learntoquestion ltq discussions

Questions to Consider:

1. What makes Triumph of the Will a powerful propaganda tool? What impact did specific scenes or images have on ordinary Germans who were designated at Aryan? What impact did specific scenes or images have on Germans who were not considered Aryan or were different from mainstream German culture?

2. What responsibility does Leni Riefenstahl have for what happened during the Nazi era and the Holocaust? Should she be held responsible for what the film contains and the very powerful effect that it had on audiences? Was she simply doing what she was commissioned to do effectively, or did she serve as an enabler for the Nazi regime?

3. How should Leni Riefenstahl be remembered? In retrospect, can we believe Reifenstahl’s assertion that she, personally, was“apolitical” and did not believe in the Nazi ideology? Should her legacy as a filmmaker and artist always be tied to her propaganda work for the Nazi regime? Can the artist be separated from the art when the art has such profound and dark consequences?

Word Count Requirement: 500-750 words

Sources to Reference:

Please refer to the ideas, either using a description, quote or paraphrasing, from at least two of the sources in your response and please respond in some way to at least two of the question sets.

Clips from Triumph of the Will (1935):

1. Beginning of the film to Hitler’s arrival at his hotel in Nuremberg (0:00 through 9:08)
2. The Hitler youth preparing for their rally (12:23 through 17:57)
3. The labor ceremony of loyalty; Hitler addresses the Reich Labor Corps (31:23 through 35:56)
4. Hitler addresses the Nazi youth rally and does a motor tour of the crowds (45:36 through 51:31)
5. The parade of stormtroopers with the flags and insignias from regions throughout Germany (1:01:08 through 1:04:52)

Excerpt from Leni Riefenstahl: A Memoir, New York: Picador, 1992.

The Mass Psychology of Fascist Cinema (Tomasulo,1998).

Clip from The Wonderful Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl (1993). (1:03:55 though 1:32:04)

Rubric to Review: LTQ Rubric

The chief thing that makes Triumph of the Will historically complicated, is that without the context of the time and what the symbols and people throughout the movie represent, it seems completely divorced from the Nazi ideology that it appears to glorify. Watching the film, it presents foremostly as an art film, with beautiful shots and directing, and without the political commentary commonly found in a propaganda film. As said in The Mass Psychology of Fascist Cinema, “Although Triumph of the Will was made about the party convention, it does not really articulate any specific political policy or substantive ideology.” In it of itself, Triumph of the Will presents as a film of German glory, whose purpose is not to bring people into the sphere of influence of the Nazi party, but to bring pride to those who already follow that political stance. In the film, there is nothing specifically designated as anti-semitic or explicitly stating any other goal than the glory of the German people. This effect could serve to assuage some of the fears of the non-German people living in Germany, especially those who were specifically targeted by Nazi propaganda; this film could have been seen as the Nazi party moving away from some of their more extremist stances, and more towards a general goal of the liberation of Germany from their political and economic strife. The greatest displays of the power of the Nazi party in the movie are shown in the wide shots, which serve to exhibit a sense of unity in the party, and make any member of the party watching the movie feel as if they were part of something great and large. These demonstrations could impact those who were not part of the party by promoting this idea of unity, and possibly influencing them to join for the sole purpose of doing something “great”.

The thing that Reifenstahl stresses most vehemently throughout the documentary is that she had no choice other than to make this film when asked by Hitler. This is a very interesting assertion, since it is very possibly true that there could be dangerous consequences for going against his wishes. This claim also brings to light the idea of how well she did her job of making this movie, and how that should impact how Leni Reifenstahl is remembered. It is completely reasonable to suggest that she would have been putting herself in grave danger if she had refused to complete this film, and it is likely that she would have seen herself as compromising her artistic integrity by doing a bad job on the movie, so to her it likely seemed like she had no other choice. Since this movie was made at the beginning of the Nazi regime, it would be reasonable to believe that she knew less about the political goals of the Nazi party, and since they had yet to complete their more ghastly actions, one could say she had no reason to believe that her film would be used as such a powerful piece of media to further such a horrible movement. The interesting thing about separating the art from the artist when it comes to Leni Reifenstahl it seems to be the opposite of what is common; she claims to be apolitical, but her art served to glorify and further the Nazi movement. Her legacy will be, and should be, tied to the work she did for the Nazi party, because it is impossible to have any appreciation for her work without first marveling at the horrific and artful portrayal of such a horribly destructive movement. But, as many filmmakers have done, it is possible to recognize the artistic genius behind her work while also condemning its contents. The majority of her actions in regard to the creation of this movie and what it led to were done out of ignorance, not malice, but she still should be held accountable to the effect that her work had.

