learntoquestion ltq discussions

Triumph of the Will was used as a political tool in order to manipulate and control people. Brilliance could in fact be seen as importance. If Leni Riefenstahl is attempting to make a case of separating art and artist, then a subject other than politics may be a better place to make that argument. It is also utterly disrespectful to illustrate such blatant disregard for the gravity of the situation. WWII and the Holocaust are two of the worst events in human history and denying involvement when she was so close to the center is incomprehensible.

Personally, I believe that Leni Reifenstahl’s work should be seen as revolutionary propaganda used to further the Nazi party by whom she benefited and with whom she interacted. All art worth making has a purpose and Triumph of the Will is to benefit Hitler and Nazi Germany. Tomasulo’s The Mass Psychology of Fascist Cinema makes clear how Hitler was portrayed as a German Messiah, his plane a soaring eagle and as a necessary leader to the Germans in her movie (Tomasulo 1988). Reifenstahl did not need to make this film, make it so well, or to make it as positive of the Nazi party. She denies agency due to her being forced into action by Hitler or Goebbels and societal pressure. Given the totalitarian nature and all the information known about how one must show complete loyalty to the Nazis, this argument does make sense. When she describes her actions in The Wonderful Horrible life of Leni Reifenstahl there is a disturbing amount of pride taken in her vicinity to Hitler and the power she wielded among Nazi rallies. It is startling how she was not imprisoned for life because of this. Clearly she does not feel as though she must make a great anti-fascist movie.However, the lengths undertaken in order to prove her worth and benefit the Nazi party are completely her own. Vergil’s Aenied was a ground-breaking piece of propaganda used to justify a dictator however it had anti-Augustan sentiment throughout it. It was still a massive success and achieved its intended purpose but also spread hidden anti-establishment ideas. Riefenstahl showed no remorse, no hint, no obscure detail against the Party, only praise. I frankly don’t understand how Riefenstahl was able not reflect – or initially think– and not feel intense self hatred. It is not that she doesn’t know what she helped create.

Triumph of the Will is a powerful propaganda tool because it glorifies the Nazi regime and continues the idea of a mythical past. Additionally, it doesn’t advertise itself as propaganda—there is no commentary, just the footage of the Nuremberg rally. Thus some people might be tricked into watching it and not realize they are being brainwashed. For Germans, seeing the waves and waves of perfectly aligned attendees at the rally would instill a sense of nationalism and awe, and to non-Germans it would appear intimidating and almost impressive.

Another effective thing about it is the way it almost deifies Hitler—Leni Riefenstahl specifically mentioned in the documentary how she cut out clips of him coughing or touching his face. This would subconsciously give the impression of him being some kind of “perfect” and above human. On top of this, she intentionally angled the camera in ways to make him seem more powerful, capturing his speeches from lower shots angled up at him as if he was looking down upon the world. The circling camera track gave the impression that he was important and everything revolved around him.

These intentional choices she made are why it is laughable to suggest that Leni Riefenstahl was innocent in everything she did. It is absolutely a propaganda film, not an “art” film. She denied knowledge of anything that was going to happen at the rally and denied planning it, but this is a bald-faced, blatant lie—she knew what was going to happen as she set up all the complex equipment to film it. She wouldn’t have climbed to the top of a tower to place a camera not knowing a motorcade would pass by. She wouldn’t have constructed complex camera tracks to circle Hitler and make him appear powerful. And she definitely would not have had to argue with higher-ups to get a camera placed in the Nazi flagpole to move up and down and capture the audience.

The flagpole camera is an especially egregious example of her responsibility—she is so clearly ecstatic and proud, even 60 years later knowing what the Nazis would go on to do, to have come up with this shot. It is impossible to call her work apolitical (first of all, it was commissioned by the government). She understood well that she was filming and spending hundreds of hours editing footage of a rally that in itself was designed to brainwash people—so how could her version, edited to only include the most persuasive and powerful moments of these Nazi propaganda speeches, not be propaganda?

