learntoquestion ltq discussions

An artist is responsible for their work when their work is made with the artist’s personal ideas and pushing towards one of those ideas. However, I do not think an artist should always take responsibility for the consequences of their work, as there are different interpretations of one’s work, some of which may not have been the intent of the artist. If the interpretation of the work lines up with the intent of the artist and is interpreted in a way the artist wanted it to be interpreted, then that is a situation where the artist must take responsibility for its consequences.

As Triumph of the Will is regarded to be a propaganda film, I believe Riefenstahl should’ve fully taken responsibility for what she had produced, but not complete and full responsibility of the war crimes that had occurred. Yes, Riefenstahl had displayed the might and power of the Nazi Party, which had inspired many people to join the party. However, I think it is also important to take a look at the situation in Nazi Germany from a different perspective, in which many young people most likely joined the Party to fit in with others, or to avoid possible dangerous accusations of them being a spy or supporter of a different party, like the Communists. This brings in Riefenstahl, who was not a member of the Nazi Party, but she was a sympathizer of the Nazis, as well as making propaganda for the Nazis, but claimed to only make the film because she was hired and supposedly “determined to resist taking on this assignment” (Riefenstahl 157). Even with this information, I think it is hard to decide the scale for which Riefenstahl will be judged on. I think that there should be an analysis on the numbers before and after this film was released, specifically support for the Nazi Party, the number of followers, and whether or not there were any significant political changes that occurred after the release of the film. Again, it depends on the perspective that someone is viewing, as some view the film as a masterful piece of propaganda and manipulation, while others view the film as a beautiful film of the 20th century.

Riefenstahl’s motive for making the film and awareness about what would happen after the premier of the film is very contradicting. As mentioned before, Riefenstahl stated that she only did it for hire and felt almost “pressured” to make the film, due to her reputation as an astounding film director. Furthermore, she stated that she only made the film because of her “desire to create works of art”. In this aspect, I do believe her, as she is held to a high standard because of her reputation, as well as having ambition for film-making. Yet, that same ambition of Riefenstahl is the reason she is considered to be a Nazi sympathizer, that she was proud of the work she had made. If so, then that would be linked with her identity as an artist, including the political aspects and message that the film was meant to show. The sheer amount of speeches from Hitler, marching, people cheering, and display of power cannot within the film shows that Riefenstahl put so much blood, sweat, and tears into the work that it is hard to disassociate her from this film. Regarding Riefenstahl’s unawareness of what would unfold as a result of the film’s premiere, it is hard to take Riefenstahl’s word for it again, as she may leave out details or write different details to save herself from controversy. According to the article “Leni Riefenstahl, Filmmaker and Nazi Propagandist, Dies at 101” by Alan Riding from The New York Times, Riefenstahl had allegedly “pledged to make no more party films, she then made an 18-minute documentary, “Day of Freedom: Our Army”, about the Wehrmacht in 1935” (Riding 7), yet the Wehrmacht was a detail in “Triumph of the Will” that Riefenstahl wanted to leave out because, according to Riefenstahl’s memoir, “[T]he shots weren’t good enough, that they were grey, and useless for the film, but the general demanded to see them. I was shaken when he liked them” (Riefenstahl 162). Riefenstahl still produced films, still supported Hitler’s ideology, and still had connections with people within the SS. All of this makes it hard to trust Riefenstahl that she was not aware of the impact she would have among the German people.

