her moral undertones.

Despite Mary Devereaux’s extensive explanation of formalist approaches to evaluating a work of art, her decision is made clear at the end of the piece when she says “Triumph of the will is flawed. It’s flawed because its vision is flawed.” After a lengthy and academically detached trial over the efficacy of separating aesthetic and moral analyses, she comes to the conclusion that Riefenstahl’s “morally repugnant” (227) message, contained within the entirety of Triumph of the Will, exclude it from the realm of art. Does this mean that Leni Riefenstahl is obligated to apologize? I don’t think it does. People try and fail to create art every day. This is not a crime. The crime, instead, seems to lie with Leni herself, in harboring “evil” aspirations. In this light, I believe that Devereaux would hold her (Riefenstahl) responsible for an apology if she were to express a change of heart regarding these aspirations. Since Riefenstahl has never admitted to politically conspiring with the Nazis, though, it would be impossible for her to profess a turn around of the like.

Aaron Post 3

Aaron Childree

I believe That Leni Riefenstahl’s film Triumph of the Will is a very beautifully made piece of artwork. Its appeal to me came from the way it showed power and beauty in so many different ways. There is something powerful in thousands upon thousands of people walking in choreographed motion but there is also something powerful in seeing all those people gathered to listen to one man. I thought the way the movie was filmed definitely made Hiltler seem like some sort of Christ-like figure who had come to save his people. The clips of the film that I saw gave a very serious and ritualistic feel to the ceremony. The camera work also emphasized Hitler’s power by shooting him from below so he looks very large and powerful.

I do not believe that Riefenstahl should be obligated to apologize for her art, but I also don’t believe that she had no intention of promoting the ideas of the Nazi Party. With that being said, I think “good art” is art that portrays its message in a way that other people can understand and relate to, and Riefenstahl definitely did a good job of that. I would say that the job of the artist is to get their message across, whatever that message may be, and it is the viewer’s job to decide for themselves what their stance on the issue is.

I think that Sontag would disagree with my view because she believes that certain images promote Fascist ideals even without a caption telling you what is going on (“fascist aesthetics”). She thought that images of huge masses for instance, promoted Fascism in themselves. I would say that the ability to get your message across without words is a sign of a good visual artist.

Devereaux would also disagree that art should not apologize because she talked at length about the ways that Hollywood movies affect society. An example she used was that the male-dominated film industry promotes male-dominated ideas and therefore helps maintain the patriarchal society we live in today. I didn’t quite agree with her idea the film industry is so male dominated. I think movies actually give a fairly balanced message when it comes to gender. I do agree that films and other art forms have a huge affect on society but I believe it is the viewer’s job to discern, not the artist’s.

Ashley G. Post 3

Ashley Green

A) Alfred North Whitehead once said, “Art is the imposing of a pattern on experience, and our aesthetic enjoyment is recognition of the pattern." There is little question as to whether or not Leni Riefenstahl’s work is artistically and aesthetically beautiful. Regardless of content, Riefenstahl displays a connection to her filmed subjects that I feel even rivals many current photographers. In the instance of her most famous work, Triumph of the Will, she produces a rousing film that is not only significant because of its innovations in the medium, but also because it is simply moving to watch. The various shot compositions often look so ahead of their time that you almost forget this film was made in the thirties. From the initial tilt shot of the title, the various aerial views of Nuremburg and the marching soldiers, it is easy to get caught up in the almost whimsical documentation of the event. When Hitler finally appears on screen, you can practically feel the pride that swells in all of the Germans who see him, and the train shots of him traveling to the center of the event almost makes it feel like all of Germany is there to greet him. As the music swells in the background, and the cheers continue to grow louder and louder, you almost start to swell with an odd sense of pride over the moment. It is unsettling how easily you can get lost in the film. Riefenstahl clearly shows an extraordinary talent for choosing shots that captivate the viewer. But she not only demonstrates that ability in her film work. I personally felt that her photographs of the Nuba people were some of the most compelling images I have ever seen. The members of the tribe display an immense beauty and strength not often captured and shown by mainstream media. What is even more surprising to me about these photos is that they are like nothing I've ever scene from that time period. The overall lighting and film quality of the photos look more like something out of today's National Geographic than a 1970s photo book. The emphasis on the natural beauty of the Nuba was also very intriguing to me.The images are easily something that I could view and attempt to absorb for hours on end.