The main reason I believe Triumph of the Will became so popular and effective was just the pure novelty of the situation. The concept of cinema was a new topic, especially in Germany as they were leaving a difficult recession. As with any new technology, especially one which is as awe-inspiring as film, it is going to generate a lot of buzz and popularity. That newness of film is coupled with the pure scale and organization of the rally at Nuremberg. The rally had an insane amount of people, almost one million. The grandeur and unity of the moment was so striking, it would almost be easy to make an incredibly moving film about it. The fact that over 700,000 people were at the same rally is simply unparalleled. However, this was coupled with Leni Riefenstal’s skill and portrayal of the rally. In the video, horrible as it may be, she discusses with fascination and pride how she worked tirelessly on edits and got unique camera angles. The way she portrayed the rally, as Hitler wanted, inspired and mobilized all of Germany to participate in these rallies closer to home. Although used for an evil purpose, these were new and technologically advanced film techniques which led to a high quality of viewing.

To be honest, I am very torn about the responsibility of Leni Riefenstal. On one hand, she realistically had no choice but to make this movie. We can argue that it would be morally correct to not make it, but if we were in her position, almost all of us would make the movie. She even swore to never make anything for Hitler again. On the other hand, she was arrested for being a Nazi sympathizer in France, and continues to defend her actions. She is even proud of the movie and her work on it, speaking with self-admiration about her hard work editing and filming. Thus, it is hard to believe her claim that she is an “apolitical artist”. It is possible to separate the work from the artist, but I think that works a lot better for an artist like Kanye West, or a painter who has politically incorrect views. When the work itself is glorifying a group fueled by hate, it is hard to admire the creator, and certainly not the work. One thing that is certain from this is that Leni Riefenstal ought not to be admired.

Feeling a sense of pride in the thing you have worked so tirelessly to produce is a feeling well-known to all - the matter is complicated, however, when your work served as one of the greatest and most powerful propaganda tools for the Nazis. To this day, Lein Riefenstahl oozes with excitement and gratification when discussing her widely-renowned film, Triumph of the Will. It was an extremely valuable propaganda tool for Hitler and his message, empowering ordinary Germans and glorifying the charismatic leader through brilliant artistic means. Throughout the film, Riefanstahl seemingly deifies Hitler - some scenes are deliberately shot to mimic his perspective, which is most evident at the very beginning of the film. We see the first perspective of Hitler as he is being flown to his hotel in Nuremberg, looking down to his nation from above the clouds. These scenes alone paint him as some sort of God-like figure, which would come across as inspiring and empowering to the ordinary German. The shots of Hitler addressing the youth rally, followed by the many wide-angled shots that capture the magnitude of German soldiers and youth standing in perfect formation, utterly captivated by his speech, undoubtedly romanticizes his presence. This would make any German feel a deep sense of pride for their country, which further contributed to this sense of nationalism. In this same regard, the film was effective in acting as a warning to those who may fall into the “other” category. Seeing masses of people captivated by this movement is intimidating, and in some way, a warning. Riefenstahl’s work successfully ingrained ideas of “us vs. them” in people, which was essential to Hitler’s success. Triumph of the Will was able to mobilize people and gain their support and admiration for Hitler and everything he stood for, skillfully manipulating their perception of him. With all of these things taken into account, it’s extremely difficult to believe Riefenstahl’s claim that she was “apolitical” and only doing what she was commissioned to do. The impact of her glorification of such a twisted and dark regime makes it clear that she isn’t completely blameless and is indeed somewhat responsible for what happened in the Nazi era, regardless of her “good intentions.” She should not be proud, and it’s even more disturbing that she still gets that same sense of excitement about the film, knowing the devastating consequences that followed. In this case, I don’t believe that the artist can be separated by the art, especially when the artist fails to acknowledge how her art served as a powerful enabler for the Hitler regime.