There are a couple of reasons why Triumph of the Will is such a powerful propaganda tool. Firstly, the entirety of the film is an onslaught of Nazi symbols. By the end of the hour and 45 minutes these symbols become so solidified and connected to the content of the film, that it is nearly impossible to forget. Additionally, the film allows people who might not otherwise have been able to see Hitler speak. This is important because Hitler was the kind of speaker that made you want to agree with him, which was all the more powerful when accompanied by the video of the speech.

One of the most impactful scenes of the film was the opening scene with the shots of Hitler’s plane flying above the clouds. This contributed to the portrayal of Hitler as God-like. Additionally, the accompanying music added to the triumphant and exciting feelings the scene invoked. A second scene that was very impactful were the shots of the Nuremberg. These shots aided by the accompanying music created a relatable image that was calm and serene. Another scene that was very impactful were the shots of the soldiers, showing how Germany was strong and a force to be reckoned with. Lastly the scenes of the Hitler Youth preparing for their rally invoked feelings of elation and excitement as the boys appeared happy, smiling and laughing. For non Aryans the scenes showing people's response to Hitler speaking could have led to feelings of isolation and fear.

As an artist, Leni Riefenstahl is responsible for the content and message of her film. However, I don’t think she should be held responsible for how people interpreted it or for what happened during the Nazi era and the Holocaust. As a result she should not be held responsible for what the film contains and the very powerful effect that it had on audiences as this would impede her fundamental human right of freedom of expression, which is protected under international law. Moreover, she couldn’t exactly say no to making this film. Additionally, all she did was use the content of a Nazi rally to make a powerful work of art, which is any filmmaker's job.

Leni Riefenstahl should be remembered as a pioneer in her field. However one cannot forget the significance of her film, the Nazi’s power and the Holocaust. In retrospect, I don’t think we can truly know whether Reifenstahl was apolitical. We can only choose to believe or disbelieve her assertion that she was apolitical. Furthermore, I think it is fair to say that she didn’t really know what Hitler and the Nazi party would end up doing. Her legacy cannot be severed from her propaganda work for the Nazi regime. It is this work that makes her special and worthy of being remembered. Although this work had such profound and dark consequences, it also set a precedent for future works and has inspired multitudes of future filmmakers. In order to truly value this, the artist must be separated from the art.

Triumph of the Will is a film that aimed to illustrate power and authority. Overall, the movie both inspired and threatened viewers. Many people who were Aryan would have likely felt proud to be called to action in such an uplifting and encouraging way. Throughout the movie, there were many scenes that included direct statements to the people, highlighting all that they were capable of and how much they meant to the country. There were also many appeals to specific groups of people, particularly the younger generations, with them frequently being praised in speeches, scenes showing their boisterous yet charming youth, and statements explicitly calming their worries, such as assuring them that, even if they had not fought in World War I, they were still soldiers who could do powerful things for their country.

On the other hand, amid the joyous atmosphere, the movie was still a threat to many. According to Tomasulo, “the film emphasizes upbeat and patriotic themes that convey a renewed sense of national identity and unity.” The organization of scenes with hundreds of people marching together in unison, proud to represent their country, conveys a sense of calm order and self-assurance that many Germans desired after the chaos of World War I and the post-war period, while there is also much strength shown in the collective force of so many people. However, for those who did not fit into the Aryan, able-bodied, heteronormative “ideal,” these scenes were an attack, as they illustrated the enormous mechanism coming to attack them, pushing them out of the country or even to their death. They were forced to see how strong their oppressors were becoming, how much support they were garnering, and how they were manipulating the common people who did fit this mainstream image against them.

