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? 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: 400-500 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 one 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)

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 way the film is created and highlights certain scenes makes it emphasize the power and control of the Nazi party and hence making it an extremely powerful propaganda tool. Especially certain scenes such as when the camera was going up on the flagpole and it shows the number of people at the rally. Scenes like that would make an ordinary German intimidated by the fact that they aren’t part of that huge majority and would further lessen the possibility of anyone revolting against the party as they see all these people who are at this rally who are seemingly very happy with how everything is going.

Leni Riefenstahl does have some responsibility for what happened to a degree in my opinion. The way she explained how she was commissioned made it seem as if she could have said no and nothing would have happened to her but yet she still said yes. Moreover, she does not acknowledge the damage that the film does. Regardless of if she was forced or not, at the end of the day she made this film that had this huge impact and yet she does not seem to care nor acknowledge that damage. Even though she attempts to say that she isn’t a Nazi party member, that is also very hard to believe. The way she was reminiscing and talking about Hitler and other members was not in a way someone who was not in the party would talk about them, because if they were not part of the party they would know the impact of these people but yet she still talks about them as if they were old friends. Her participation in the making of the film definitely makes her an enabler for the Nazi party.

In remembrance of Leni, regardless of what people say, she will always be remembered as the filmmaker who made this film for the Nazi party. The depth that the film held could not have been accomplished from someone who had no part in the party so it is very hard to believe she was apolitical. Even if she genuinely thought she was, her actions did not show that because had spent so much time around these people that one way or another her ideology would have been infected with these ideas. Moreover, whenever someone calls her out on her actions and her participation in the regime she does not give a good response. Instead of being apologetic and acknowledging the damage she caused she instead calls these people idiots and that causes you to only think that she was a party member because she was so insulted by those comments.

Leni Riefenstahl should be held responsible for her film, Triumph of the Will, and what it contained, and should be remembered as an enabler for the Nazi party. This film is considered one of the best, if not the best, propaganda film in history, indicating its profound effect and influence. Although Riefenstahl argues that she was not aware of Hitler’s intentions, specifically, to facilitate and carry out a genocide, she contributed to the glorification of a hateful, antisemetic body of power. When interviewed, she describes her techniques to increase the effectiveness of the film, which related to camera angle, music, and editing. This documentary inspired a strong sense of patriotism and pride for the Nazi regime, contributing to their growing influence. Riefenstahl had used various imagery and symbolism to glorify Hitler, like through religious allusions, using the lighting and music to portray him as godlike. She had even used editing techniques to dramatize Nazi rallies, “...hundreds of thousands of people attended the Nuremberg rally, Riefenstahl’s telephoto lens often magnifies those numbers…” (Tomasulo 102). Such actions reference her large effort to make this film the best it can be, which gives insight into her opinions of the Nazi party and their actions. She was not simply “doing what she had to do”, in fact, she took extra steps in the making of this film to further develop its impact. Due to her religious references and advanced editing and filming techniques, she had made her film a useful propaganda tool. This film was shown in the households of Germans, inciting German pride and increasing nationalism. It had also increased Hitler’s influence, as he was put on a pedestal and had his followers practically worship him. Yet Riefenstahl had claimed that she was not forced to create such a film despite agreeing nevertheless. On top of this, she continues to show great pride in her work and seemingly shows little to no remorse. Since this documentary had spread Nazi influence and aided in glorifying Hitler, she had done harm to the Jewish community and enforced Nazi ideology. In other words, she enabled Jewish oppression by increasing Nazi support, considering the massive spread of this film. In some cases, the art can be separated from the artists. However, when the art is associated with hateful and violent sentiment, as well as the dehumanization and genocide of a demographic of people, this cannot be separated from the artist. The artist, Riefenstahl had perpetuated Nazi ideology, in turn, perpetuated dehumanization and hatred.

