Propaganda is usually, if not always, related to biased information. The fact that Riefenstahl’s cinematic style was perceived as being “plastic.” It’s is understood that plastic means that something has been altered to look a certain way, and maybe that’s why it is important to know who she was as a director in order to understand that Triumph of the Will is pure propaganda.

People who watch the film now or back then might have negative things to say about Riefenstahl for how she portrayed Hitler and the Nazi power, however that was just a testimony to her work, not her feelings of Hitler or the party.

Triumph of the Will has a strong German nationality sense with the absolute focus on Adolf Hitler. The film speaks to me as a powerful piece of propaganda, so while I was watching it for the first time, I was too attracted by what is shown in the film rather than how the film is shown. Given the fact that the film content is very appealing to us future generations, the background information about Riefenstahl reminds me to appreciate the film from a documentary perspective. It also emphasizes feminine power as I am impressed that the director is a female.

Her influence and style of filming inspire young German filmmakers to express their ideas rather than devolve ideas from existing artists.

The information on Leni Riefenstahl contributes to an understanding of Triumph of the Will because of the style of the movie. The different types of angles and shots that are compiled together to produce expression. The term “plastic” is used to describe that film can be made into any idea and c an portray them in any way. There is no mold, the use of sound, movement and scenery is flexible.

It gives me a better understanding of where she came from. She started out starring in films. So I am assuming that her passion for film starting during that time.

Also the fact that she is a woman is interesting, especially since literally every scene in this film is overruled by men. Adding beautiful, strong, and self-confident seems to match her role as a filmmaker in Triumph of the Will.

In putting me amongst the crowds of spectators and also giving me crane views of the NSP’s gatherings, it thoroughly showcased the discipline, organization and unity of the NSP of Germany. Also, more surprisingly, the way Hitler’s speeches are shot helped me kind of understand why the German people decided to follow that psychopath in the first place. Yes he was a horrid person, but he had a certain demeanor, presence and speak that screamed leadership and knowhow. The way he delivers his speeches (both in his words and his body language) was extremely powerful and somewhat mesmerizing.

I admire Hitler. And I know it is taboo to praise such an evil man, but no one can take away how great of a leader he was. I admire Hitler because of his ability to lead people. I got goose bumps while watching his speech.

I didn’t necessarily perceive the film as propaganda. It had a very compelling structure and the speeches were very powerful. I sort of felt like I was a part of it, and I could see myself root for him. I got carried away, and I’m a little ashamed of admitting that. In hindsight I would never have been rooting or believed a single word that was said. This film is very powerful and very frightening.

I was put in the POV of someone who believed in Hitler- which really played with my mindset. This film was created during Hitler’s rule; years later, knowing what Hitler did, I went into the film with certain notions and beliefs about Hitler and the Nazi Party, but the film was still able to challenge those things.

I found myself thinking that they were efficient and organized. He directs a lot of his messages towards the youth and speaks to them not as children, but as powerful, independent human beings. As a young adult watching this, I understand why Hitler’s words are convincing.

Watching this film now makes me ponder whether or not I would have followed him if I was a young person in Germany during that time… And that is frightening.

Now I am not saying that I believe in anything that Hitler or the Nazi party stood for, all that I am is saying is that from watching the film I can see how persuasive and passionate he was about his cause, and why people ended up supporting him.

However, contemporary generations have a more objective perspective towards what happened during that time. I was impressed by Hitler’s persona and his leadership influence on his German people, but I cannot help thinking he is forcing his people with his ideology.

The camera angles throughout the film are pivotal to the audience’s reaction. Riefenstahl makes you feel like you are standing in the crowd being lectured by Hitler’s deranged ideologies. Hitler as we all know was an evil man, with that being said he was a great speaker. Just by watching this film, you could see the crowd’s reaction to his speeches, not only is he stern and rigorous but he has the audience completely captivated.

The film is made into a observational where I picture myself as a member of the crowd where there are several scenes where the shot just from the back of the crowd, or among the crowd during. the scene during the entrance when he is on the car going pat the rally and the camera was placed right behind Hitler’s back. It gives the viewers a feeling that you are looking through Hitler ’s point of perspective. The scene makes the viewers feel the anticipation of the people for Hitler.

how people could follow such a confident, charismatic person at a time when Germans didn’t have much else. There were moments where I had to snap out of his allure and realize all of the atrocities that occurred during and were related to his time in power.

A Pavlovian response is a form of conditioning, or association of one thing with another. Pavlov is known for his experiments with dogs. Usually, dogs would get excited and salivate at food itself. In Pavlov’s experiment, Pavlov rang a bell, and then fed the dogs. Eventually, the dogs would just become excited by the ringing of the bell, not by the sight/smell of the food. The dogs had been conditioned to expect that one thing came with another; in this case, the ringing bell came with food.

Hitler’s speech elicits the audience’s emotional stimulus by saying that they are the power and future of Germany, so the crowd follows him and admire him without a valid reason.

The editing techniques used Riefenstahl often disorient the audience with quick shifts from angles and close-ups to long shots. This is again a technique used to give more power to the scene itself, with everything from a small crowd close-up to a huge stadium full of people screaming and worshiping their leader.