In creating such a powerful, moving film, Leni Riefenstahl is undoubtedly responsible, or at least in part. Though she may not have entirely believed in or conformed to the message promoted by the film, it is a film that she was willing to make in such a compelling and threatening manner, conveying full support for this ideology. This movie was used to generate more support for the Nazi Party, portraying it in a positive light that welcomed (Aryan, able-bodied, cisgender, and heterosexual) people, and she served as an enabler in the party gaining more followers. The movie was also another form of manipulation, as it didn’t even portray the Nazi Regime realistically, with many scenes edited to make the people seem greater and/or more united.

However, Leni Riefenstahl is not necessarily personally responsible or instrumental in the rise of the Nazi Party. Even if she had not made such a film, someone else would have been commissioned to do so in her place, or Hitler would have found another way to speak to the masses. Thus, she was an enabler of the movement, but cannot be held as responsible for it as those actively working in it, such as the other political leaders and activists.

Triumph of the Will is such a powerful propaganda tool because it completely reinvented what German nationalism meant at a turning point in their history. As chancellor, Hitler commissioned the creation of this style of propaganda because film was the mainstream way to paint a specific picture of what could be. A film grabs the attention of its audience for an extended period of time. The audience will sit through the entire film and determine their own opinions on the topic at hand. I think the reason why the film was effective was because it painted an idealized picture of the future of Germany, in which there was order and virtually no anguish at all. This film “succeeded because its emotional program resembled that of the vast cross section known collectively as the nation” (Tomasulo 115). From my understanding, this film hits the heart of Germans who see their country struggling daily. The film obviously is made without any fiction within it so the film instead of being something that might be a stretch, is something that is in the eyes of the viewer a realistic portrayal of what all of Germany can look like. This film would definitely be appealing to Aryan Germans especially when the Hitler youth were preparing for the rally because of the imagery of happiness and pride. The people depicted seemed to be having a good time participating in this movement. Everything they did in the film was either something that would make them seem more elegant or more playful. There are no depictions of grief or any harm displaying the message conveyed to the audience. It seems as if everything is finally in order. For Non-Aryans the film definitely would create a sense of instability as it demonstrates great masses of people who are all in accordance with Hitler and the Nazi party’s beliefs. It seems like it would feel like the floor beneath them crumbled into pieces. With that being said, Leni Riefenstahl should have some responsibility for what happened during the Nazi era. It is evident that this type of project was going to have success since it depicted a political party in a savior type of role. Based on the interview clip it seems like she kind of was unsure of taking the job but Hitler was set on her being the one who created it so she agreed. I think that she probably should not get the entire blame of what happened but I do think that her creation of this film definitely propelled the radical nationalism displayed by the Nazi party. It is tough to say how much blame she should get but I think that instead of directing on her, I think it should be directed towards the film itself because I think that it would have been created one way or another. If it were most likely done by someone that wasn’t as gifted, it perhaps wouldn’t have been as popular so I guess there is some blame to be put on her. This is a weird instance in which being talented is a massive burden. In the end, Triumph of The Will was in favor of the Nazi party so in my understanding it has some part to do with what happens next.

The Triumph of the Will film was basically required of all German citizens to watch. It would have been very frowned upon and possibly even dangerous to be in the position of someone who had not seen it. This made for the film to be seen nationwide as well as discussed many times with neighbors to make sure they had seen it as well as proved you had too. Not only was it required for people to watch this film, but it was also extremely well made and ahead of its time considering just the art and not what it was about. All of these factors led it to be seen by the entire nation and made it possible for the ideas of the Nazis to sink further into the minds of Germany. The film showed off the size and power of Germany and the followers of Hitler. It painted them in a very bright light that gave Aryans something to be proud of and a group to be faithful towards. Scenes that showed massive meetings of Nazi followers as well as military members marching through the streets displaying their multitude and weapons demonstrated to true Germans how incredible they were as well as served as a warning to the power they had against non true Germans. (Clips from Triumph of the Will (1935): Beginning of the film to Hitler’s arrival at his hotel in Nuremberg).