I believe Riefenstahl should be held responsible for what was shown within the film and the effect the film had on the German people. Restating the fact that Riefenstahl put so much effort into this film, it is also stated that she tried out new film techniques and technology to make the scenes pop out as much as possible. Riefenstahl had been given free will to do what she wanted with the film, as well as practically being given unlimited funding and resources to make the film further cements that she wanted to make this film out of her own free will, which means the images that she wanted to be portrayed, the sounds she wanted to be heard by the audience, are all beliefs that she herself most likely wanted to express and be felt. However, despite all of this, I do not believe Riefenstahl is a perpetrator. Since Riefenstahl had a part in German propaganda and had connections with the SS, I think Riefenstahl is more of an enabler. Riefenstahl’s film did not have a direct effect on the mass killings that the Germans committed, but rather, an indirect effect. If we take Riefenstahl’s word that she only created the film as a work of art, then the indirect effect is a spike in German nationalism and support of the Nazi Party, which would then delve into the support of fascism and deeper anti-semitic views. Ultimately, this leads to the genocides and conquest of territory throughout Europe. Yet, despite this, I think it’s hard to find a punishment that is suitable for Riefenstahl. Once again, Riefenstahl claimed that she was not a member of the Nazi Party, but she shared and spread Hitler’s ideology consciously. She claimed that she only made the film as a work of art and could only make a film if she had a personal connection with it, so that would mean she had a deep connection with the fascist ideas of the Nazi Party and spread propaganda. Even though Riefenstahl went through the process of denazification and tried to disassociate herself from her past, I think it is so controversial because of the fact that Riefenstahl keeps trying to deny she supported the Nazi ideology. Even so, I think her “punishment” of not being able to make any more films after World War II ended and having the tag of “Former Nazi Supporter” attached to her name was fitting for someone like her. Her story really demonstrates how someone’s past will catch up to them and stick to them, practically ruining their lives and any chance of redemption.

Artists should be held accountable for the consequences that come from their works. Art can influence people. Art is meant to influence people. So if artists don’t make sure their influence is one they can be proud of, they failed. Leni Riefenstahl’s influence is one nobody could possibly be proud of, yet she fails to own up or even show some semblance of regret.

How exactly did Triumph of the Will influence people an encourage joining of the Nazi party? The film successfully evoked a couple of things. First and foremost, everything was huge. Thousands of people cheering for Hitler, thousands of Hitler Youths eating well and playing games, Hitler flies into Nuremberg from a plane with these beautiful shots of clouds. It made Nazi Germany a spectacle. Next, most of the shots are looking up in an immersive way. The film had these spectacular shots and, looking at the screen, one would get a taste of what it’d feel like to be a part of that machine. This wasn’t a film where you observe from afar. They made sure to make Hitler seem as big as possible. The camera never looked down on the small man. He flew in from the clouds like some god-like person. The film really highlighted values, things Germans wanted at the time. People would see the Hitler Youths eating sausages and soup and want to join in. People would see the sheer size of everything and want to be a part of it, or be proud that they are a part of it (it being Germany). Nationalism can trump logic when it comes to influencing people. They’d see the movie as just a documentary of the current state of Germany, and thank Hitler that he made Germany such a beautiful place. A country with so many people, all of them well fed, all of them working together for the greater good, ready to conquer the world.

Riefenstahl most definitely compelled a good number of people to join the Nazi Party. At the very least, she should be able to own up to what she did. She had so many defenses and excuses. In The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl, she has so much to say about why we can’t blame her for doing what she did. She said that at the time it wasn’t so obvious she was making a “pact with the devil”. That “we could only see one side of him, not that terrible dangerous side”. I’m pretty sure that Hitler’s terrible dangerous side was there if you took a second to listen to what he was saying. Two of her other big defenses was that she was just doing her job well, and that she was apolitical. There’s nothing wrong trying to make the best possible nazi propaganda film you can. She just wanted to make good art. It didn’t matter to her what message the art was sending, it just had to be a great film. The problem with that is that she has to live with the effects of the art afterwards. She didn’t just make a pretty movie with beautiful shots, she made a movie that glorified nazi Germany and compelled people to want to be a part of it. There is so much “at the time” talk. She didn’t know this at the time, she couldn’t have possibly known that at the time. Well now she knows. She should be able to admit that she made a whole slew of mistakes in her lifetime, and stop trying to defend them. No matter the intention, what she did had a malicious effect on the world.

She’s so contradictory too. From her obituary: “Ms. Riefenstahl never denied her early conviction that Hitler could ‘save’ Germany. She also said that her idealized image of him fell apart "far too late," near the end of World War II.”. Was she apolitical or was she idealized and pro-Hitler?