Triumph of the Will, made in 1935, directed by Leni Riefenstahl, is by far one of the most powerful propaganda films in history, which was used by the Nazi regime to promote Adolf Hitler and their ideals. The movie highlights impressive scenes of cinematography, mystical scenes, and supportive music. The film presented Hitler as a god-like figure and Germany as a unified, powerful nation on the rise, which definitely inspired ordinary Germans with a sense of pride and belonging. One scene that stood out to me was the rally at Nuremberg which was shown as an incredibly belonging and supportive environment. This film solidified feelings of unification and “Us vs. Them” which is something most people would like to feel. The light was pointing upwards and the rest was dark, there was a mystical feeling to it that made it cult-like and intriguing to the watcher. However, for those who didn’t fit the Nazi "ideal," such as Jews, LGBTQ+ communities, people with disabilities, etc, the film reinforced their exclusion and dehumanization. Even though Riefenstahl claimed that she was "apolitical" and just making art, her work played a crucial role in legitimizing and spreading Nazi ideology, making her indirectly responsible for the public’s support of the regime's policies, including the atrocities of the Holocaust. Her interview that was not so long ago, helped me confirm that there was a political motive behind her film. She claimed that she would only give Hitler 6 days to film and never work for him again, but then continued to work and edit for 5 whole months. She continued to smile throughout the interview which depicted her as a soulless being: How could she not see the consequences of her actions? I think she felt power from becoming Hitler’s favorite director and was unable to separate her feelings for power from the movie itself. Despite her skill as a filmmaker, Triumph of the Will cannot be separated from its role in enabling a dangerous political agenda, and her legacy that is forever tied to the harm caused by the Nazi regime. While her technical achievements in cinema are certifiably undeniable, the intense, dark, and devastating context of her work complicates her place in history, and it's difficult to view her art without considering the person behind the camera and the profound and destructive impact it had.

Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will is an example of propaganda that mixes innovation with propaganda to glorify the Nazi regime. The power lies in the choreography of visuals, sound, and symbolism, creating an emotional resonance that promoted loyalty among Germans. The film’s opening shows Hitler flying to Nuremberg and it especially focuses on him traveling in the skies which almost casts him as a God-like figure, emphasizing his “divine” authority. This imagery, combined with the reception by the German crowds, conveyed a sense of national unity and hope. For German citizens struggling with post-WWI economic and social turmoil, these scenes reinforced the perception of Hitler as a savior who is capable of restoring Germany’s glory. Conversely, the exclusion of Jews and those considered non-Aryan in these illustrated their erasure from the national identity, deepening their marginalization. The parade of stormtroopers with the display of flags and symbols, further underscored the Nazi vision of an organized and disciplined society, leaving little room to no room for dissent.

Riefenstahl's role in creating this piece of propaganda raises questions about her responsibility for its consequences. She claimed that her intentions were far from political reasons and that she was simply fulfilling her duty as an artist and filmmaker, but her choices actively amplified Hitler’s message to Germans. The ceremony shown in the film exemplifies her ability to blend artistic brilliance with ideological messaging, portraying Hitler as a unifying force and the Reich groups as an idealized representation of collective strength. As Tomasulo argues in The Mass Psychology of Fascist Cinema, such cinematic techniques are not neutral as they manipulate emotions. For ordinary Germans, Triumph of the Will offered a vision of hope and unity, while for those excluded from the Nazi ideal, it solidified their persecution. While some argue that she was merely fulfilling a commission, her active participation in creating such an effective tool for Nazi ideology suggests a deeper complicity. It is a bit unsettling how often she praises her work in the film, but does not address how it was used as propaganda. Ultimately, Triumph of the Will demonstrates the responsibilities of artists, particularly when their creations intersect with politics. Although Riefenstahl’s technical innovations revolutionized filmmaking, her legacy remains inseparable from the propaganda she created and its role in normalizing oppression.