Triumph of the Will by Leni Riefenstahl is not a typical political commercial, it is a movie with Hitler as the star, hero, and God and the message that Germany is powerful and strong because of Hitler. Watching this film now gives it a horror movie-esque quality, because we understand the outcome, but from the perspective of a German in that time period it was overwhelming. Every aspect of the film reinforces that the Nazis are amazing and simultaneously that the Nazis are overwhelming, and there will be zero non-conformers. Even the scenes that are not speeches paint pictures of the greatness of Hitler and the Nazis. Hitler greets a mother and her small baby kindly, hundreds of adoring citizens wait for him to step off the plane, and the Hitler Youth demonstrate their strength but also their freedom to still play. It is overwhelming how persuasive this would have been for the audience it was targeted towards. Furthermore, because of the previously established connection of German nationalism and antisemitism that the Nazis had created through propaganda, people who watched this film and felt pride, also felt hatred.

Although Hitler was a charismatic leader and skillfully increased the extremity of his actions, Leni Riefenstahl has a pride in her work and a lack of remorse that is inexcusable. Whether or not she knew the impact that her film would have on the German people, the fact that currently, having seen the drastic effect her work had on audiences she should feel guilty not proud. Furthermore in 1934 when the film was shot, the Nazis were already increasing both their nationalism and antisemitism. Der Sturmer had been running for twelve years and the SA, SS, and Gestapo had already been established. It was clear that the Nazis ideal for the future and “perfect society” required the exclusion and eventually extermination of the Jewish people. As a fully grown woman in this time period she was well aware of the negative intentions of the Nazi party and therefore should not be resolved of responsibility for the consequences of Triumph of the Will.

It is difficult to separate the art from the artist, particularly when the art that the artist created is centered around such a dark and horrible topic. Reifenstahl is correct in her assessment that she did a good job with her work. Nevertheless, that does not mean that she should be praised. We must look at the impact of the art to rationalize whether or not it should be remembered as a great work of art or as an incredibly persuasive pro-Nazi film. Although she did her job well, that does not excuse the consequences of her creating this film that persuaded so many to join or fully support the Nazi regime.

Leni Riefenstahl might not have been a direct cause of the Holocaust or all of the atrocities against Jewish people, but she did expand Nazi influence, and she helped to ensure that the National Socialist Party was in a position of power to achieve that. She should absolutely be held accountable for the effect that it had on audiences. Although she may not have been antisemitic (and that is definitely a “may”), she promoted and put onto a pedestal an ideology that, very blatantly, was. As she herself is claiming, she should be remembered only for the artistry of the film and not the message. Well, the artistry is indubitably a part of the message; her masterful cinematography is the message, the promotion of Nazis. In remembering the art, you also HAVE to see the intention. You can see the intention without the movie, but you cannot see the movie without the intention. All art is picky in what it chooses to display and what it chooses to exclude. The message and the art aren’t even separate. She did know the message because she clearly knew her art. Whether or not she thought about the ramifications of spreading that message is certainly up for debate. I think she should be remembered as a filmmaker, because that is what she is, but also for her aid in spreading Nazi propaganda. Any filmmaker can make politically dubious content, but it is something else entirely to showcase Nazi boys preparing for a Hitler rally with massive grins on their faces. Whether she likes it or not, whether she admits to it or not, that is certainly a part of her legacy now, though no one’s actions but hers. She may or may not believe in the Nazi ideology, but it ultimately doesn’t matter when her actions supported them regardless. I remember hearing somewhere online that goes, to paraphrase, if there is a Nazi at a dinner table and there are 10 other men sitting and eating pleasantly beside him, there are 11 Nazis at the table. I find that it is particularly applicable in this instance. Now normally I would feel more sympathy for an artist who cannot escape a legacy of over a half-century, except that she a) still has not apologized or shown any kind of accountability for her role in the Nazi Party and b) not just cannot “escape a legacy” but more specifically one of genocide and of the darkest events in all of history. If there is ever something that you should not be able to forget about someone, it is that. Also, “should” maybe isn’t the right word. I personally think yes, but ultimately “should” doesn’t matter much in comparison to the fact that it “will” always be tied to her. In many ways, I think that the art cannot be separated from the artist. The unconscious of the artist hides itself in every crevice of their art. I think people forget that they were its maker, sometimes. You can acknowledge the art, but it will always be art that is and was made to promote Nazism. You can’t forget that. Interestingly enough, though, an anonymous commentator on the documentary made about her life mentions how anyone can be “blind to the subject of their interest” and that they actually admire her. So I think that ultimately you cannot morally separate an artist from their work; clearly it has been done and will continue to be done, proving again the fallacy of “should.”.