Just an incredibly infuriating quote that speaks for itself from : "Where is my guilt? I can regret. I can regret that I made the party film, `Triumph of the Will,' in 1934. But I cannot regret that I lived in that time. No anti-Semitic word has ever crossed my lips. I was never anti-Semitic. I did not join the party. So where then is my guilt? You tell me. I have thrown no atomic bombs. I have never betrayed anyone. What am I guilty of?"

Leni Riefenstahl is an enabler. In my opinion, all bystanders are enablers, because inaction always benefits the perpetrator. But Leni went further than just standing by. She made the greatest propaganda film of all time (arguably), and it was for the Nazis. She hasn’t even done anything that resembles an attempt to right her wrongs. All she has done is defend her younger self. And in The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl, she explains her movie-making process with this sort of pride. She explains how she flexed her artistic muscles with that film. In her Autobiography she tells the story of how Hitler got her to work on the film in the first place. It’s so weird reading dialogue from Hitler, with descriptions of his tone. This is just so weird to me: “Hitler listened attentively. Then he said, smiling, but in a resoluted tone, ‘You’re too sensitive. You’re just imagining all these obstacles. Don’t worry, and don’t force me to keep asking you. It’ s only six days you’ll be giving me.’” I don’t know what Riefenstahl is trying to say with this autobiography. I think she’s trying to show that she was reluctant but helpless? But it doesn’t provide anything that really helps her case. She still was an enabler.

I don’t think she should be punished. We need to make sure she goes down in history as a Nazi Propagandist more than a genius filmmaker. I think her punishment should be in her image to the pubic. Her obituary had too much praise for her filmmaking influence. There are 2 important aspects of art: the quality and the message. Sure Leni made a quality film, but the message is just awful, therefore she made bad art.

I think that an artist is responsible for what their work portrays, (the beliefs and opinions), and the outcomes of the film, aka, the impact of the film. If you are willing to claim the positive outcomes and impacts of your film, you must also be willing to accept the negatives. I feel like this statement can obviously be flexible, but certainly not in the case of Leni Riefenstahl. Even though she claims to not “be political” (which is almost unavoidable in my opinion), she still understood this film would ultimately deal with politics, which is the main reason she claims why she was so hesitant to be a part of it. Leni had to have known the purpose of the film was to encourage the audience to follow Hitler, and she used her artistic abilities to make this a reality. She was strategic in her camerawork. For example, Hitler always seemed above everyone else, yet he also seemed like he was a part of the community at times. The scene with the Nazi youth in the camp would also have been convincing to impressional young children who wanted to be a part of something bigger. So, Leni certainly had an impact, and she should take full responsibility.

I am honestly stumped as to what her motives were. Right off the jump, she had no interest in the film, mostly because she knew so little about politics. This comment is interesting because she later claims that there was nothing political about the film in the first place, it was purely “technical.’ When making a film such as this one, it is literally impossible to not be political, whether she was conscious of this or not (which I am sure she was). During her interview, she also claimed something along the lines of “there were much worse films.” There were films with more swastikas, with more politics, etc. She stated that Triumph of the Will was solely focused on work and peace. In my opinion, this is just as bad, if not worse. Using the word peace to describe a Nazi propaganda film is already problematic, and it also proves that the film glamorized this lifestyle. If Leni really did not focus on politics when filming, then she is admitting her own ignorance. It all seems very selfish, especially when she claims that she would have never made the film if she knew what it would bring her, not the victims of the Holocaust, but her. It is such a privileged perspective to have.

I 100% think she should have been held responsible. As I stated before, if you are going to praise the positives, you must also praise the negatives. It is clear that Leni WAS an artist in the sense that she used a unique style of filmmaking, a style that was able to manipulate her audience. Leni is still proud of this. When she was describing how she shot each scene, her face lit up, and that really baffled me, considering she was talking about a Nazi propaganda film. It is also clear that she thinks very highly of herself, and it almost seems like she feels she is the victim in this situation. She complains about the annoying guards, the increasing hours, etc. She simultaneously victimizes herself while praising herself. There's a specific moment that was so out of touch it was almost comical. She was describing a conversation she had with Hitler about changing some things in the film, and she describes that at one point, tears filled her eyes. When you are reading, it almost seems as if Leni is a small vulnerable animal, which was certainly not the case. When talking about Triumph of the Will, the art cannot be separated from the artist.