Triumph of the Will was made a powerful propaganda tool because of its personal skills like their visuals, the editing and mass rallies, which allowed for a sense of power for the Nazis. It was something people could visually portray of what was happening, and bring a sense of awareness of the hard times and mistreatment the Jews were facing. In The Mass Psychology of Fascist Cinema, it says, “Although Triumph of the Will was made about the party convention, it does not really articulate any specific political policy or substantive ideology. Instead, preliterate symbolic imagery and vague patriotic appeals are used to address the emotional concerns of the populace” (Tomasulo 101). The use of imagery and different scenes made Hitler be viewed as a glorified leader, and people leading into propaganda, based on the different scenes and angles she uses and puts emphasis on. For Germans, the film allowed for a sense of pride, and unity during the hard times of back and forth, and authoritarianism. The film also had an impact on non Aaryans, particularly Jews, those who were not favored by the Nazis, and their ideologies, as it was a reminder of what they had to go through and how they were treated. She portrays Hitler as a hero, someone who helped save the Germans from wrong doing, and because it was made up of so many scenes regarding the Hitler youth, it had a great emphasis on the children as well. The responsibilities that Leni Riefenstach has for what happened during the Nazi era and Holocaust is that he was one of the key people who was involved in the collaboration and making of Nazi information, as she was someone with great intelligence to make the film, and knew her purpose when she made it. I think she should be given full responsibility as she was someone who participated in the making, but I think there are chances that she had good intentions behind it, but her work shows how Nazi power was made strong. Leni Riefanstahl should be remembered as someone who made this documentary because that is what came to fame, and is something she is proud of. Even though she did not participate in the decisions of Nazi-making, her art simply reflects that and her goals, and her going against this idea is her way to save her reputation, and actually might not be an honest response. In the interview of The Wonderful Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl, she constantly says that in the sense that her documentary had “nothing to do with politics”, which in a way is her trying to save her reputation and not be viewed in a certain way by the population. She is mainly focused on how she made this documentary, but not focused on what actually happened, like the millions of Jews who died, and it was Hitler who led this.

Triumph of the Will was most definitely a form of propaganda, as it used many film strategies to glorify Hitler and the Nazi Party. Directed by Leni Riefenstahl, this film used tactics like only showing clips which made the Nazi Party look strong and powerful, or using dramatic music to intensify the precieved power of the Nazis. Although not meant to directly promote the Nazi Party, this film was certainly directed toward Germans and knew how to grab their attention and support. By portraying Hitler as the only hope for stability, during a time of chaos and uncertainty for Germany, nationl support grew. In the scene when a group of soldiers are repeating, “Here we stand. We are ready to carry Germany into a new era…employed in supplying material” (Riefenstahl 28:50), a strong sense of nationalism is created. With the direction of Leni Riefenstahl, this film dehumanized and provoked violence towards those who were marginalized by the Nazis. Although Leni Riefenstahl claims to be apolitical, her film played a major role in glorifying the Nazi regime. One of the most subltle yet powerful strategies her film consitsted of was the normalization of Hitler and his ideas. Her film did not frame his vision in an outrageous way, but rather as if his vision was just like any other politician’s. The danger with this is that citizens become descensitized to his ideas and actions. When an entire country is being shown that his ideas are legitimate, it is easy to get sucked into group think. In an interview for the film The Wonderful Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl, she claims that her film is not meant to reflect her political view, or politics at all. While there could be some validity to this statement, I bleive that this film worked to promote Hitler. Knowing this, I think that her legacy as an artist should be tied to the Nazi regime. Even if she could not have predicted the effect her film would have on an entire country, her reaction and actiosn afterward show her true intentions. She took no steps to correct the way her film was perceived, or take ownership for the impacts it had. Ultimately, this film played an extremely large role in shaping the view of an entire nation at a time when they were most vulnerable, making it most definitely a form of propaganda.