B) In an ideal world, art would never have to apologize. It would also never be critiqued, but instead only viewed, acknowledged, and thought on. However, we do not live in an ideal world, and art often has the ability to evoke strong emotional responses in individuals that can move them in numerous ways. Because of this I do feel that artists hold a moral responsibility to their works. Art always carries the imprint of its artist, therefore I think that if art fails to uphold a sense of morality (which I acknowledge can be very different for different people) then the artist should have to apologize for their work. Even if Riefenstahl’s claims to having no political intention in making Triumph of the Will are true, the fact of the matter is that she still created a film of questionable moral value. Based on Susan Sontag’s searing critique on Riefenstahl’s work, I do believe that she would feel art should be upheld to a certain moral standard. Mary Devereaux’s essay on Riefenstahl’s work is a little less clear on the matter however. While she acknowledges the battle between the beautiful and the evil in some artwork, she never implicitly states whether or not an artist should apologize for “evil” works.

I think each essayist takes a distinct approach to analyzing Riefenstahl’s work, and one is clearly more affective than the other. Many of Sontag’s arguments against Riefenstahl’s work are largely ineffective because of the manner in which they are presented. Her essay never appears to be purely objective, and one must question if Sontag’s Jewish-American upbringing during World War II might have in any way influenced her criticism of Riefenstahl’s work. While her critique of Riefenstahl’s actual life in comparison to the one she has tried to portray is likely true, Sontag’s critique’s of The Last of the Nuba makes her appear as more of a conspiracy theorist than a rational writer. Sontag’s article becomes difficult to read when she begins to compare the members of the Nuba tribe to the ideal of the Nazi fantasy. What startles and upsets me the most is that at one point, Sontag appears to turn the critique from Riefenstahl to the Nuba themselves when she states, “Lastly, Riefenstahl is right on target with her choice as a photographic subject of a people who "look upon death as simply a matter of fate—which they do not resist or struggle against," of a society whose most enthusiastic and lavish ceremonial is the funeral. Viva la muerte.” It is the “viva la muerte” that I feel is the most cutting and disrespectful of the statement and the overall passage passes unfair judgement on the tribe’s way of life. Moreover, Sontag’s continued derision to nearly all parties involved seems to further alienate the reader from the potentially valid points she is making. In response to the German public’s appreciation of “Nazi art” she refers to them as “unsophisticated”, as if they were too simple to appreciate the other art movements of the time, or that they only liked the art because it was 'dumbed down'. This statement in no way moves forward her argument against Riefenstahl’s work and takes away from the value of her criticism. In the case of Devereaux, her analysis of the work feels objective and relevant to the overall idea of how one should approach Riefenstahl’s work and others like it. She however, fails to give an obvious answer to the question of “beauty versus evil”. In retrospect however, this seems positive because it gives each individual reader the ability to draw his or her on conclusion.

In response to a film of similar content and contention, Birth of a Nation, film historian Jonathan Lapper posed the question, “Can one separate content from technique and praise one but not the other?” He then went on to say, “Most critics have developed a pattern of response to the film that continues to this day: Praise the film's techniques, deplore the film's content, let technique trump content, declare the film a masterpiece.” To attempt to renounce or defend Riefenstahl’s most famous work, Triumph of the Will, is an argument I must admit I am not prepared to fully make. Throughout Wednesday’s class, I found myself constantly trying to separate my knowledge of the Holocaust and the actual film itself. To deny that the film is visually moving and charismatic would not only be a lie, but a disservice to cinematic history. When considering the various shot compositions, the various aerial views, and the movement of the people on screen, it is easy to become enamored with what you’re watching. But to praise and laud the film feels like a disservice to human history, and there lies the greatest problem with creating any effective argument for or against the film, and any other artistic works like it. It is near impossible for any knowledgeable viewer to separate the content from the technique.