It is hard to decide whether responsibility should be put on Leni Riefenstahl for her work in commissioning The Triumph of the Will. The question is raised towards the matter if there should be a separation of the art from the artist, as she claims that she was simply doing what she was being paid and told to do and she just happens to be very good at what she does. (Excerpt from Leni Riefenstahl: A Memoir, New York: Picador, 1992.) Although at the same time this film was seen by everyone in Germany at the time and allowed for the Nazis to share and spread their power even more than before. This created an even more dangerous environment for those who were not Aryan and helped further create the path for the Holocaust to ultimately happen. However if the film was not made by Leni Riefenstahl, it would have just been made by another filmmaker, and even if it did not exist entirely, it is still unlikely that Hitler would not have spread his ideas in other ways. Although even the act of targeting and blaming specific people for aiding in spreading Nazi ideas is very hard to do as the circumstances they were in and the pressure that would be put on them to perform as they were told would have been overwhelming. At this time in Germany one would have been met with danger if they did not conform to the crowd and it is difficult to tell what actions and when would have actually made a difference or stopped the Nazis power.

As Triumph of the Will opens with sweeping shots of masses gathered in exultance to celebrate Hitler’s arrival at Nuremberg, Leni Riefenstahl constructs the narrative for one of the most powerful propaganda tools used by the Nazis. Instead of being hateful towards others, Triumph of the Will emphasizes the glory of Germany. As Gaius wrote, “It presents foremostly as an art film, with beautiful shots and directing, and…there is nothing specifically designated as anti-semitic…” Rather than depicting the power of the Nazi party through scenes of war, the beautiful shots of German cities and the endless tents and ranks of the Hitler Youth are shown to be places of joy. Yes, the foremost goal of the Hitler Youth was to prepare the young men of Germany for war, but Riefenstahl makes it seem enticing and fun. There are many scenes of ideal Aryan children (fair, blond, healthy) laughing in joy, further attempting to convince the audience of how desirable it is and the happiness it will bring you if you support the Nazi party. In nearly every shot, there is Nazi insignia, emphasizing how the glory of the Nazi Party became synonymous with the glory of Germany. Women and men, boys and girls, the old and the young, and all in between were all present and performing the “Heil Hitler” salute as Hitler arrived in Nuremberg. Ordinary Germans designated as Aryans would see these images and easily picture themselves supporting Hitler. Beyond the genuinely beautiful nature of the film, it is scored well. The music is dramatic, triumphant, and serves to emphasize the glory of the Nazi party and the magnitude of its forces. There are two reactions that non-Aryans would have to view this film. One would be awe and jealousy that they could not be part of the seemingly glorious force that uplifts the power of Germany, and the other would be fearful of the massive forces of the Nazi party, and the magnetic hold Hitler had on the people. Where an Aryan German may feel a feeling of pride, such as the parade of stormtroopers, other non-Aryans will feel fear and dread that these soldiers would soon come for them. From the eerie synchronicity of 52,000 workmen vowing to build roads and plant trees, to the existence of young boys singing the Hitler Youth anthem, to the young mother gazing up at Hitler in awe, Triumph of the Will shows the argument that you can serve Germany in many ways—have an impact—no matter who you are. This is why the film was so powerful, and affected so many people.

It is not a black-and-white matter of whether Leni Riefenstahl is responsible for what happened during the Nazi era and the Holocaust. Although she created Triumph of the Will, her refusal to do so would have resulted in her death, and a new filmmaker would take her place and create a film with a similar message. Additionally, she did attempt to refuse until the realization that she “could not break Hitler’s resolve” (Riefenstahl 158). This, however, does not excuse her from responsibility. I do believe that this could have been “just a job” to her. Even if it was, the film glorifies the Nazis and enables the regime. Regardless of her intentions, nothing can change what the film did. I understand her motivation to create something new---do the job well and “make it different from the newsreels” as she said in her documentary, but doing this would have taken genuine intentions to make the Nazi party look good and to convince Germans of its excellence. Despite what she says in The Wonderful Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl, the making of this film did truly “seduce” people. This film was never going to be apolitical, and therefore she could not be truly apolitical while creating it.

