learntoquestion ltq discussions

Triumph of the Will was a powerful propaganda tool because this put the Nazis in such a powerful perspective, more than they already were, where their power is artistically displayed and many people are shown worshiping him as an God-like figure.

As Leni Riefenstahl explains in her interview, she did not want to put in any ‘boring parts’, and was more interested in making the film exciting which affected the Germans by garnering millions into joining the Nazi Party, or strengthening the already existing members ideals because the film was so well made.The impact of these scenes and images on ordinary people were more than likely stirring in their hearts of nationalistic pride as well as causing them to be more to see Hitler in a radiant and positive way because it showed how much power and control he had over all the citizens, and showed how he was a good orator and easily moved people.

Leni Riefenstahl has a large responsibility for what happened during the Holocaust, which is because her film was broadcasted to all sorts of institutions such as schools, work, on the streets, etc. I understand that she feels as though her work was purely in the passion of film making and art, where she says that “the film ‘has no commentary […] represents an already achieved and radical transformation of reality: history become theater” (Tomasulo 102) and along with her stance on being apolitical, doesn’t disregard the fact that she was friendly with Hitler and was proud of some of these shots that are promoting the people who have killed millions of Jews for the sake of their race. She wasn’t simply doing what she was commissioned to do, since she was asked to film a documentary, yet she used such unique and innovative methods, like when she put the camera upon a rising flag, or when she used a train for the camera to spin around Hitler while preaching.

Leni Riefenstahl, should be remembered as a person who fell into the social conformity and societal pressures of a dictatorship, however, still became a contributor to the Nazi party. Her legacy as a filmmaker and artist doesn’t necessarily have to be tied to the propaganda work she has done in the past, as long as she keeps pushing forward and tries to create newer and better things that remedies this film. Similarly how Dr. Suess was a supporter of the Hiroshima bombing, or how Walt Disney have incorporated antisemitism into their villains, they aren’t remembered just for these things because they’ve amended and branched out to create new arts and characters that stray from these perpetual stereotypes. I believe that the artist can be separated from the art, because the skill that someone has doesn’t necessarily have to be intertwined with their actions. In Leni’s case, she can become separated, but the fact that she is clinging on to the past and that she is unwilling to accept what she had done caused irreversible damage is making it more difficult for the rest of the world to differentiate between her and her film.

Leni Riefenstahl has been a contentious topic between historians, filmmakers, and artists alike for many years, due to her production of the Nazi Propaganda film The Triumph of the Will. Some argue that whether or not she was sympathizer, as an artists, she just did the best she could, not knowing what Hitler was actually up to, and that she coundl’t have known the evils would take place. Others say that she knew very well what she was doing in making this film, and that she was too close to Hitler to not know his insidious intentions. Even if you don’t believe in the cause and just want to make a documentary-esque film, then you don’t include so many Pro-German/Nazi Symbols. She herself said she put an incredible amount of hours editing and getting permission at the Nuremeberg rallies for specific angles, all with this twinkle in her eye, reminiscing. On top of that, she heavily justifies her actions, stating she’s an artist, and this was a piece of art. To that extent, that's completely true. As a propaganda film, if you put aside the cause, it’s filmed and put together incredibly well for the time, and is a masterpiece cinematographically. Whether it’s the shots of Hitler riding in like a gladiator on his chariot in the circus maximus during the motor tour,his very roman salute, his impassioned speeches, It’s all for a reason,they were meant to draw on those mythical times of old, and what Hitler would bring back and if you were a German or a Fascist, this movie was incredible, it made you proud again.Psycologically, it was meant to inspire you to believe in the German people again. All of this nationcentric ideology, and show of force, demonstrated by 70,000 people, altered the minds of the viewers. Germany was no longer that feeble war stricken country. However, the lasting effect of it will forever be felt on Europe, and for that Reifenstahl is guilty. She was incredibly close to Hitler, and was a known Nazi sympathizer. The argument that she couldn’t have known Hitlers intentions at the time is preposterous, not only because she had most likely read Mein Kampf, but also because she was friends with him, and to be friends with him, you most likely had to be political allies. The Triumph of the Will was that last tipping of the scale, and at this point, most Germans have decided, we endorse the Nazis, they are the future. It’s 1934 and the future of Germany wasn’t fully decided, but Riefenstahl most likely put that final nail in the coffin, swaying a majority of Germans fully to the Nazi cause. This may have indirecttly caused a whopping 70,000,000 deaths, which in retrospect, is not justifiable, whether it was art or not. The saying goes separate the art from the artist(in which the art has nothing to do with the artist or his/her beliefs), not separate the propaganda piece from a supporter of that said propaganda. Despite being well within her right to make it (to some extent), she undoubtedly knowingly enabled the Nazi Party, and harmed Europe as a whole, all through her masterpiece of propaganda, The Triump of the Will.

