Triumph of The Will - film by Leni Riefenstahl - Research Paper Example

? Cover page Triumph of the will Introduction Triumph of the Will or Triumph des Willens is a documentary film by Leni Riefenstahl, which archives the sixth Nazi Party Congress held in September 1934 in Nuremberg, where more than 700,000 Nazi supporters had gathered to hear their leaders speak.1 The film that was purportedly made under Hitler’s instructions (his name appears in the titles) contains extracts of speeches delivered by the Nazi leaders and includes speeches by Hitler that are intermixed with footage of the gathered supporters. The main theme of this documentary was to instill a belief amongst the viewers that Germany would return as a super power under Hitler’s able leadership. Despite the director Riefenstahl’s claims that the film was a documentary, after its release in 1935, it was held as more of propaganda film and was considered as one of the best propaganda films made in the history of cinematography.2 The techniques used in the movie like creating distorted images using a long focus lens, moving cameras, use of aerial photography, and the innovative mix of cinematography with music (a new and revolutionary concept at that time) turned it into one of the greatest films ever made.3 The film won many awards in Germany and in other parts of the world, the US, and it continues to influence documentaries and films even in the twenty-first century.4 This research paper explores the various facets of the movie, examines the concepts of art, documentary and propaganda, and analyses what transforms a documentary into a propaganda film. It will review various available literatures to derive that this film, despite claims by the director, is a documentary propaganda that attempted at portraying the Third Reich in a positive light. Discussion Films used as a popular medium for propaganda Propaganda manifests itself in various ways and during the years prior to WWII (1930s) its shape was framed by the place where it occurred, that is, Germany or the UK (the two main powers during the WW era). This is evident in the movies Night Mail by Harry Watt and Basil Wright, and Triumph of the Will by Leni Riefenstahl that revealed various ways in which propaganda can be used to influence viewers. Propaganda has a negative outlook from an overall perspective, given its adverse effect on mass viewers as well as individual audiences, which is evinced even in the 21st century. The term by itself tends to carry a disagreeable connotation; however, propaganda (under any conditions) can be classified as good or unpleasant depending on the benefits of the cause being portrayed through it and the degree of correctness of the information that is being relayed. In this context, it is interesting to note what Barnays wrote in his essay, “In itself, the word “propaganda” has certain technical meanings which, like most things in this world, are ‘neither good nor bad but custom makes them so.’”5 He defined the process as “a consistent, enduring effort to create or shape events to influence the relations of the public to an enterprise, idea or group…This practice of creating circumstances and of creating pictures in tem minds of people is very common…Sometimes the effect on the public is created by a professional propagandist, sometimes by an amateur deputed for the job. The important thing is that it is universal and continuous; and in its sum total it is regimenting the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments the bodies of its soldiers.”6 Propaganda, which through the different eras were used to "to produce and spread fertile messages that, once sown, will germinate in large human cultures,”  took in a new form in 20th century, where propaganda were used mainly by the ruling political orders and desire to pass information that would “sway relevant groups of people in order to accommodate their agendas.”7After the Lumiere brothers (1896) successfully used a film for propaganda, it became a popular tool for the various state governments and other non-state actors for passing on their ideological notions and influencing the citizens.8 In this context, Nancy Snow claimed that propaganda as an activity “begins where critical thinking ends.”9 Propaganda in its own way is similar to any traditional form of art that aims at achieving a certain desired emotional effect, and creating a compelling vision (as the artist would like to believe) of the surrounding world, and the term has been various meanings and interpretations. This is evident when we find that Leo Tolstoy in his writings had defined art as a means through which one can communicate (directly or indirectly) with the social surroundings, thus clearly showing that propaganda is a form of art. 10 However, propaganda by itself rarely manages to succeed in influencing a large section of the society, or even if it does achieve partial success, it cannot