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).