Triumph of the Will’s effectiveness lies in its ability to convey emotions, rather than just listing facts and statements. This is the significance of having the propaganda film made by an artist and not a member of the party - artists know how the most minute details can make the audience unconsciously internalize the message of the piece. This is also the reason why Leni Riefenstahl is responsible for the impact of the film.

It is true that Riefenstahl did not orchestrate or verbally express sympathy with the events she recorded, but her choices of camera, angle, lighting, and transitions affirm the Nazi ideology. Many shots of Hitler have the camera below him, facing up, establishing his god-like role. Furthermore, as expressed by Riefenstahl herself in The Wonderful Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl, she used a telephoto lens in some crowd scenes to make them seem more densely-packed. The impact of that artistic choice is that it exaggerates the power and support the party has, threatening those who are not part of the group. Additionally, in one of the early scenes of Hitler’s arrival, the filmmaker uses specific lighting conditions to lighten his hair, to align it more with the Aryan ideal. In fact, the filmmaker captures the Aryan ideal in many scenes by cutting to images of blonde women, children, and workers, to establish who Hitler is speaking to when he addresses the crowds in a positive manner. When Hitler tells the crowd that they are the blood of Germany, the future of Germany, the hope for Germany, the filmmaker lets the audience know that he is speaking to a very limited group of people, even more specific than the crowd that was actually present. By doing this, she contributes to the idea of racial purity in a subtle way. After viewing the film, a light-skinned blonde person would feel empowered, knowing their leader cares about them. Those who don't fit this stereotype walk away knowing that when Hitler imagines an ideal future, they are not in it.

Leni Riefenstahl did more than simply complete a commissioned film, because she made certain artistic decisions that she was not directly told to make. It is very unlikely that a Nazi official told her which lens or angle to use, so the Nazi ideology conveyed through those artistic decisions are her responsibility. As stated in The Mass Psychology of Fascist Cinema, “she created, rather than merely documented, an event.” The filmmaker could have documented the events surrounding the Nuremberg rally, but instead she specifically and subtly glorified the crowds, the blondeness, the leader, and the value of order and obedience.

The damage caused by the film was not only in what it showed, but also what it didn’t. The film portrays an exclusively positive Nazi event, excluding the daily antisemitism, the physical abuse faced by boys in the Hitler Youth, and the other horrific components of Nazi Germany. The victims of the Nazis are not in the film, giving off the impression that they were so unimportant, they didn’t even need to be mentioned. This also made the viewer of the film much more comfortable. For people considered Aryan in 1930s Germany, watching the film would be like a vacation for their brain. The gorgeous scenery and music, the smiling faces of the crowds, and the optimistic words of the chancellor, gave them pride in their nation, without the guilt of thinking about those who were excluded from the idea of a perfect Germany. Germans who were not yet 100% supporting the Nazis were lulled into the collective dream of an exclusionary utopia. Additionally, Leni Riefenstahl specifically edited out moments that made Hitler human, such as rubbing his nose, coughing, or making a statement that didn’t generate huge applause. This gave all viewers the impression that he was not only above flaws, but above humanity. When a leader is portrayed this way, people who already supported him are then less likely to question his statements or actions, and those who didn’t support him were made to think that they were up against a godly force.