sustain for long. This lack of success is also evident in all propaganda films (that are primarily fictional in nature), where the world shown is often imaginary in nature and lacks connection with reality, and the emotions presented are not roused from real life. Since propaganda is concerned with influencing attitudes toward life within a given time and place situations and in terms of providing entertainment, the movie presents these imagined events to the audience. As Nelson claimed “propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels. A propaganda organization employs propagandists who engage in propagandism, the applied creation and distribution of such forms of persuasion.”11 Propaganda through movies, theatres or street plays is popular, as it helps to spread the intended message in the form of entertainment. An entertainment aims at amusing the audience(s) and keeping them interested in a core theme using various activities. The audience has a passive role, and entertainment if presented appropriately can be used for targeting a large number of people and influencing and motivating their thoughts and actions, which is again propaganda in a subtle form.12 When this is created in the context of a story where the protagonists are reflecting some part of the reality, the mix of fiction with some elements of reality, creates a strange concoction. The semi-documentary approach that represents some real facts tends to use more of history, and the actors are consciously downplayed (especially the ones that represent well-known historical figures) which gives a feeling that there is no creation of a false image (as against the Soviet era documentaries under Lenin’s rule, where propaganda was quite evident). 13 However, in the modern context “cinema is more than entertainment: It is the visual backbone of modern Western culture and beyond.”14 Therefore, the image it creates in the minds of the people has a profound impact on their social, political and historical consciousness. Films are different from advertisements and photography since they can reproduce sound, movement, and images as in real life and can infuse meaning within the portrayed storyline as it evolves through time, hence having a greater impact on the audience. Unlike other still life art (photography or painting), films are able to generate a greater feeling of juxtaposition.15 The ability of films to create life-like illusions and present new perspectives on concepts and cultures (that the viewers are not aware of), can be manipulated to make them appear as correct representations of reality. In this context, many experts have noted the illusory effects of films.  Vertov maintained in his manifesto that “the cinema-eye … [is] the machine revealing the world to you, as only I can see it.”16 Literally translated this means that in films, there is the existence of only what the camera ‘views’ and the audience, deprived of any other alternative viewpoints, take this falsely projected image as reality. Films are compelling propaganda mechanisms because they can create visual images of history based realities (that may completely false), depict attitudes of the common people of that particular era they are representing (which again may not be entirely true), motivate people for a specific cause, and even bring into a focus a cause heretofore unknown cause. Therefore, it can be suggested that films (especially those with historical and political storylines) depict, affect, and often create historical or political consciousness in the minds of the viewers through distorted and misrepresentation of facts, in a manner that is persuasive and hence harmful for them.17 Triumph of the will: A propaganda documentary? In terms of the movie narration, the film can be viewed as a documentary movie, where there is a screening of events that had taken place in reality. Grierson's in his works defined documentary movie as the “creative treatment of actuality,”18 which revealed, rather than merely stating facts or reflecting the reality. This is supported by the fact that right at the beginning of the film there are four titles, which clearly show that every year Hitler reviewed his supporters and the Nazi organization in Nuremberg, while these rolling titles also reveal that this review occurred within a specific period. The four rolling titles thus place the timeframe of the documentary and in the process marks the event in the historical consciousness of the viewer (as well as in the history of movies). It is stated in the movie that the Nazi gathering occurred “On September 5, 1934, 20 years after the outbreak of the world war / 16 years after the beginning of our suffering / 19 months after the beginning of the German renaissance.”19  This clearly indicates that the event had a specific schedule in the history of the world, and hence the viewer gets a feeling that the film ‘Triumph of the Will,’ does not merely contain