Artists should be held responsible for their work and the reaction it provokes. This is simply logical. Even if there is no direct intent or impact from your work, the indirect result still matters. This is frequently the case in the court of law. Your actions may have an intention to do good but may unintentionally cause severe consequences; you would still be punished.

However, there’s a question if artists should be held to a greater standard than other members of society. From Riefenstahl’s perspective, she was only doing what was normal in society, citing that 90% of Germans supported the Nazis (The Wonderful Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl 1:19). Thus, any member of society has responsibility. If the norm of German society was antisemitism and supporting a system of violence, every citizen’s unique talents and work could be used in a destructive manner. If that’s the case, I see two ways to view the question. First, since the cause of harm stemmed from a societal problem, it is impossible to argue that the individual should be held very responsible. This seems closer to the viewpoint Riefenstahl approaches her guilt. Second, is that since these issues are normalized by each member in society, every person should be held responsible for their direct and indirect actions.

Moreover, artists could be held to a higher degree of responsibility since they also have a unique ability to inspire others and spread mass opinions. In that regard, there should definitely be a standard of responsibility. Riefenstahl should do something a lot of media do today: warn her viewers about the dangers of Nazism and Hitler. I think it is impossible to assign a punishment that both reprimands her sufficiently and parallels her actions. She was clearly non violent, passionate for art, but that art had supported the Nazis. I think the best way to hold her responsible is to use her talent for good: documentaries about the war, videos exposing the violence of the Nazis, etc.

Her perspective on this issue is very clear. She did not want to make the movie but was convinced by Hitler, and she was clearly inclined towards the art of the movie than the politics. I found it particularly funny when her memoir roasted the artist before her for their poor work and striking when she redid the entire editing of a march when she found it unsatisfactory. These facts point out a very very strong dedication towards artistry and craftsmanship. I think she might be right that she did not have political incentives in making the film, but I find it absurd that she takes such a defensive stance. The fact that times were different should not be a reason to dissuade her responsibility, she should accept that times were different and she was wrong. She has a very large ego in her work (Fair enough I guess) but this ego seems to cloud her of taking any responsibility and essentially hiding any guilt that should exist. She screams in the interview that "some idiots" think that her work was wrong and dangerous. That type of language and perspective is senseless

In this way, she tries to assume the role of a bystander but I really think that she is an enabler. She didn’t perpetuate any crimes, but she didn’t just stand by either. She indirectly strengthened the Nazi movement with her work.

Ultimately, I don’t think she should be punished. That’s a very difficult line to establish, especially with artists and musicians. We might feel the persuasion of her film for the Nazis but rhetorically speaking, would we be willing to punish a composer who made music that the Nazis asked them to make? I’m not sure. It seems like the best type of punishment here focuses less on inflicting pain on the enabler, and more on mediating the central issue of Nazism and nationalism. Asking her to make more films about the war in a productive and educational way is the best way forward. Adding information and captions on films about the dangers the viewer is seeing is an important way for people to understand the potential harm media can bring.

Personally, I believe that the saying “separate the art from the artist” should not apply to every situation. This is especially true in this case, where Riefenstahl’s film had influenced so many people to follow a terrible, hateful regime that killed millions. As an artist, Riefenstahl should have known the effect that media or other art forms could have on people. She cannot just deny any political responsibility for such a political film. Riefenstahl must, at the very least, admit that she is responsible for gaining many supporters for the Nazi regime. Even if she didn’t mean it to, her film did become a powerful piece of propaganda and in turn, 100% turned political. Riefenstahl is an amazing film maker and an incredibly smart woman, so she should have definitely foreseen the impact of her art.