Triumph of the Will is such a powerful form of propaganda because it invokes a sense of nationalism throughout the country that Germans had long been searching for since the economic crisis they faced during the Weimar years. It allowed them to feel a sense of pride, especially in the scenes where Hitler is giving a speech, making Germans who were considered Aryan feel a sense of belonging and importance.

While Leni Riefenstahl was not entirely responsible for the documentary, she is partly to blame for it. She claims that she was an artist and she was not political at all, and that is why she agreed to make it. However, you do not need to be political to know the impact of the Nazi party. When such large-scale atrocities occur at the hands of one group, even if you don’t consider yourself political, you must make a decision about where you stand on the issue. The way she looked back on the film, Leni seemed to be very fond of her times working with the Nazi party for the documentary and she seemed to be very proud of the work she did. She had the option to say no to producing the film, but it was her choice to say yes. She claims that she was merely doing her work as an artist and she was not involved with the political aspect, but she helped the Nazi party produce a film that became one of the greatest forms of propaganda to come out of the Holocaust, and in that way, she was, in fact, involved with politics.

Triumph of the Will is regarded as one of the most powerful propaganda tools because of the innovative and creative shots that Leni Riefenstahl uses. There are aerial shots, seamless and manipulative framing, and editing to make the world around feel more alive. Most importantly, she uses moving shots which was something that was never done for any sort of propaganda recording up until that point. The scenes of the big rallies helped bring Germans together and made them feel like they were united through government leaders like Hitler. The Germans who were not considered Aryan marginalized further and the scapegoating probably worsened after all of these videos that promoted nationalism and purity.

Riefenstahl worked directly with Hitler, was a friend, and even visited his house frequently. Her glorification of Nazi culture undoubtedly led other people who weren’t educated on their ideals to join because of her propaganda. She made the Nazis stronger through this piece that evolved propaganda forever. She should be held somewhat responsible for what she did because Triumph of the Will brought so many more people into the Nazi community. You might be able to argue that since she wasn’t directly telling people to join that it’s not her fault. I would disagree with this argument because she clearly paints a picture of everything the Nazi party is not. Although the stormtroopers and the large number of people in the crowds are real, the propaganda leaves out the overall feelings of how each person felt–how the small Jewish population is ~.75% of Germany and they were actively scapegoated.

Riefenstahl should be remembered for her transformative piece of propaganda that would change how propaganda is made and viewed forever. She should also be remembered as a coward. She brought so much more light on the Nazi Party and she can’t even admit her wrongdoings so many years later. In an interview, she claimed that she wasn’t aware of what was going on and that she was “apolitical” so it wasn’t her fault. Regardless of the excuse, the piece of propaganda was still made and it still influenced people in the ways that it did to lead into the Holocaust. So, although the artist can be separated from the art, it’s most likely that she did know what was going on, especially with her close relations to Hitler. This makes it harder to separate the two in the modern day because we know what followed as a result of the propaganda.

Triumph of the Will serves as a powerful propaganda tool because of its imagery and somewhat romanticism of Fascism. The film shows the great rallies and organization of the parades and speeches which likely encouraged many people to either willfully or subconsciously support the Nazi party. The scenes of a large number of soldiers and people attending the parades could’ve brought a lot of hope to Germans who were wishing and hoping for a better future with their country becoming stronger and possibly even gaining revenge on the other European countries who had ruined Germany after WWI. Ordinary Germans might’ve been moved by these visuals and would’ve provided their support for the Nazi party with a lot of promise. The average person would also want to be a part of a really big movement with massive support and the film would move these people as they would be able to see the massive amounts of people, soldiers and average folk, in these parades. These specific images and scenes could’ve led to grown hatred towards those who were “non-Aryan” since they were not seen as good for the nation and were the “disease” the Nazi party was promising to remove in order to cleanse the society. She has some responsibility for what happened as she collaborated with the Nazis by creating a very long, well-made film that served as propaganda to the German people which influenced them into supporting the inhumane values they had.

I believe Leni Riefenstahl shouldn’t be completely innocent about what she did as she very visibly had a good relationship with Hitler and seemed to have openly supported him. Despite this, she is not held responsible because this circumstance is very similar to the bystander effect and what had occurred with the guy and his friend who had killed the little girl when it could’ve been prevented. Unless there is a law made for those who could’ve prevented a horrible event to occur but didn’t, Leni would be seen as innocent in a court of law since she technically did not play a role in the murder of millions of innocent people. Regardless of this, at this point, it would only be a question of morality as she didn’t break a specific law but very willingly participated in part of what would become a future genocide.