Triumph of the Will is very powerful as propaganda because it creates a sense of power and greatness through their scenes. Political scientist Frank P. Tomasulo notes many instances where the camerawork and subtle imagery reinforces the film’s messages. The film mainly makes use of the stark contrast between Hitler’s monolithic composure and the energetic crowd and Hitler Youth. When the film shows Hitler, he is often alone, standing tall, and in front of Nazi flags. This presents Hitler as a strong, powerful leader to be looked up to as the figurehead of a great nation. When the film shows crowds, it shows the immense size of the crowd and acts as a show of force. Additionally, the film only either shows Hitler alone or a large crowd, which emphasizes Hitler’s power as an individual as well as shows how the crowds represent the German people as a whole. The film also puts emphasis on the German identity, further fueling a nationalistic sense and association towards the crowd. Additionally, the film shows an idealized way of life in Nazi Germany that especially appeals to those recovering from the Weimar Republic era. Triumph of the Will served as a ‘first look’ at what life would be like under Hitler, even though it sidestepped its antisemitic roots and authoritarian beliefs.

Leni Riefenstahl’s commitment and care to the production of Triumph of the Will shows that she was supporting the Nazi regime. However, as many other Germans were affected by Triumph of the Will , Riefenstahl was lured by the appeal of fascism. Riefenstahl had met Hitler personally and thus may have been more swayed by his speeches and his figure as a charismatic leader. She also asserted that Hitler’s influence on her prevented her from not making the film. However, in The Wonderful Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl (1993), she happily notes many of the filming methods she used in Triumph of the Will. While some may see this as Riefenstahl trying to make light of the film’s dark context, Others may argue that she is instead trying to separate her part in the film from the film as fascist propaganda.

I believe that Riefenstahl should not be held accountable, as she was strongly susceptible to propaganda along with other Germans, especially considering her close ties with Hitler. However, Riefenstahl should be treated as a cautionary tale. It is very difficult to separate the art from the artist, especially since the true nature of an artist’s intentions have become more arguable. It is therefore important for artists to recognize the purpose of their art and to make art that is not harmful or dangerous.

Triumph of the Will is a powerful propaganda tool because of the focus on Hitler’s speaking skills as well as the emphasis on obedience under the Nazi Party’s control. The idea that Hitler could command such a large group is extremely compelling, and demands power from the average German citizen. He was painted as a uniter of an entire country, and in doing so, Triumph of the Will, “ emphasizes upbeat and patriotic themes that convey a renewed sense of national identity and unity following a period of economic and political instability” (The Mass Psychology of Fascist Cinema). The ability to direct such a large group of seemingly diverse people caused people who were not considered ‘Aryan’ to view Hitler as a strong political figure, but not necessarily a huge threat: at least at the start. However, over time, this obviously changed, but unless being persecuted oneself, Triumph of the Will could stand as an example of why the Nazis should be followed.

Leni Riefenstahl does have some responsibility for what happened under the Nazi Party’s rule, because she willingly filmed such a large and influential piece of media. At the beginning of the film, which she claims is a documentary, there are captions that further the idea that she should take some responsibility because the film was “[p]roduced by order of the Fürher…nineteen months after the start of Germany’s rebirth” (Triumph of the Will). In every aspect, the Nazi Party was able to censor how the general population viewed their actions, and the media that they were able to consume. She was not “simply doing what she was commissioned to do” because she willingly took on the job, and she could have easily made a documentary without such dramatic filming. For example, in the background there is dramatic music playing that is upbeat when explaining the rise of Germany and the Nazi Party, and very dark music when the economic struggles of Germany are mentioned.

Leni Riefenstahl should be remembered for the work she did for the Nazis because even if it wasn’t her intention to create something with such a strong negative impact, the reality is that there was a large impact. Therefore, her work was extremely political, and it is practically irrelevant if she was or was not supportive of Nazi ideology. Most of Germany followed the Nazi Party, so if she followed them, she could be grouped in with ‘everyone else.’ It is not necessary to distinguish whether or not she believed in the Nazi’s ideals because her actions did support a dictator. In this case, art cannot be separated from the artist because the consequences are so grave. Again, if Leni Riefenstahl considered herself ‘apolitical’, that is a personal choice, but her actions went against that belief, and therefore, the art and be separated from the artist.