From what she said in the interview (and in her memoir), Riefenstahl claims that the main reason that she made the film was that she was pressured into it, even saying that “[she] was determined to resist taking on this assignment” in her memoir. To her credit, having such a powerful political figure pushing you into making a film for him would be intimidating. I can’t say I blame her for going through with it because I can’t understand what it was like in her shoes, but the way she tells the story makes it seem like she also had little awareness about the resulting public response to her film. This is the part that I believe is false; Riefenstahl has proven herself to be a very intelligent woman, but her trying to push that the film is more of a documentary than a piece of propaganda just seems like an effort to save her own image. In the interview, she goes on about how the lack of commentary to “explain the significance and value of the occasion” makes it not a piece of propaganda. However, I do not believe that commentary is necessary to make a piece of media become propaganda. Her careful choice in the cinematography to portray Hitler as a hero to the people was enough. There didn’t need to be someone explaining the events when she already explains them herself through her camera work and music score.

Yes, I do believe that she should 100% be held responsible for creating the film and for the resulting public response (very supportive of the Nazi regime). Although Riefenstahl states that “Work and peace are the only messages in ‘Triumph of the Will’” in her interview, I believe this to be completely false. The amazing nuances in her cinematography to portray the Nazis as some amazing heroes make it clear that this film definitely carried political messages. There is nothing peaceful about the Nazis, and “work” doesn’t seem to be a really big theme either (from the clips we watched). Instead, she places emphasis on Hitler’s role as a leader and the people’s support for him. Her up close shots of some supporters of the Nazi regime play a big role in enhancing the film, and also give the viewer a much more personal connection to those that support Hitler. There’s children, men, and women shown, which really pushes that idea that Hitler is a good guy that everyone should follow. Additionally, her camera work makes Hitler seem taller and much more impressive, which definitely played a subtle but large role in how people perceived Hitler at the time. Due to her film’s massive influence, I believe that Riefenstahl is both an enabler and perpetrator. She played a role in the rise of the Nazis by gaining supporters for them and producing the false image of Nazi heroism (also, as far as I know, she didn’t really speak out against them at the time either, making her an enabler). Additionally, her support for Hitler at the time makes her claims of not being involved politically seem false. Perhaps she really was not involved in the politics of the film at the time, but she should still take responsibility for the political uses of her creation.

Even though Riefenstahl made some incredibly poor choices in her lifetime, I still think that she was a genius director and incredibly important in the movie industry. That being said, I don’t think she should have been punished because I have no idea what her punishment could have been. Yes, her film did bring a lot of support to the Nazis when it was released, but I’m not sure if she played enough of a direct role in their rise to get directly punished with jail time or something similar. Propaganda is a slippery slope and I think it would be very difficult to punish people for creating pieces of propaganda since it’s such a common form of media (especially in tense political climates). Again, it’s also difficult to argue that they played enough of a direct role in a big event to get punished for it. However, I do think that the one thing that should’ve happened afterwards was an apology from Riefenstahl. Instead of a different, more common punishment like jail time, she should’ve been made to admit to her wrongdoings and role in the Nazi regime. There 100% should have been an apology for her actions. In her obituary, it states that she claims absolutely no guilt for what happened after her film was released basically because she didn’t play a direct role in actually killing anyone. I think this is genuinely maddening because it just seems so tone deaf. She didn’t need to directly kill anyone to indirectly aid in their deaths by gaining more supporters for the killers. It’s crazy to me that she lived her whole life thinking she was innocent of any blame and genuinely doesn’t know what makes her guilty. To reiterate my very first point, I still do not believe that this film can be separated from its artist given the terrible impact that it had. Artists must learn to be more aware of the public's possible reaction regardless of their intentions. You cannot live inside your own bubble and expect people to see things the same way that you do. It's important that artists learn to take responsibility of their work when the occasion arises, since that's the first step to fixing a possible mistake.

I think that an artist shouldn’t always be held responsible for how people respond and react to their media. You can’t control how people will perceive your art, and how that may differ from your original intentions. Unfortunately, this line of thinking does not work at all for Riefenstahl, and she does deserve to bear responsibility for the actions of the Nazi era. With the premise of the film directly being Nazi propaganda, it’s undeniable that the purpose of the film was to glorify the Nazis, and she succeeded in a terrifyingly effective way. Her actions led to the conversion of many Germans to the Nazi regime, and therefore allowed Hitler to unify and mobilize his population at an alarmingly faster rate. Had it not been for her, it’s likely that the German population would have struggled to switch from the Weimar Republic to the Nazi regime, and the internal strife might have hindered Germany’s invasion throughout Europe.