Additional resources:

http://www.faheykleingallery.com/featured_artists/riefenstahl/riefenstahl_e_nuba_29.htm
http://cinemastyles.blogspot.com/2007/07/myth-of-nation.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BddVfcQX-v4

Jessica D., Post 3

Jessica Duran

In many of her films such as: Olympia and Triumph of the Will, Leni Riefenstahl attempted to capture on film the “raw” beauty that she was so attracted to and fascinated by her entire life. There is no denying that the film, Triumph of the Will, is an artfully crafted “cinematic masterpiece” (Devereaux, 243). In this film, Riefenstahl pioneered the use of many new cinematic technologies and techniques and ended up creating an artistically and aesthetically beautiful work of art. In the opening scenes, the images of white fluffy clouds displayed across the screen set a harmonious tone for the film. The soundtrack in the background evokes a sense of earthly peace and order. The Arial shots of Nuremberg assist in portraying the Gothic splendor and beauty of the city. The camera pans in on the faces of little children in the crowd, promotes an overall sense of innocence and ultimate “goodness”. The emotion of the crowd radiates from the screen and their sheer joy and enthusiasm for Hitler is visually palpable to the viewer. Throughout the film the camera lens constantly shifts from the ebullient faces in the crowds to Hitler; displaying the strong national unity between the German people and their all powerful leader. The shots Riefenstahl took of the troops in intricate geometric formation and perfect unison are awe inspiring and cultivate in the viewer a sense of loyalty and unwavering trust in the government. The use of many different camera angles makes the viewer feel almost as if they too were at this spellbinding political rally. However, I believe the true driving force of this film is the fluid continuity in which the scenes progress, ultimately producing an undisturbed harmony and beauty. It is through this cinematic medium that Riefenstahl discretely promotes Hitler’s Germany and the National Socialist slogan, “One people. One Leader. One Empire” (Devereaux, 231).

It is quite apparent that Leni Riefenstahl was an artistically creative woman. Not only was she a revolutionary cinematic pioneer and visionary of her era, she also excelled as a dancer, actress, film producer, director, and photographer (Sontag, 2). However, despite her many artistic achievements, it was the creation of the infamous film, Triumph of the Will, which forever defined Riefenstahl’s career and reputation. She created a two headed monster that had and has the power to both repulse and mesmerize its viewers.

It seems that both Devereaux and Sontag differ in the degree to which they critique Riefenstahl’s film, Triumph of the Will. Devereaux was conflicted by the film because she despised the work for being morally corrupt and yet admired it for being undeniably aesthetically beautiful. She stressed the possibility, but great difficulty of evaluating art that entwines the “beautiful and the evil” (Devereaux, 227) and believed in withholding “the highest aesthetic praise from works of art that present as beautiful, attractive, and good what , on reflection, can be seen evil” (Devereaux, 250). I believe that Devereaux would hold Riefenstahl accountable for her inaccurate portrayal of Hitler and National Socialism and therefore propagating and promoting the Nazi ideology to the masses. On the other hand, Sontag sternly points the finger at Riefenstahl accusing the “indomitable priestess of the beautiful” (Sontag, 8) of being a “leading propagandist for the Third Reich” (Sontag, 3) and creating “a film that negates the possibility of the filmmaker’s having an aesthetic conception independent of propaganda” (Sontag, 3). She believed that Riefenstahl’s close friendship to Hitler and Goebbels restricted her from playing the role of the “individualist-artist” (Sontag, 3) and ultimately had an extreme political influence on the film. From what I read in the essay, it is apparent that Sontag had a deep rooted animosity towards Riefenstahl and her artwork and therefore would be hell bent on Riefenstahl apologizing for “Triumph of the Will”, a film overflowing with “fascist aesthetics” (Sontag, 6).

