learntoquestion ltq discussions

Triumph of the Will and its significant social impact, in my opinion, are at least partially Leni Riefenstahl's fault. Although she was not forcibly forced to make the movie for the Nazi Party, it is evident that she was well aware of the political situation and the repercussions of turning down such a request. Riefenstahl might not have been physically coerced into taking part, but there might have been a hidden fear of reprisals or losing her job if she didn't. It is impossible to write off this subtle but effective pressure as unimportant.

She describes her first encounter with Hitler about creating the film, he claimed that she would only need to devote two weeks of her time to the project. This short-lived commitment might have seemed harmless at the time, but it soon grew into a huge undertaking that required far more of her life than just two weeks. Her recall of the extreme personal stress she endured while editing—staying up late, having restless nights, and devoting herself fully to the painstaking process of creating the movie—shows a commitment to the film beyond simple professional duty. Triumph of the Will was more than just a commission for Riefenstahl; it was a life-consuming endeavor that consumed her on a profound, emotional level.

The movie was a propaganda tool that served to legitimize and exalt the Nazi government at a time when its ideology was starting to spread throughout Europe. It was not just the result of Riefenstahl's creative vision or technical mastery. In this way, Riefenstahl's contribution to the production of Triumph of the Will cannot be boiled down to a purely aesthetic undertaking. The film's historical ramifications cannot be avoided, even though she may have defended her involvement by highlighting her position as an artist rather than a political participant. Whether on purpose or not, the effort helped the Nazi Party consolidate its hold on power and influence public opinion.

Thus, even though Riefenstahl's technical advances and creative brilliance are indisputable, it is important to consider the larger political and moral ramifications of her work. It is evident that Triumph of the Will was more than just Riefenstahl's side project; rather, it was a significant work of propaganda that influenced the social and political climate of the day. Even if her precise intentions were more nuanced or unclear than simple complicity, this renders her responsibility, at least in part, inevitable.

Triumph of the Will’s documentary style displayed exactly what the Nazi party wanted to spread in Germany. It showcased the Nuremberg Rally and edited raw footage of the event. The impact of this was to show Germans of the time how big and impactful the party was already. Germans seeing that amount of people all grouped together and all united under one person gave the country a way to be unified together. It made people generally believe that what the Nazi party was doing was ok, as well as make it harder for people to resist. Seeing that amount of citizens joined together made it seem almost impossible to resist in any form. Also, it gave Germans new hope that their country will rise up again after the events of WWI under Hitler. Seeing one man unify that many people and say that Germany will rise again gives others a reason to actually join. As to non Aryans and Jews, this caused great fear because the release of this documentary made it publically ok to discriminate against them. It showed them that now it was time to try and get away from Germany as soon as possible.

I believe that Leni Riefenstahl should be held accountable as much as other German leaders were at the time. She had the same impact, if not more than other leaders with the creation of the film. In the film where she was being asked questions when she was much older, she placed the blame, saying that she was forced to make the film and that she was just following orders. To an extent, that would make sense, but as she was talking about the film, she was proud of it, and admitted to spending an extreme amount of hours editing it. Taking this much pride in work like that can not just simply be following orders. Her film was a big reason the Nazi party grew even more and she should be held accountable for her actions. I also understand that some may think you can separate the art from the artist, but if the art is attacking someone or something else, and is promoting strong feelings like the Nazi’s did, you can not simply separate the two. Since the art is reflecting non neutral opinions, then the art can not be separated.

Triumph of the Will was different from most of the propaganda we’ve looked at in class in several ways, particularly what the film chose to focus on and how it was filmed. From what we looked at in class, the film showcases vast crowds of supporters, bands playing, parades, and streets full of Nazi Party members. This must have had a massive impact on viewers, convincing them that the majority of Germans were devoted to Hitler and intimidating non-supporters by placing them in the out-group. It also showed clips from a few of Hitler’s speeches, using moving cameras to capture his actions and different angles to emphasize the dictator’s “greatness” and his divinity. I found it interesting that the film didn’t feature violent, intimidating images that villainized Jewish people or highlight Hitler’s ruthlessness and mercilessness as other pieces of propaganda have done. In this way, I believe that Triumph of the Will was able to reach even more people as it depicted only a happy, proud, and utopian version of a cruel and inhumane society. For some, it must have been much easier to follow a group that encourages pride and happiness than it was to follow an extremist military leader.

Leni Riefenstahl was not as innocent as she would like us to think. First of all, I don’t believe that she was forced to create the film for Hitler in any way; it was an important opportunity for her as a filmmaker, not a political pressure or obligation. It put her right next to the strongest people in Germany, which is definitely not “apolitical” as she said in the documentary. Even if her decision to make the film was completely apolitical and she was independent throughout the entire occupation, already there is an issue, because she would have been plainly apathetic to the suffering of millions.