Transubstantiation is when a substance is, metaphorically, converted into another substance. An example would be how the Catholic church considers bread and wine to be the body and blood of Christ, respectively. In the context of the passage, Hitler was basically considered a God by the German people. Obviously, he wasn’t actually a God, but he was so renown that people actually considered him to be a mighty deity. The movie’s opening scene, where he descends from the clouds is representative of him descending from heaven. The movie transubstantiates his being, in representation of the German’s belief that he was their savior/god.

The word is perfect for the sequence because Hitler is landing from a plane. So “transubstantiated” has a literal meaning that is describing his action, but more importantly it has an implied meaning telling that Hitler is seen as the lord of the country.

Its ancient heroism through the medium of one man, Adolf Hitler, the savior. A example of this is at the beginning of the film with scenes which indicate Hitler’s arrival to the rally and the sequence consist of several aspect of dramatization. It shows the sky, then modern
architecture, marching, masses from Hitler’s point of view from the plane. The following scenes see Hitler exiting from the plane as the nation waits for him with sheer anticipation and enthusiasm.

There are many different things that come to mind when I hear this statement.

The first is ‘seeing is believing.’ A lot of media allows an individual to see whatever it is. In this case, the audience views clips of Hitler and his followers. Even though the film portrays a certain view, it is still a view that is physically in front of us. Because it is physically there, it is an actual event.

Another thing I think of is the idea that media keeps the masses stupid. Media is a form of entertainment. It captures our attention, and many times, keeps us from thinking too much into things. That being said, when media is persuasive, many are quick to accept that view. That can lead to mass belief, which in turn creates a pressure for everyone to believe in the same view.

It is how the population can be easily persuaded by it. This film being an example, if it wasn’t something that could’ve moved the masses then the Allies wouldn’t have arrested Riefenstahl for it. Hitler himself recognized the power of cinema (form of media) as an instrument of mass persuasion. Persuasion and Hitler go hand in hand, this is something I believe was one of the main characteristics he mastered, and ultimately gave him the power that he yearned.

Triumph of the Will is a powerful propaganda of Nazi Germany and the controversial leader Hitler. The author is using the word “dangerous” to describe the “power of the media” because the participatory power of documentary film can influence our believe of what is true and what is right. When the crowd in the film believes in Hitler in their heart, I almost thought that was the right thing to do. The shots present Hitler as a dedicated leader to his country. The power of the media is that media expand the film’s argument to a broader audience.

Media is a powerful influence on the public. The media can project emotional feelings, thoughts and opinions on to the viewer. Film is a form of media and can used to portray a positive message for the greater good or to convey a revolt and rebellion in the public. During the war they gained the trust of the people, through propaganda, to join the war willingly. This same tactic could backfire.

The power of the media allowed Leni Riefenstahi to go from a film star to a filmmaker. The media is powerful and allows viewers to become present in a world that is not tangible.

If the US was launching a Why We Fight propaganda campaign, I’m sure they said a lot of negative things about Hitler and Nazi Germany. I believe this is a case of actions speak louder than words – the US can say what they want about Germany but it is having the people really experience Hitler firsthand that will bring a real reaction. Screening Triumph of the Will puts the people of the US in Germany, experiencing Hitler as close to first hand as possible, which makes the US views of Hitler more genuine and easier for the people to stand behind. Without the power of the media during that time, the US citizens would have to rely solely on the word of the US government, which may not have elicited such a powerful response.

way Hitler was able to captivate and win-over so many people. His use of the media was brilliant in the sense that he was able to completely spin the actual occurrences into a seemingly positive, nationalistic effort. I think Hitler’s propaganda was the first time we were able to think in a modern way about how powerful the media is and how it can be used to extreme good and extreme bad.

With Triumph of the Will, the instruments of communication are in most cases the mass media but also include such things as views, ideas , influences and other techniques of interpersonal communication between Hitler, the audience and the viewers.

The film captures the moments of Nazi Germany that have great value for storing history for the future. She is successful as a documentary director. However, the topic she worked on could not escape from politics. The way she dealt with the camera angle gave Hitler a sense of superiority, so on the other hand, I think she was part of the Hitler’s publicity as well.

However, given the political views at that time and throughout the following years, Triumph Of The Will can be seen to symbolize the Nazi ethos of the time. Riefenstahl was an artist whose personal preoccupations were primarily artistic and technical, not political, but that her films were used by Hitler and the Nazi party for their own political gains.

The legend of the Gordian Knot involves a knot that was so tangled up, that nobody could untangle it. Alexander the Great eventually did, but only by taking his sword and cutting the knot in half. An ethical Gordian Knot is a interlocking of opposing morals and principles about a specific subject matter. Each one has their merits and shortcomings, and because of this there’s no right or wrong viewpoint. Because their is no right or wrong (i.e. no correct answer) the “knot” cannot be undone. The ethics behind Riefenstahl’s reasons for making this movie are extremely debatable, making it an ethical Gordian knot.

We cannot judge a film is right or wrong as there is no right or wrong answer to an ethical Gordian knot. Even though I see this film as a publicity tool for Hitler, we cannot say the film is wrong or bad. When a film directly speaks about politics, it is hardly a pure documentary anymore. The “profound meaning” that the author points out is that the film leaves people to judge with their own opinions.

The Gordian knot wanted films not to focus on morals and facts but suggest their is not right or wrong side on a subject. This links directly with the endless debate on wither Riefenstahl perceived notion of propaganda as the systematic attempt to manipulate the attitudes of others or she simply making a work of art for her of benefit.