Riefenstahl states that her motives for the film were because Hitler made her, and that she had no idea about the anti-semitism and genocide that Hitler was actively committing. It’s interesting to note how many times she almost quit making the film, like when Hitler tried to convince her to include the Wehrmacht in her film. I think that from all of this, and from the fact that her reward for the film was that she was no longer required to make any more Nazi propaganda, she genuinely was forced to make this film. Yet, it makes absolutely no sense that she considers Triumph of the Will to be an entirely unpolitical film. The film centers on the triumph and power of the political party. How is that anything, if not political? She seems to be the only one who fails to see the power behind her own film; even the Allied Powers tried to replicate and respond to her film through the film series Why We Fight. It even inspired The Great Dictator, which was screened at the Holocaust Museum. I find it hard to believe that she still refuses to recognize the impact of her own film, and that at the end of the day her film was a political one that influenced the masses. Just because it lacked bloodshed doesn’t make the power of the film any less impactful, if anything it’s even more dangerous for praising the Nazis from a totally different angle.

I think that Riefenstahl managed to somehow be a perpetrator, bystander, enabler, and victim all at the same time. Like lil breezy said, she constantly victimizes herself as being forced to make the film because of Hitler, as if that absolves her from all guilt. In this way, her inability to do anything to address the impact of her own film makes her both a bystander and an enabler of the Nazis, simultaneously doing nothing whilst also doing everything to uplift the image of the Nazi party. Then obviously, by attending all of these rallies and Nazi events, even if it was just to gather film, she was directly participating in Nazi society, which in turn leads to her being a perpetrator of the genocide. In spite of being one of the most uniquely positioned persons in Nazi Germany, I really have no clue on how to punish her. She definitely deserved some kind of punishment, given the impact of Triumph of the Will as one of the most effective propaganda films of all time, and her inability to address this matter. Again, I’d have to agree with lil breezy in that hurting her ego would likely be the most effective way to punish her. Imprisonment could also work, yet I can’t imagine anything more extreme than that. It feels weird to give someone, say, the death penalty, because of the impact of their art. Perhaps her “punishment” could have been repurposing her cinematography skills to bolster the image of the Allies, or properly document the horrors of the Holocaust, as reparations to the Jews whose genocide she inadvertently supported. This is an issue that still continues today, kind of like the whole Section 230 clause that affects social media, and how we hold those outlets responsible for whatever media may be posted on it.

Still, I do believe that Leni has a very childish view on her own impact. She needed to own up to the impact of her own film, not deny it at every opportunity. Like Jnjer Ale said, her work doesn't exist in a vacuum; it has a very real and profound effect on people. At the end of the day, you are obligated to face the music and realize the damage you've done, and do whatever you can to fix it.

Leni Riefenstahl bears some responsibility for the propaganda film's impact on the German public and its role in supporting the rise of the Nazi party. The film was intended to glorify Adolf Hitler and promote the Nazi ideology, and it was successful in shaping public opinion in Germany. it;s important to note that Riefenstahl herself did not directly cause the atrocities committed by the Nazis during the Holocaust. Her work helped create an atmosphere of support for the Nazi party, it did not dictate the actions of the Nazi regime. Riefenstahl was not a passive observer of Nazi politics even if all that is true. She actively sought out the opportunity to create propaganda films for the regime and worked closely with Hitler and other high-ranking Nazi officials. She also continued to express admiration for Hitler and the Nazi party after the war.

Riefenstahl claimed that she was not a supporter of the Nazis and that her primary motivation for making the film was artistic and not political. She argued that she was fascinated by the beauty and spectacle of the Nazi party rallies and that she wanted to capture that on film. She also claimed that she did not realize the full extent of the atrocities committed by the Nazis until after the war. The film's glorification of Hitler and the Nazi party could not have been accidental and that Riefenstahl must have been aware of the impact it was likely to have on the German public.