speeches within it. Thus, the film depicted an important gathering of the Nazi Party with a fixed schedule and leaders (who are turned into almost historical characters) that are taking part in the event. The attendees within fields and tents are seen and introduced, when the camera pans on them in the third sequence and these young men turn into perfect idols that represent the German manhood, an image that is transferred to all the viewers, and is not restricted to the Nazi men seen in the movie. Therefore, here it can be said that official truth in this case is the documentation of the 1934 Nuremberg rally, while the propaganda lies in the mythical depiction of the rebirth of Germany that would achieve glory through the achievements of a single man, Adolf Hitler.20 To amalgamate truth with mythical propaganda (where both the aspects are liberally present), Riefenstahl in her movie converts reality (while concurrently recording it) to an art that is modern yet seemingly traditional, which results in the creation of a grand illusion. Fictional films have always been replete with various forms of magic, which are primarily representing escapism, in the name of entertainment.21 However, documentary movies traditionally do not have these magical or imaginative representations (it stops being a documentary if these aspects are present) even though facts may be misrepresented or modified. It is here that Riefenstahl moves away from traditions and changes the convention followed for documentary movies. Within the framework of the movie Triumph of the Will, the various activities and speeches that have a narrative rhythm, clearly outline the rise and advent of Nazism. As are seen in the translations and various inter-titles of the speeches and activities of the Nazi leaders they receive a standing significance in the manner the camera portrays them. As Welch said, “Throughout the film, Hitler is always seen in isolation, photographed from below, so that so that he appears to tower above the rest of the proceedings.”22 The postures of the other leaders and their speeches seem to fall upon the German people; and the camera angles as chosen by Riefenstahl in the movie managed to create a feel where the German viewers as a nation felt obliged to bring back the country’s ancient glory and its lost national identity, under the leadership of Adolf Hitler. Triumph of the Will has a rather straightforward structure in terms of upholding the traditional form of a narrative documentary, where the events are shown as per the chronological sequences that start with the arrival of Hitler in Nuremberg, the various rallies and processions, and speeches, all in the perfect order in which they had occurred, and ending with Hitler’s address to his supporters. While the events take place there is nothing except some music added, and there are no further additions as budget is constricted, yet Riefenstahl manages to change everything by simple and inconspicuous manipulation of the normal cinema tools, set-ups, camera movement, film editing, and dissolving. Using these basic devices Riefenstahl manages the core motifs or images are manipulated and changed to create a strong an impact on the audience. These motifs used in the film are swastika (the sign representing the Nazis); ancient heroic figures, statues, or buildings; clouds, sky, smoke or fire; the soldiers marching; the public and their leader Adolf Hitler. By the play of the camera techniques Riefenstahl attempts at creating a basic theme which depicts that Hitler has been send by the heavens to bring back the old glory of ancient Nuremberg and to set free the spirit and identity of the Germans through a movement that is based deeply in the consciousness of their superior race and history. The constant use of swastikas in her movie implants this motif strongly in the minds of the viewers and Nazi and the swastika soon become synonymous in the movie.23 In this context, Elsaesser claimed that “If Triumph of the Will is the triumph of form over substance, this is partly because it is a box of tricks, full of unexpected angles, eye-line matches and parallel edits, picked up from feature films, squirrelled away like a film-academy graduate, and then flamboyantly shown off in a commission from Hitler.”24 In the movie, Riefenstahl’s camera set-ups manage to formulate two basic and interlinked effects: animation and disorientation and. The effect of disorientation is obtained by consciously not showing allowing some aspects of reality to enter the frame. This is achieved by showing mainly the upper part of human bodies and objects, which gives them almost no base to stand on, thus generating a feeling where the buildings are a part of the sky (heavens), like ‘castles in the air,’ and using this camera technique, events of the Nuremberg rally are given an almost holy spiritual feel.25 After the disorientation effect that turns the meet into an almost