After seeing the clips of the film in class, I can see Riefenstahl’s background in dance come alive on film. She carefully manipulates the images, scenery, and people in the film like a skilled choreographer creating a perfectly synchronized ballet; a work of art that is a “perfect” reality. Throughout her life Riefenstahl has defended herself claiming that as an apolitical person she never meant to make a political propaganda film and firmly asserts that she was only interested in art and capturing what is beautiful. I do not believe Riefenstahl, who was also known by Hitler as “my perfect German woman” (Sontag, 4), was as politically indifferent and culturally unaware as she claims to be. However, if she truly was as ignorant as she purports, why did she never apologize or take a little responsibility for creating a film that not only influenced, but also helped instigate the greatest tragedy of the 20^th century.

Though no true consensus has been reached as to whether or not it is “fair” to make Riefenstahl apologize for her artwork, it does remain clear that the heated controversy surrounding her film, Triumph of the Will, will continue to live on even after her death.

Joe K. Post 3

Joseph Kelly

With her 1935 film Triumph of the Will, Leni Riefenstahl created something that certainly contains formal aspects of beauty. Despite concerns of its moral ambiguity, it is clear from viewing the film that Riefenstahl put considerable effort into making it aesthetically pleasing. Shots of venerable Gothic architecture fade into images of roaring crowds, thrilled at the appearance of their leader. Uplifting classical music sets the tone as Riefenstahl displays jets soaring through the clouds, conveying a singular image of optimism. In fact, nothing in the intro to the movie would lead the viewer to believe that there is any sort of misery anywhere in Germany, be it from the poverty that persisted before the Third Reich or the Holocaust that slaughtered millions during it. Riefenstahl evokes only positive imagery throughout the opening scenes, and does so successfully. It is clear that the Nazi rally is a unifying event, as evidenced by the wildly cheering multitudes. If one didn't know better, the smiling children pictured might lead one to believe that better days are ahead for Germany. Regardless of what we know of the reality of Nazi Germany, can we really deny that there is little in the world more beautiful than unity and joy? Triumph of the Will is, formally, at any rate, a beautiful work of art simply because it paints these emotions so clearly and makes the viewer feel them so powerfully.

Despite its aesthetic value, however, there is no questioning the fact that the moral implications of the film cast a shadow over its artistic achievements. To me, the question of whether or not Riefenstahl should apologize is a difficult one. As clear as it is to me that she was promoting Hitler's regime, I'm not as certain she knew what the consequences would be for her support.

It does appear to be the case that Riefenstahl supported the Nazis. This is evidenced by the simple fact that she made films about them; she once stated in an interview, "I can simply say that I feel spontaneously attracted to everything that is beautiful... Whatever is purely realistic, slice-of-life, which is average, quotidian, doesn't interest me." From this and other statements, it is clear that Riefenstahl saw at least some beauty in the Nazis (and likely shared some political ground with them), and that Triumph of the Will was an attempt to portray that beauty. Whether or not this was purely an aesthetic endeavor for her is contested by many. However, regardless of her intent, the end result was a propaganda film. Even if it was her intention to remain apolitical, the effect of attributing so much beauty to the Nazis could only serve to glorify them. Thus, if it is indeed true that Riefenstahl created Triumph of the Will with the intent of creating a purely aesthetic piece, her single-mindedness in accomplishing the task blinded her to the fact that creating a piece about a political rally without neutral "newsreel" techniques could not be anything other than political.

Still, should Riefenstahl really be made to apologize for such expression, whether it was meant to be propaganda or not? Hitler held incredibly widespread support in Germany at the time, and no one suspected what his legacy would one day become. Riefenstahl claimed she thought all of the animosity the party expressed toward Jews was electioneering, and it's likely that this was a commonly held belief at the time. Considering the state the Germany was in, racist rhetoric seemed like a small price to pay for economic relief, and no one had any reason to believe it would move beyond rhetoric. For this reason, I'm not so sure Riefenstahl has anything more to apologize for that the people in her film that attended the rally. While Riefenstahl's political expression resulted in much wider consequences, she was doing just as the rally-goers did; contributing to the political party that she believed in with the means that she had. I am not convinced that she should be held particularly responsible for the ensuing genocide, though I would expect regret on the part of anyone who supported Hitler.