Leni Riefenstahl should be remembered not as apolitical but instead as at least a person who was not against the horrific values of the Nazi Party. I am saying at least because it could be possible to connect her into playing a part in the massacre of the Holocaust due to the effect she had made through the creation of Triumph of the Will. Although she mentioned many times that she did not support the Nazi party or Hitler himself, one can clearly see how close she was to the dictator as she reportedly even visited him often and had accepted the commission of making the scenes to begin with. It would be very hard to separate her from her film due to her film’s wide success and one of her only recognizable pieces since most of her other pieces would be much more unknown to the world than Triumph of the Will.

Triumph of the Will is a powerful propaganda tool because of how well made of a movie it is. The movie does an excellent job at creating powerful moments of camaraderie by using footage from Nazi rallies. The camera work and direction of the film also contributed because the dynamic shots and expert editing made the movie more interesting and was used to push different ideas that were a part of Nazi propaganda. Leni Riefenstahl used different shots that made Triumph of the Will different to movies of its time and conveyed Nazi ideals. This is noted in The Mass Psychology of Fascist Cinema where the “Nation on the Move” aspect of Nazi Germany was conveyed through these moving shots. Compared to the one-shot films that were common at the time. Triumph of the Will was new and exciting, which contributed to its popularity and acceptance. It was good propaganda because it showed all the positive aspects of the Nazi party, such as their forward thinking ideals and the borderline worship of Hitler. Some scenes show Hitler on stage giving his speeches while thousands of Germans stand watching in absolute silence. They appear to be hanging on his every word and are so invested in what he is saying. These scenes are powerful because they contributed to Hitler’s godly image and also brought German nationalism to the forefront. The inclusion of the Hitler Youth also created a sense of solidarity among the German people from youth all the way to adulthood. Children who watched the movie would see the Hitler youth and want to join in the fun themselves, which led them deeper into Nazi propaganda.

I believe that Leni Riefenstahl does hold some responsibility for her work with the Nazis and for creating Triumph of the Will. Although she claims she had no choice in the matter, she was a close friend of Hitler and easily could have said no if she really wanted to. Furthermore, in the interview she reminisces about all the different things she had to do to make Triumph of the Will, such as her complex filming ideas and 20 hour work days editing. She also speaks on the experience so joyfully, as if Triumph of the Will was the highlight of her career. She seems to have this disconnect in the documentary, where she talks fondly on her days working on the film and her experience with the Nazis, yet she insists that she had nothing to do with them. She’s probably just trying to save face after everything she’s done, since that movie has been a key factor in Nazi Germany, but she’d be better off admitting her fault and moving on. Despite what she claims, no one forced her to make the movie as well as she did, and she should be held responsible for her role in the rise of the Nazi party.

Part of what makes Triumph of the Will such a powerful propaganda tool is the silent composition. As Leni Riefenstahl herself references in “The Wonderful Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl (1993),” there is no narrator that describes the scenes, or a commentator that makes them have importance: the images simply speak for themselves. In Leni’s words, this is what defines it as a piece of art, rather than a documentary. She suggests that the film allows its messaging to breathe by having no messaging, simply demonstrating events as they’d taken place through an artistic, carefully curated lens. It is exactly this “show don’t tell” model that makes such effective propaganda. Though Leni tries to deny all political intentions, claiming instead that the work resulted as an unbiased production of her creativity, Triumph of the Will holds an almost universal appeal for all the masses it is seen by. Leni’s work is undeniably brilliant, not least of which is how she constructed each scene and angle with the intention of how best to capture the imagery. When an artist -- a very talented one at that -- composes such an intentional, painstakingly crafted piece, the audience cannot help but be swept away by the care, the attention, and the pure emotion that have been infused into the work. Whether Leni truly is a-political doesn’t actually matter much. Any who view it feel that passion, regardless; though there may be no “outward” messaging for some party or agenda, it is inherent that they are going to associate that same consideration for the topic it was based upon. The imagery of Triumph of the Will is disturbing, being the composition of Nazi rallies, but it is beautifully orchestrated. The scenes, and most notably the people, it shows creates an air of importance and dignity, a human assumption that if something as artful as Leni’s directing could focus on this, then it must be important, and as such commendable. The film creates a sense of willingness to belong, as suggested in “The Mass Psychology of Fascist Cinema (Tomasulo, 1998).” The text references this very emotional phenomenon within Triumph of the Will, suggesting that it “address[es] the emotional concerns of the populace,” which, in another sense, is an outlet for emotions that otherwise have no place to be directed towards. Emotions such as reverie and a need for unity that are so deeply engraved within fascist ideology, but don’t necessarily provide outlets to express.