spiritual affair, animation is used for infusing life into the bodies, which is achieved by the angle of vision used and close-up shots.26 Here the most significant part is the flag parade, where one can hardly see the flag bearers. Close-up views take the audience right into the sea of flags that are shown apparently to move by themselves, and even in long shots human presence is avoided by the use of camera angle. Thus, reality is turned into a mere symbol, and objects seem to move with powers that are supernatural, under the will and guidance of Hitler. This transfiguration, which is the ‘triumph of the will’ over German and other global viewers, is further obtained by a special camera movement, which was created by Pabst Dupont and Murnau. Here, when the subject is still, the camera starts moving, thus creating a sense of movement, “a quasi-hypnotic disorientation of the spectator from the stable world where “objective fact” holds still to be examined. And further yet, the camera movement animates still subjects, moving them with the spirit of the occasion-the life Riefenstahl imparts to buildings is quite remarkable.”27 Riefenstahl also uses editing, a process which selects and prepares  parts to be used in movies for transmitting information by summarization, rectification, organization, and various other forms of modifications that are undertaken with an objective of producing an accurate and reliable work.28 Instead of producing an accurate representation of ‘reality,’ Riefenstahl uses editing to manipulate and disorient viewers, where the perspective keeps on shifting and is ultimately lost owing to the sudden changes in angles or the sudden move from a close-up shit to a long shot or vice versa. This in turns strengthens the power of animation of an image, and is evident when in a close up shot the crowd inside a stadium is shown cheering its leaders, suddenly becomes a long shot taken from outside the stadium, which gives a feeling as if it is the stadium that is itself emitting that cry for freedom.29 Therefore, by constant change in the subject and camera motions, constant changes in perspectives, the reality of Nuremberg becomes nebulous, almost like a dream, with a vision that has no fixed viewpoint but only infinite perspectives. In terms of aesthetic value in the movie, the focus is on mise en scene that is how images are created in the context of the storyline.  The images are created in a manner that produces the maximal impact, from how people (actors playing their role within a frame) to background layout and sound adds on to the rhythm of the movie. In Triumph of the Will, the focus is on open spaces, as for example, the sky, the Nuremberg town, streets and the town hall. The first shot in the documentary is taken from the sky from a plane and an omnipresent Hitler seems to be present within the clouds, much like a God ready to join with his earthly followers. This shot and various other shots in the movie directly and indirectly create a situation (pars per toto- a part replacing the whole), where Hitler is shown having an almost religious presence, from the presence in the clouds to an overpowering presence in through the so-called ‘Fuhrer’ principle.30 This is also seen in various other shots within the film where Fuhrer Hitler is depicted as the very pillar that all worship and look up to. This continues into the second sequence, where Hitler arrives at the airport and moves towards his hotel with his motorcade, and he is shown at the acme of an imaginary power triangle created by Riefenstahl’s careful use of camera movement and shots within the frame, forcing the viewer to see only what is significant within the documentary. In this context, Wim Wenders had claimed that, “never has a country abused the cinema as thoroughly for propagandist ends as Germany under Hitler, never has a people been subjected to so many false images as the German people during the Nazi period.”31 Discussing the negative impact of propaganda Grierson stated that, “If propaganda shows a way by which we can strengthen our conviction and affirm it more aggressively against the threat of an inferior concept of life, we must use it to the full, or we shall be robbing the forces of democracy of a vital weapon for its own security and survival…Propaganda on the offensive is, like every weapon of war, a cold-blooded one.” 32 The film makes use of language and other diegetic sound mechanisms to impose the framework as shown in the movie on its viewers, though various means that may work through implications, or with a direct imposition on the mind of the viewer. The clever use of language as a propaganda tool is evident when Hitler discusses the disappearance of his close ally who turned enemy (murdered at the behest of Hitler), was manipulated and made to appear as ‘black shadow.’ Hitler’s dramatic speech on this matter as shown in the movie is as follows: Hitler: “Men of the SA and SS. A few months ago, a black shadow spread over the movement. Neither the SA or any institution of the party, has anything to do with this shadow. They are all deceived that even one crack has occurred in our united movement. It stands firm, just as this formation here, as we in Germany stand – unbroken.”33 Here Hitler refers to onetime close ally Ernst Rohm, who was tipping the power balance within the Nazi organization in his favour and moving against Hitler. He along with his close followers was killed at Hitler’s instructions. The dramatic statement made by Hitler, as shown in the film, reflects the manner in which language can be used to make propaganda by providing wrong informing and not making public the complete truth and facts of incident. Therefore, it is quite clear that the documentary film (which was following a specific eve with a particular chronological order) has been turned into propaganda machinery, where the ideologies of Nazism are being carefully implanted in the minds of the viewers (mass intoxication).34 In the beginning the movie starts in a manner that lacks any form and is void. The documentary characteristic is maintained by creating a scene where the viewers would feel that they are in plane that is flying to Nuremberg. However the impact of this sequence is far removed from a mere documentary film and implies the presence of an eternal spirit and an ancient chaos from which the worlds would be created. Soon earth comes into view from the clouds far above, and ancient spires of buildings in the city of Nuremberg are shown to be surrounded in clouds or mist, as in the heavens. Next the sequence shows that Hitler, the messiah and savior of German souls, is ready to set his feet on the earth. The shadow of the airplane is represented in a manner that makes one feel as if the spirit of the plane possesses the entire city while travelling over it. As the plane arrives, it is shown that the Germans are awaiting their leader, even though Riefenstahl here creates an emptiness that is full of mystery and suspense.35 As crowds wait in expectation, Hitler a messiah from the heaven, now comes out from plane and presents himself to his mortal followers. Even in this dramatic scene the technical constraints of a documentary are not broken to go beyond and Hitler’s ministry which includes prophecies, sermons, and speeches, large crowds, huge structures or even miracles, are never allowed to cross the border of documentary completely. Therefore, even though Triumph of the Will is clearly a propaganda movie for Hitler and his Nazi organization, Riefenstahl takes pain never to stray too much from the restraints of a documentary movie, thus turning the film into a documentary propaganda. Thus, Riefenstahl succeeds in maintaining a documentary note to her propaganda movie, by using objective brand and subject, combined with her strong but slightly abstract perspective, and removing the existing division between reality and imaginary.36 Like D. W. Griffith's  famous movie The Birth of a Nation, Riefenstahl’s documentary Triumph of the Will faced a great deal of criticism, where it was claimed that she made use of innovative filmmaking techniques to support an organization and ideology that was extremely unethical to its very core. In modern Germany, this film is viewed as a propaganda movie and its viewing is controlled by laws made during the post-war era, but are shown as a part of education. Despite all charges, Riefenstahl stood steadfast in her claims that her movie was a documentary, and she was unaware of Hitler's genocidal activities. In her movie there is nothing said against the Jews, even though there exists a comment by Julius Streicher who stated, “people that does not protect its racial purity will perish,"37 clearly implicating the Jews. In this context,  Ebert however maintained that "the very absence of anti-Semitism in Triumph of the Will looks like a calculation; excluding the central motif of almost all of Hitler's public speeches must have been a deliberate decision to make the film more efficient as propaganda.”38 Riefenstahl also refuted all allegations that she was a Nazi supporter and propagandist, and claimed that the movie Triumph of the will only focuses on images instead of highlighting any particular ideas, and should and therefore be viewed as a holistic form of art. In this context said that, “If you see this film again today you ascertain that it doesn't contain a single reconstructed scene. Everything in it is true. And it contains no tendentious commentary at all. It is history. A pure historical film…It reflects the truth that was then in 1934, history. It is therefore a documentary. Not a propaganda film. Oh! I know very well what propaganda is. That consists of recreating events in order to illustrate a thesis, or, in the face of certain events, to let one thing go in order to accentuate another. I found myself, me, at the heart