Devereaux and Sontag both appear to be critical of Riefenstahl, but to varying degrees. Devereaux believes it is impossible to classify any content-centric work of art as beautiful when the content is centered around someone or something as evil and Hitler and his Nazi party. Even if Triumph was only intended to be an artistic piece, she argues, its glorification of a subject so terribly undeserving lessens its beauty, regardless of formal merit. She may not have expected Riefenstahl to apologize for her work, she simply could not morally accept it as beautiful.

Sontag takes a much harder stance toward Triumph. She delves into Riefenstahl's relationship with Hitler and Goebbels, trying to prove that Riefenstahl did, in fact, support the causes of the Nazi party. She attacks Riefenstahl for her attempts to cover up these relationships. While she does certainly speak to the artistic technique of the film, her artistic justification for considering the film to be ugly is limited. Instead, she discredits the work by making an argument against Riefenstahl's integrity and motivation. Since Sontag believed that Riefenstahl's intentions for creating Triumph of the Will were much less pure than Riefenstahl would admit to, she would most certainly claim that the world deserved an apology.

e tibbetts post 3

erica tibbetts
Although art has an extra-moral sense to it at times, I think this quality can only be applied when the formal elements of the art are not based on any immoral qualities. In some cases the formal issues of content, color, technique, size, etc have nothing to do with the moral issues in which the piece is involved. However, in some cases the moral issues and the formal issues are intertwined and inseparable. In these cases, such as pornography and blatant propaganda, the art loses some of its potential beauty, simply because the viewer cannot look at the piece without placing it in a category of immorality.
“Triumph of the Will” does not really fit into this category, but it tip-toes the borders. The imagery in the movie: the marching columns, the close-ups on Hitler, the scenes of Nuremberg during the march, are all directly tied to Nazi Germany in the viewer’s mind. However, there is nothing visually in the film that makes it repulsive. It shows an ideal, a deified leader, a united people, a strong nation, “Ein Fuhrer, Ein Volk, Ein Reich”. This ideal does not make the film morally repulsive. Wanting unity, strength, ascent from a crippling economic depression, etc is not a bad thing. Seeing the beauty in these steps is not a bad thing. In a sense, even with the ideals that Riefenstahl was attempting to achieve left intact, the film is not all bad. It is the events that came afterwards that make the movie morally deplorable to most viewers. The holocaust, the gas chambers, the unrivalled genocide of the Nazi movement make anything connected with the National Socialist movement unacceptable to the average person. The movie is not totally disconnected from this future though, Hitler’s speeches point to his anti-Semitic tendencies. And the massing of men, weapons, and support can undoubtedly be connected with the war that was in the making. Thus, the war, the holocaust, the future are present in this movie, or at least strongly foreshadowed, even if they did not occur until later. So the very essence of the film seems tainted by the presence of the violent undercurrents that would later lead to the deaths of millions. Devereaux says in her article that, “One of the most remarkable facts about Triumph of the Will is that the reality it records is a reality it helped to create” (239). Without the message sent by the beauty and success of this movie, the movement of Nazism may not have had the power and seductive power that it did.
In order to see the film in a formalist fashion, or in a way that concentrated solely on the issues of technical beauty, one would have to look at the content, the rhythm, the massed ranks, the beauty of the formations, the power of Hitler as he commands thousands of soldiers without considering the meaning that these elements have, the power they have, the sublime feeling they import. Yet, without the power, the meaning, the awe-inspiring nature of these factors, the film loses its beauty. As Devereaux points out, “distancing ourselves from the morally objectionable elements of the film- it’s deification of Hitler, the story it tells about him, and the party, and the German people, and so on- means distancing ourselves from the features that make it the work of art it is.” (243) There is no way to look at the beauty of the movie without looking at the powerfully awful elements of it as well and in these elements lies all the malevolence of Nazi Germany.