Leni Riefenstahl is responsible for more than producing a documentary about Nazi Germany. She is responsible for targeting an audience she knew would be susceptible to taking her film and idolizing it. In “The Wonderful Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl”, she discusses the process of creating the propaganda film, “Triumph of the Will”, in such a manner that will hold audiences at the edge of their seats. Only someone who wanted people to take their art to heart would develop new means, like Riefenstahl creating unique camera shots and spending days editing a single scene. She knew that her art would mesmerize watchers to want to join the Nazi party, especially since she documented the Reich as a mythic type of regime that’s greatness could be achieved if one joined the Nazis. Her counterargument, that it is a person’s choice on whether or not to take her film to heart, is illogical because the goal of the film is to be propaganda. Propaganda is solely made to make viewers shift their views, and therefore she is an enabler of the regime.

Hitler used a similar tactic, which can be seen in depth when watching “Triumph of the Will”. In his speech towards the Nazi youth, he specifically targets young audience members to manipulate them into believing their participation in the Nazi party will bring peace. He uses phrases like “I know you will join the columns” and “... Germany will live for you” is meant to move the youth to feel emotionally responsible for their country. Both Hitler and Riefenstahl painted a skewed picture of life in Germany to illustrate to Germans their life should be to serve the Reich.

In the United States, we have an amendment that protects the freedom to speech. In Germany, she was not persecuted for her film after World War 2, and lived a long life. Had she been in America, she would’ve faced a tremendous amount of scrutiny, but no jail time. However, I do think she should’ve been punished, like when actors are black listed from Hollywood. To her, this might have been a worse punishment than jail because filmography was her life. I don't think she was simply following the orders of Adolf Hitler. Riefenstahl spoke about “Triumph of the Will” as the best thing to ever be created, even after witnessing the aftermath of Nazi Germany. She was alive to know about the Holocaust, the war, and the repercussions of the damage Germany caused, yet she still holds the film in high regard. If she was simply following orders, she wouldn’t talk about the film, and if she did she would speak about it negatively. By describing “Triumph of the Will” in awe, she is letting the world know that what she did was wrong, but to her felt good.

From watching clips of Triumph of the Will, it is clear that the cinematography is skillful. There are many shots from high up angles that are impressive to me now, and so I imagine would be incredibly impressive to people watching the film in the 1930s. The film shows Hitler arriving in Nuremberg- his simple presence bringing smiles and joy to the people waiting to catch a glimpse of him. Hitler is even portrayed as a kind man, patting the heads of a few ecstatic children. As people who have lived through the Weimar Era and were disappointed in Germany, watching Triumph of the Will, with all its patriotic sentiment, must have boosted their pride in their country. It would have felt good to see a visual display that one’s country was on the up and up and seemed to be moving forward from hard times. As for non-Aryans watching the film, it would have been scary to see the proliferance of pro-Aryan ideology presented in such a grand, convincing, and powerful way. The essay The Mass Psychology of Fascist Cinema refers to how the film had an effect of mass domination. The essay quotes, “There is only one role for the individual or collective spectator of these spectacles: an acceptor of the foreordained meaning of their cultural myths.” Watching the film enforced the myths of Aryan history and superiority and pseudo-race “science” to all who watched. I believe it is only on a rare occasion that art can be separated from the artist – especially when an artist has a vision and a message they want to portray in their art. Lemi Riefenstahl made an active choice to portray Hitler in the best light possible: regal and almost god-like. She designed the film with the purpose to make viewers worship Hitler, the Nazi Party, and their ideology. She knew this could lead to mass blind following of Hitler and the Nazi Party, without people enacting their own critical thinking skills to consider if the policies of the regime they were supporting were moral. While Riefenstahl defends her films as works of art and not propaganda films, the fact that Triumph of the Will significantly influenced the ideology of the public inherently makes the film propaganda. Additionally, Reifenstahl argued that she was just fulfilling orders from Hitler to make the film. However, after hearing a speech from Hitler, she wrote an admiring letter to him and requested a meeting, proving that in some capacity Riefenstahl was actively seeking out a relationship with Hitler. Therefore, Riefenstahl should be held responsible for her actions and remembered as an enabler of the Nazi regime.