Leni Riefenstahl should be held responsible for the content of the film "Triumph of the Will" and its impact on audiences. While it is true that she did not personally commit the atrocities of the Holocaust, her work helped create support for the Nazi party and contributed to the rise of Nazism in Germany.

The article by Alan Riding, "Leni Riefenstahl, Filmmaker and Nazi Propagandist, Dies at 101," discusses the legacy of Riefenstahl. Ridingsays that while Riefenstahl was widely recognized as a talented filmmaker, her association with the Nazi regime and her role in creating propaganda films for the Nazis continued to cause arguments over her career. The article highlights her work on "Triumph of the Will" and "Olympia," and her close relationship with Hitler and other high-ranking Nazi officials. The article also talks about the debate over Riefenstahl's responsibility for the rise of the Nazi party and the atrocities committed during the Holocaust.

She acted as if she didn’t know that people were going to be persuaded by this movie to support the Nazi party. even with the purposeful shots she took. Taking shots of babies and children laughing and smiling when Hitler lands, and the film of the happy boys at the camp, clearly states “Hitler is a good person and makes everyone happy”. This shouldn’t have come as a surprise to her, because why else would she make this movie? Hitler directly asked her to make a movie about his trip to Nurenberg that made him look good, and she definitely delivered. Especially with the amount of effort that she had to do at the time, she was not only trying to impress Hitler, she was trying to impress her audience, that the Nazi party could make something like this, and simply the material in this movie. Even in her autobiography, she says things like “It was a threat”, and that she didn’t have a choice, but even still, she didn’t have to put that much effort into the movie to make it as good as it was, there must’ve been some bias included in it as well. I believe that what she “assessed” was only lies to make her seem innocent in what she once supported, so she wouldn’t have to be seen as a bad person and have her past reputation tainted as a former Nazi.

She should be responsible for the things in the movie because she's the one that took all of the shots and pieced them together at the end. Having to lay down on the floor underneath Hitler simply to get a symbolic shot of him, as if we were following him, was purposeful and should be recognized as that. As I’ve stressed so much already, she put way too much effort into this movie for her not to have any bias toward that party itself. She would most definitely be labeled as an enabler, because she had the purpose of brainwashing the audience into believing that a party literally committing genocide, was doing something good for them and trying to gain support for them as well.

In my opinion, she should be punished for her actions, but not anything dire, only because its been so long. She should have served some time in jail, for at least 10 years or somewhat, because this clear demonstration of Naizism is insulting to not be punished for. However, she has contributed a bit to society, being an actor and such, and presenting us with the only footage of the 1936 Olympics, she wasn’t entirely a bad person, but there is no complete justification for a statement to Hitler, such as “Your deeds exceed the power of human imagination. They are without equal in the history of mankind. How can we [the German people] ever thank you?”...

The issue of whether or not an artist has moral responsibility over how their work is viewed has been a hotly debated topic throughout the modern century. Films such as Joker (2019) have sparked controversy as it has been implied that certain audience members acted out forms of violence because of its messages. Throughout history, media has been used (sometimes accidentally) to sway the opinions and actions of its viewers. The most intentional and obvious form of this is propaganda, which was used heavily in Nazi Germany. While many propaganda films were created, one of the most famous and perhaps the greatest propaganda film ever is Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will. While she has gone on to defend her film as simply being art, it is undeniable that it has had an influential effect on many of its viewers. As such, I believe that her film serves as a perfect example of why artists must hold responsibility for the reactions to their films, as Triumph of the Will directly helped the Nazis change public opinion and consolidate power.

While Reifenstahl herself has denied the idea that her film is propaganda, its themes clearly promote Nazi ideals and frame Hitler in a divine sense. In the very first scene of the film, Hitler descends from the clouds in a plane, as Refenstahl uses as a visual metaphor to compare him to god. When he lands, crowds of thousands of women and girls cheer and salute him. These overt visual choices were a clear attempt of Reifenstahl to change public opinion on Hitler and the Nazis. Because of these choices, it is clear that this film can be considered propaganda, as it tries to make the audience idolize Hitler.. Later in the film, when she is doing the portion on the Hitler youth, she shows the boys having fun and eating well. In this case, these scenes serve to convince young boys to join the Hitler youth. Again, this shows that it is propaganda because she attempts to change the political opinions of younger people.