a) There are elements of Riefenstahl’s work that are beautiful, to an extent. The rhythm that Devereaux describes, the marching crowds, the sheer power of the masses, the choreographed camera angles, the ideals of unity and strength; all of these could be seen as beautiful. Riefenstahl was a revolutionary when it came ot the use of cameras mounted on track, wires and lifts. During the scenes where Hitler lands and then is paraded down a packed street, the point of view changes constantly. The camera looks down from Hitler’s vantage point at the people; adoring, jubilant crowds course around him. Although we, as 21st century viewers cannot view any scene containing the Nazi leader without a sense of revulsion, the way in which these scenes are shot could be considered compelling. The shots of Hitler and his two companions walking through the thousands of massed troops also gives the viewer a sense of the sublime. The scene is awe inspiring due to the sheer number of men assembled and the discipline they embody. Second later, the screen is filled with flags adorned with swastikas. Although this is a reviled symbol these days, the method used to capture the shot is artful. I don’t think we can see any of these scenes without putting them in context, and thinking of the pain and atrocity that would follow. The film captures the viewer’s eye and the imagination. It places the viewer in the scene, makes the parades tangible, almost a physical experience. This type of tightly controlled visual spectacle is stunning, is beautiful, is successful in its aims, however, as Devereaux points out, we cannot appreciate these elements because of the political message they embody.
b) I think that Sontag’s point is to show the dishonesty she perceives in Riefenstahl. Sontag points to the misleading abstracts that appear on the back of Riefenstahl’s book of Nuba photographs. She shows how Riefenstahl claims to be disengaged from the Nazi movement, she basically discredits the film maker (calls her claims at neutrality “lies”) and then goes on to describe the blatant political motives behind the film. Like Devereaux’s claim that the film records a reality it helps create, Sontag says that Triumph of the Will and the three other Nazi commissioned films that Riefenstahl made “not only (are) the record(s) of reality but (are) one reason the reality has been constructed, and must eventually supersede it.” (4) Sontag sees the piece as propaganda, and evil propaganda at that. She claims the Riefenstahl is running away from her sordid past of fraternizing with Nazi leaders and creating films to suit their needs. She calls elements of all of Riefenstahl’s work “fascist” in its use of united community, upward struggles and physicality. She says even Riefenstahl’s pictures of the Nuba contain “Nazi Ideaology” in their “contrast between the clean and the impure, the incorruptible and defiled, the physical and the mental, the joyful and the critical” (6).
Sontag wants Riefenstahl to not only apologize for her art, but probably wants her persecuted for it. The vehemence of Sontag’s argument is potent. But, at the same time, possibly overzealous. Sontag cannot, and does not even try to separate the art from the history. She cannot accept Riefenstahl’s films because they involve pre-war Nazi Germany. And she cannot accept Riefenstahl’s later work because it is made by a woman with Nazi ties. I think Sontag’s criticism of Riefenstahl is too harsh and broad. Almost any art could be argued to have fascist ties, if one looked hard enough.
Deveraux basically argues that Triumph of the Will is an uncanny combination of beauty and evil. While she would not ask for an apology, necessarily, she would caution the viewer to be wary of falling under the spell of the beauty in the film. She claims that there can be no separation between the fascism, the Nazism, the immoral content in the film, and the beauty it creates. She does not claim this makes it null as far as art goes, but she cannot allow it to be the highest form of art. Devereaux points to the idea that beauty should be accompanied by goodness, and even though she doesn’t endorse this idea entirely, she still cannot approve of Triumph of the Will. She states, “one of the most shocking things about Triumph of the Will is hat it so clearly demonstrates that beauty and goodness can come apart, not just in the relatively simple sense that moral and aesthetic evaluation may diverge, but n the more frightening sense that it is possible for art to render evil beautifully” (250). I think this sums up Devereaux’s opinion. The art is still beautiful but it is also evil, even if it was not intended as such. Even if Riefenstahl didn’t know what Hitler would become, what the National Socialists would do, how hated this movement would become, she still pays homage to a lurking evil. Although her intentions may have been different, the result is the same, so while Riefenstahl herself may not have to apologize, and her art may still be acceptable as art, a warning is issued.