of an event which was the reality of a certain time and a certain place. My film is composed of what stemmed from that.”39 When criticized about her participation in many of the Nazi rallies, she claimed that she did so to observe and make the film. Ebert in this context stated that without any doubt Triumph of the will is one of the best documentary films made in the history of cinema, but that did not stop it from also being a propaganda movie that supported ‘evil’ ideologies.”40 Susan Sontag in her papers claimed that Triumph of the Will is the "most successful, most purely propagandistic film ever made, whose very conception negates the possibility of the filmmaker's having an aesthetic or visual conception independent of propaganda."41 Sontag presents evidences of Riefenstahl's direct involvement in designing and planning of the Nuremberg rallies clearly showing her not merely in the role of an artist but also as a propagandist. She further adds that "anyone who defends Riefenstahl's films as documentary, if documentary is to be distinguished from propaganda, is being disingenuous. In Triumph of Will, the document (the image) is no longer simply the record of reality; “reality” has been constructed to serve the image.”42 Therefore, even though Riefenstahl never openly crossed the limits of a documentary movie, with the innovative use of camera, sound, editing and abstract perspectives turned the documentary movie into a propaganda for the Nazis, which they used for their own benefit. Conclusion From the above discourse, it can be suggested that the movie Triumph of the will was a documentary propaganda, since it had characteristics of both. The movie, which was commissioned by Hitler in 1934, highlights some brilliant cinematographic work and innovative use of the camera by Leni Riefenstahl, to document the Nazi Party proceedings at Nuremberg, in 1934. However, the documentary movie was actually propaganda for Hitler and his Nazi organisation, and aimed at influencing the Germans into believing their party ideologies as was presented in the movie. Despite Riefenstahl’s strong claims that the movie was only a documentary and was meant to record only the on-going Party convention, in reality the entire rally was a stage created for making the brilliant propaganda movie Triumph of the Will that glorifies Hitler and his Nazi organisation. References Barnays, E. Propaganda. New York: Horace Liveright, 1928. Barsam, Richard. Filmguide to Triumph of the Will. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1975. Bryant Jennings and Vorderer Peter. Psychology of Entertainment. USA: Routledge, 2006. Chapman, Jane. Issues in Contemporary Documentary. Cambridge: Polity, 2009. Combs, James. Film Propaganda and American Politics. New York: Garland Publishing, 1994. Cowell, Alan. Admire Her Art? (Her Camera Adored Swastikas). New York Times, 21 August 1997, A4. Roger Ebert, The Wonderful Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl. Chicago Sun- Times, 24 June 1994, retrieved from http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19940624/REVIEWS/406240302/1023 (13th august 2012] Elsaesser, Thomas. Weimar cinema and After. NY: Routledge. 2009. Grierson, John. Grierson on Documentary. California: University of California Press, 1966. Hindery, Roderick. Indoctrination and Self-Deception or Free and Critical Thought? Lewiston, N.Y: Mellen Press, 2001. Hinton, David.  The Films of Leni Riefenstahl. Metuchen: Scarecrow Press, 1978. Kelman, Ken. Propaganda as Vision: Triumph of the Will. Logos 2.4, Fall 2003, retrieved from http://www.logosjournal.com/kelman.pdf. [Retrieved from 11th august 2012] Levinson, Jerrold. The Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Mamishev Alexander and Williams Sean. Technical Writing for Teams: The STREAM Tools Handbook. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Hoboken, NJ.: John Wiley & Sons. Inc., 2009. Nelson, Richard. A Chronology and Glossary of Propaganda in the United States. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1996. Rentschler, Eric. West German Filmmakers on Film.  New York: Holmes and Meier, 1988. Snow, Nancy. Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2003. Sontag, Susan. 'Fascinating Fascism.' In, Movies and Methods (Vol 1), Bill Nichols (ed.). London: University of California Press, 1976. Stern, Frank. Screening Politics: Cinema and Intervention. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, summer/fall 2000, 65-73. Taylor, Richard. Film Propaganda: Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. London: Croom Helm Ltd, 1979. The Buffalo Film Seminars, nd., retrieved from  http://csac.buffalo.edu/manwithamoviecamera.pdf. [accessed 11th august 2012] Triumph of the Will- the Movie by Leni Riefenstahl. Thomson, David. The New Biographical Dictionary of Film. New York: Knopf, 2010. Welch, David. Propaganda and the German Cinema: 1933-1945. NY: I.B.Tauris, 2001. Read More