I know that there is a movement to separate the artist from the art, but I think that this is such an extreme example of that that it’s nearly impossible to completely separate Riefenstahl from her film about Hitler. She was very proud about her work on the film, became extremely defensive when asked if she worked alongside the Nazis to create it (which seems very suspicious because she quite literally could not have made the film without collaborating with Nazi leaders during the making of it), and shared barely any opinions about the Holocaust, solely focused on the idea that this film was the only thing she thought about for hours and hours every day for months. She simply did not have to make it in the first place, let alone work tirelessly to make sure it was as perfect of a film as possible. I am biased, however, because I personally believe that being apolitical when it comes to Nazi ideology is still something to be extremely ashamed of, and Riefenstahl was very open about her neutral take on German politics at the time.

Triumph of the Will is a powerful propaganda tool because it depicted Hitler and the Nazis as the saviors of Germany with adoring crowds of people at their feet. Watching the first couple of minutes of the movie you could see an aerial view of Nuremberg and there are buildings with the Nazi symbol on it. There were also crowds of people forming to come see Hitler as he landed and once he did there were lively roars from the crowd as they did the Nazi salute. I can only imagine how seeing this film as a German citizen at the time made them feel. They’ve been completely convinced that the old German government betrayed them and tore down everything they had built and this man and his army of “Aryan” soldiers suddenly came and told them they were superior, deserved better, and that he had the solution to all of their problems. The scenes like the ones I described above probably filled German citizens with loads of pride and hope for their future under the Nazi regime. This most definitely had the opposite for the minorities that the Nazis and their followers targeted and used as scapegoats. Seeing people so violently against their existence when they hadn’t even done anything wrong must’ve been horrifying. The dawning realization of what was going to happen must’ve been so heavy on their shoulders, and the fact that they had so little power to stop it only added on. I think that Leni Riefenstahl should’ve been held accountable for what the film contains because it only contributed to the push of pro-Nazi agendas and antisemitism. Triumph of the Will became one of the more popular and influential films of its year, reaching countless impressionable people. According to an article that I found from the New York Times, she didn’t just make this movie because she was commissioned to do it and had no other choice. There’s been evidence found in her estate that suggests that she firmly believed in Nazi-ideology, even as she went into her old age. She was absolutely an enabler for the regime. I do believe that her legacy as a filmmaker should always be tied to her propaganda work for the Nazi because I feel like a lot of the time we tend to focus on the people that were more obviously involved such as Hitler himself. That’s a problem because that means we’re leaving out all the other important contributors to the problem, and it’s important to know what this kind of propaganda looks like.

What makes Triumph of the Will such a powerful propaganda tool is the fact that it really portrays the Nazi agenda and Hitler as the saviors of Germany, ultimately upholding them to this sense of greatness and national pride to the German people. Much of the film contains scenes of national unity, with crowds and all chanting and gathering for the same cause. For those who are not considered “Aryan” or were considered as different from what the norm was, it created this sense of alienation for them, unable to fit into what was deemed superior, further strengthening the divide between “Pure” Aryans and “others”. The responsibilities that Leni Riefenstahl has for what happened during the Nazi era and the Holocaust is although she denies that she has any play in furthering the cause of Nazi propaganda, her “artistic” vision of the film is what ultimately leads the narrative that pushes the Nazi regime out to the people.

Whether she should be held responsible for what the film contains and the powerful effect that it has on the audience, is ultimately confusing however, as although she claims that she was forced to make it, and did not have a choice. However, in the interview, instead of showing remorse or guilt to the actions that her film ultimately helped push, she denies seeing the consequences that the film had, especially on the population that most suffered from it. She rather, in a sense, gushes over her art, speaking less like she understands the actions that the film pushes and more as though she is proud of what she has created, not taking into account that although she views it as a cinematic piece that she was made to do, she upholds it and does not accept what the film itself caused. In not accepting the fact that the film was a piece of propaganda, she ultimately serves as an enabler for the Nazi regime despite her denial.

I believe that her legacy as a filmmaker and artist will always be tied to her propaganda work for the Nazi regime, as it is the one thing that people remember the very most about her, regardless of whatever she tries to later push, it was a lantern in the darkness for her which she knows judging from the interview. I believe that the artist cannot be separated from the art when the art has such a profound and dark consequences, as although for example you might of been forced to make it, it is ultimately the artist’s violation to imagine it out and if they were to accept and understand the fact that what they did was wrong it would be another statement, however in not accepting the consequences and the horrors that the art supported, it is ultimately impossible for the artist to be later separated from what they created.