Triumph of the Will is considered to be the most successful propaganda film ever made. From scene to scene, Leni Riefenstahl communicates the message that the Nazi Party was striving for, one Germany. The audience of ordinary Germans would have seen boys helping each other to slick their hair back in the same way, having fun together while upholding the ideals of duty set before them, and how older men were involved in caring for the boys by making food and creating the scaffolding that allowed them to succeed. The scene labor ceremony of loyalty where Hitler addressed the Reich Labor Corps is crafted to show unity. One of the workmen asks his comrades where they are from in a call and response fashion. Each person who responds states where they are from, the Black Forest, the Kaiserstuhl mountain range, “from Dresden,” “from the Danube.” The ordinary Germans would notice how none of the individuals shown are from the same places and would listen in awe to how after the people have said where they are from, they all chant “One people, one Führer, one Reich, one Germany.” This lets the minds of the people viewing the film create an image of how much of this movement is about forming a collective. Even though Triumph of the Will shows Party activities, it does not directly show the ideology or the goals in mind, it is more about allowing the people already involved to see the scale of what they are a part of in order for them to feel honored and proud. If the German viewers were not actively engaged with these activities prior to seeing the film they would likely feel excluded and want to join in. People who were not considered Aryan or considered to be different from mainstream German culture and were not allowed to be a part of the Party would likely feel isolated and powerless. The huge scale of the rallies, parades, and Congresses would be frightening to all not involved, there are many scenes in Triumph of the Will where seas of people stretch as far as anyone could see providing the image of an intimidating force not to be messed with.

Leni Riefenstahl was commissioned by the Nazi Party and Hitler to create a Party rally film for 1934 and she did so highly effectively. Nevertheless, she did not do it willingly. She describes in Leni Riefenstahl: A Memoir how she wanted to act not make films, and how at the time she agreed to make the film she could only see one side of Hitler, not the dangerous side, but looking back she can see how she “made a pact with the devil.” She came up with ways to make Triumph of the Will different from the newsreels of the past, she built circular tracks around the platform where Hitler spoke in order to make the images shown feel more real, she had her cameramen on rollerskates to get moving images. She put multitudes of thought into how to make a moving and persuasive film. In her memoir, she explains how she got to experience “the pleasure of a film-maker who gives cinematic shape to actual events without falsifying them.” There is no doubt that Riefenstahl did the work she was commissioned to do effectively, but she also swayed and empowered people to have trust in the Nazis. The effects of Triumph of the Will did enable the Nazis to grow to be as successful as they were. The film propagates themes of patriotism and national identity emerging from a time previously characterized by economic and political instability. This creates a driving force of efficacy for the people to see and commit to upholding. This is in contrast to what Tomasulo cites Riefenstahl herself saying, she claims that “there is no tendentious commentary for the simple reason that there is no commentary at all. It is history – pure history.” This is hardly the full story, Riefenstahl discusses in The Wonderful and Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl how the choice of not having a commentator to explain everything was intentional and allowed the audience to glean and side with what they thought was most persuasive, and not done for the sake of having the film appear impartial. Riefenstahl should be held responsible for what the film contained because she was given liberty on what to include, it was one of the reasons she agreed to make the film. When Hitler wanted elements to be added, Riefenstahl had the final say and she said no.

Leni Riefenstahl’s states that editing Hitler’s political speeches had nothing to do with politics. She says in The Wonderful and Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl that “it is a technical matter” that the speeches need to be cut down, which the public both now and then would be able to agree with, but simultaneously it brings up the issue of how important it is which sections from the speech are included in order to get the intended reaction. Riefenstahl discusses how a speech must have a beginning, middle, and end, even going so far to say that there must be “two or three important sentences in the middle.” How was she to determine what is important if she was apolitical? She agrees that she was “guided by the applause….and the people’s expressions” which is an effective way to glean the message but a few minutes later she says that “a speech will only have one theme” which contradicts her goal of letting the audience interpret what they want from the film. Another spot where contradiction occurs is when an interviewer asks Riefenstahl if she directed or staged the Congresses in her film and she responds saying “don’t make me laugh, why should I be involved? I wasn’t even a Party member, let alone an organizer.” A modern audience could know from reading bits of her memoir that she did have to orchestrate bits of what went on at various Party events to get the shots she wanted, and she had a hard time doing this because officials did not want her interference. With that being said, she states both in her memoir and in The Wonderful Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl, that her job was to film what went on, not to orchestrate it, letting the audience know that her intended involvement with the Nazi Party was strictly for making Triumph of the Will.

In retrospect, I am unable to believe that Triumph of the Will was apolitical and think that Leni Riefenstahl’s work is inherently tied to the rise of the Nazi regime, but needs to be understood from the lens of intent that she had at the time in contrast to what we are able to gather now, 90 years later.