Kelly G Post 3

Leni Riefenstahl isn’t the only individual who filmed political rallies. There are many films of political figures such as John F. Kennedy, Mikhail Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin, and Che Guerva. Some would argue there are even more films of spiritual leaders and social change catalysts like Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr., and Mahatma Ghandi. Some of these films are used as the fire to spark social reform while others are used to commemorate a famous figure. I believe Riefenstahl’s film, Triumph of the Will, although only witnessed in clips, is used to forever capture and share the Third Reich, its leader Hitler, and Germany in the time of Hitler to the world forever.

The film opens as any other would. There is nothing to suggest propaganda but, instead, just the opposite is portrayed. The clouds provide a beautiful image and setting for the viewer. To an uneducated spectator, this could be the opening to a love story. The so-called “propaganda” begins with the birds-eye-view of Nuremberg. We immediately witness Germany at its height – literally the gothic architecture seems to be reaching up into the sky screaming of Germany’s power. The crowds, all hailing Hitler, contribute to the powerful message that the film sent to me: Hitler was king. At the height of his career, his people loved him, and he wasn’t modest about accepting their affection. I learned a lot about Hitler’s character just by watching those few clips.

In this time and place, it would be hard to watch a film of Hitler without grimacing. Devereaux clearly states that, “Observation is always conditioned by perspective and expectation.” (p 122) We have always been taught that Hitler is history’s number one bad guy and that he is responsible for World War II and the Nuremberg Trials. The Holocaust is ingrained into our minds -- its survivors, the lives it ruined, and its economic and social repercussions are constantly discussed in our society. It is impossible for us to remain impartial while viewing Riefenstahl’s films. For that purpose, we might accidentally help to bridge the gap between art and propaganda.

Sontag might be Riefenstahl’s greatest enemy, and in my opinion, if I was trying to gain an unbiased opinion of someone, I wouldn’t go to their archenemy to acquire it. It’s hard to gain perspective on Riefenstahl and her work when Sontag’s loathing is so blatant. I took everything that Sontag said with a grain of salt. The idea that this film inspired people to love Hitler might be true, but how can that be Riefenstahl’s fault? The way her art is interpreted is left up to the viewer and the viewer alone.

Taking into account both Sontag and Devereaux’s opinions, adding that to my own viewing of the film, and also considering the previewed interview with Riefenstahl, I am able to clearly state that it doesn’t matter what purpose Riefenstahl had while making those films. She won awards for her technique and is still critically acclaimed for her revolutionary contributions to the film world. How can we argue that her art is tasteless if it provided such a foundation for other filmmakers to create their own art? Riefenstahl has no reason to apologize; instead, we should be thanking her for her involvement in the world of culture and art, regardless of what her medium was or the fact that the star of her film is responsible for thousands of deaths.

Amanda D. Post #3

Amanda Dhillon

Part A:

In my opinion, Riefenstahl’s works are aesthetically beautiful. I try not to evaluate the morality of the message when creating an opinion on a piece of art, basing my judgment on the formal characteristics of the work. To me, the description of art as “beautiful” or “good” does not come from the content of the message, but of the effectiveness and beauty of the way in which that message is conveyed in addition to the visually pleasing aspects of the piece. Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will exemplifies this aesthetic beauty that characterizes her artwork. It is masterful in the way that she begins the film with scenes that create a growing feeling of anticipation in the viewer. The first things that the audience sees are clouds, spanning across the screen to a background of music that is exciting and hopeful and grand. Then, rooftops emerge as the music continues to build up a sense of optimism in the viewer. These give way to shots of Hitler’s plane and the constant stream of organized, marching soldiers below it, then crowds of enthusiastic supporters waiting for the arrival of their leader. The anticipation and excitement grows even more. Finally, after shifting between film of the crowd and the landing plane, the jet turns around, the door opens, and the faces of the spectators brighten with excitement as Hitler steps out. Not only does Riefenstahl begin the film with a building up of excited emotion and anticipation, but the way in which she does so, with the subtle artistry of camera angles and timing of shots, she creates a mood of togetherness and power without being too obvious. Her well- timed and edited glimpses of Hitler juxtaposed with the masses of followers lends a feeling of unity for her German contemporaries under this charismatic man; they are part of something spectacular and grand, which are themes to which Riefenstahl adheres for the duration of the film. In addition to the technical beauty of the grand-scale camera shots and well-flowing scenes, Riefenstahl also delivers her message beautifully, with the views of synchronized, marching soldiers between speeches that are meant to “captivate” and gain the support of the viewing public. The rows of soldiers show power, discipline, and order for the new regime, which would have given hope for a country rebuilt in greatness to any German of the time. The overall elements of the piece including scene composition, the positioning of the camera for certain shots, and the thoughtful editing blend together to make the film an example of “beautiful” art that could inspire an entire nation.