Whenever an artist creates something, it is important for them to consider how the audience is going to interpret their work. While an artist may have the best of intentions, if their message is unclear, the audience will react in unexpected and sometimes negative ways. As such even when giving Reifenstahl the benefit of the doubt, it was still irresponsible for her to release the film, even if she didn’t think it was propaganda. However, it is very hard to give her the benefit of the doubt. While she wrote that she was hesitant to make the film, the final product is still an extremist work, and fine tuned to promote Nazi ideals. Given all of this it is clear that Reifenstahl has immense responsibility over her film, because without her, it would not have been created.

After thoroughly examining the evidence it is clear that Reifenstahl was a perpetrator. While she did not arrest any jewish people, or directly kill anyone in World War Two, she helped lead Germany to the conditions which caused these atrocities to happen. I think it is not harsh enough to call her an enabler because she took an extremely active role in helping the Nazis consolidate power. Additionally an enabler is someone who stands by whilst an atrocity occurs. Not only did Riefenstahl allow the Nazis to come into power, she helped them. Finally, she poured her heart and soul into the film, as evidenced by the countless hours she spent filming, editing, and splicing all of the scenes together. Given all this, it is impossible not to brand her as a perpetrator.

While many Nazi leaders escaped justice by fleeing to other countries, those who didn’t were executed, a fitting punishment for their crimes. Likewise, it seems insane that Riefenstahl was not held to a similar standard. While I don’t know if execution is the right answer, it is clear that an extreme punishment is required for her. Her actions were similar to that of Goebells, in that she was instrumental for the Nazis to sway public opinion. It seems extremely unfair that she managed to escape justice, and even denies ever working with the Nazis.

You can separate art from artist but not when the art itself is aligned with those same political views. Art can be interpreted in many ways, some not intended by the artist however “Triumph of the Will” absolutely has an agenda and would therefore be more well-suited for the propaganda category rather than the art one. Of course we can appreciate its innovative methods and great techniques but overall it is still a movie used directly to recruit people into nazi ranks. For example, the scenes glorifying hitler are most of the movie itself. The worshiping of one man and his cult of personality demonstrate exactly how the piece is propaganda - it deifies Hitler with the intent to indoctrinate viewers. Another part that was particularly suspicious was the scene at “Camp Nazi”. This along with the Hitler Youth meeting in the stadium are prime examples of how the movie is a recruitment advertisement. Seeing so many boys and men fooling around (to such a homoerotic extent) and enjoying themselves was clearly an attempt to glorify being a supporter of the Nazi party. Imagine all the fun you are missing out on by not being a part of this cool club.

On the other hand, we should appreciate the innovative filming techniques used by Leni as well as her less politically driven work such as “Olympia” which the New York Times described as having only 15 seconds of Hitler and focusing much more on athletes of the 1936 Berlin Olympics. Jesse Owens, despised by the Nazis, is even featured prominently. I think this contrast between a clear propaganda piece and one made with less sinister intentions reveals Leni’s internal moral reasoning - she cared about the quality of both pieces considering the artistic lengths she went to for both, however I would say that she did not have moral qualms working for a group like the Nazi Party. She was complicit in their persecution of certain groups, especially the removal and killings of those living in Germany at the time the movie was released before the war.

Punishment is difficult to discuss considering Leni is dead but I would use the framework used to prosecute other Nazi leaders. Her denazification clearly didn't work, according to the New York Times who claimed her work continued to contain fascist elements after the war. Her lack of remorse is also frightening, demonstrated in how she takes no responsibility for Nazi crimes in her interview. Overall her Nazi adjacent attitudes and participation in boosting Nazi popularity in Germany absolutely constitute a crime and for that she should have been imprisoned. I am not sure how long her incarceration would be but if a link could be made between "Triumph of the Will" and Nazi crimes increasing, it should be significant. To address her classification, she fit the enabler description to a tee. She literally enabled the Nazis to gain a greater following in Germany and supported the deification of Adolf Hitler.