As well as her films, Leni Riefenstahl’s photographs of the Nuba people also represent aesthetic beauty. They are captivating and engaging images that show Riefenstahl’s skill for creating artistically beautiful pieces of art. The vibrancy of the colors painted on the villagers against their dark skin and the visually appealing placement of the subjects within the frame (for example, they are not always in the center of the photo and thus create good movement) make the photographs very interesting to look at, regardless of what message they may or may not connote, and the moments of the people in motion that she captures lend a great deal of movement and fascination to the photos, making them beautiful and intriguing to look at. Because of the great artistry, skillful composition, and visual attraction of her artwork in both the media of film and photography, Leni Riefenstahl’s art is undoubtedly beautiful no matter how moral or immoral one may believe its existence or message to be.

Part B:

I do not think art has to apologize for anything; to do so would be contrary to its purpose. In many cases, it is not the artist’s fault if the people who view his or her pieces assign them individual connotative meanings that deviate from the artist’s intentions. The “meaning” of a piece is overall relative to the filter of the viewer, and so responsibility for what the artwork is taken to mean does not necessarily fall with the artist. In general, I feel that art should not be judged for the content of its message, but rather for a combination of its aesthetic beauty/appeal and how well or beautifully the message is relayed to the viewer. However, there is artwork that is created entirely to convey a message and does not interest itself in conventional aesthetic beauty. In cases like these, I still maintain that the morality of the message does not have a bearing on how “good” or “bad” the art is, but instead, how well the message is sent should determine the beauty of the art. Even in this case, then, art does not need to apologize for whatever it may be saying. It was created to make a point, and that exchange of ideas should be recognized as the judging factor for the piece, not what the idea/point is. In the case of Leni Riefenstahl’s work, I do not think there is any reason for an apology. Her work is aesthetically/artistically beautiful and delivers whatever message it may (or may not) have effectively for the viewing audience. Thus, it fulfills the function of such art and, since I do not feel that issues of morality should be considered in the judgment of art, there is no need for apology regarding her works. The authors Mary Devereaux and Susan Sontag would seem to think differently on this issue. Devereaux, while appearing to also find Riefenstahl’s work beautiful, finds it nearly impossible to separate the message in her art from the visual aspects, which makes her works worthy of apology. Such an example would be Triumph of the Will, which she considers “a troubling film” for this same reason (Devereaux 236). Because of this “conjunction of beauty and evil” (Devereaux 251), I feel that this author would hold Riefenstahl responsible for the messages that her art (films in particular) convey to the people because they will undoubtedly be influenced by them. However, she would not deny that her pieces were very skillfully and artistically well done. Sontag, on the other hand, appears to feel even more strongly against Riefenstahl’s work. While she does admit that Riefenstahl is “interesting, talented, and effective” (Sontag), the author holds the artist responsible for the content of the messages in her art and of the subject matter that she has chosen to document and, in some places, create. Therefore, Sontag would want Riefenstahl to apologize for her work because she recognizes it as reflections of and promotions for Riefenstahl’s own preoccupation with fascism and the fascist system.