If I am getting this right, my understanding is that fascism is where one leader controls a state and collectivism is where the state is controlled/ruled by specific belief. Both believe in the idea that the nation is more important than the individual and that each person must act in a way that benefits the nation.

If my understanding is correct, Capra could be both because both have the base idea to be nationalistic. But when it comes to the closer details, I do not think Capra could believe 100% in both ideas.

Capra has made films that range from the concept of proto fascism to collectivism. Even though his films have a political sense, each one introduces different ideas.

Proto fascism is the “prototype” of fascism i.e. a model. It’s a set of political beliefs or practices that can potentially become full blown fascism. The practice of having a governmental figurehead (which most, if not all, governments have) is an example of this because figurehead’s have the potential to become dictator’s, (an essential component of a fascist government) if their power is not checked in some way. Collectivism is a belief system which emphasizes a collective interdependent mind set. Everyone depends upon everyone else in order to make the system work. Capra’s documentary sanctions a major component of both proto-fascism and collectivism in how much it emphasizes how the British are all working together toward a singular goal. Both of these systems emphasize this idea, a united power working together toward a common goal and Capra must have really believed in this to have nailed it into the film as much as he did.

Capra made his primary focus the creation of “one basic, powerful idea”, following the bible, he compile enemy speeches, films, newsreels, newspaper articles, with a list of the enemy’s hostile actions to expose the enemies with their own images. A whole nation is influence by individuals for the sake of power, being a positive or negative medium.

First we need to understand what proto fascism and collectivism mean.
The prefix “proto” means something that develops into something. An egg, for example, is a proto-chicken. The evolutionary ancestors of man are called proto-humans. A proto-fascist is someone who advocates political ideas that could become fascism – like a president who imprisons people without habeas corpus, or who believes the Constitution is “just a goddamned piece of paper.” The definition of fascism is to be living under a dictatorship; living oppressed and under someone else’s beliefs without having your own freedom and limited rights. Collectivism, however, is any system/society/belief/etc., which holds a group to higher importance than the individual.

Capra could thus be both a proto fascist and a collectivist, because he strongly believed in American ideas and culture, but he did not forget his Italian roots. He is a nationalist patriot that believes in freedom, who in his college years believed he had transformed from an alley rat to a cultured person (the journey from Italy to the U.S.). This is very well reflected in the way he executed or begins his film “how we fight” with the statement: “this is a fight between a free world and a slave world.” The fact that he on one side showed what was going on in Europe (where Germany was in war with France, Britain, Russia etc., and Japan – ruled by a dictatorship), and on the other side showing how America, during WWI, improved the lives of the working man by passing laws that would give them such opportunity to do so, shows that Capra could be both a fascist and a collectivist.

Capra could be both believe in both of these because they both contain similar notions. In both proto-fascism and collectivism the leader or leaders make decisions that are “supposed” to benefit the community and the individuals all together. When the person or people in charge make a decision the people in society have to follow it for the “good” of everyone else.

The difference between proto fascism and collectivism is the value of ideas. In collectivism is the ideas of a group and the priority of each person in the group. Proto fascism is a movement that leans toward or imitates fascism. Capra used both of these ideas in his film to be able to convey his political views.

Protofascism is a political movement or program tending toward an organized society where the government is ruled by dictatorship and where people are not allowed to disagree with the government.

Collectivism on the other hand is a political or economic system where government owns businesses,lands, and companies.

Capra can be both a protofascism and a collectivist because as a film maker he is part of an organized dictatorship society that controls the people through his film, and he could also be receiving help producing the film from a political cooperation or affiliate.

The following sentence says “but war and talent transcend consistently,” and that seems to is the case with Capra. Society was ’"movie mad" and they believed whatever they saw on theater which made room for Capra to be both a protofascist and a collectivist.

I think that the film’s narrative is inspired by Riefenstahl. Triumph of the Will shows a lot of people in power giving speeches that rally the audience. The narrator in Why We Fight follows the same concept; speaking lines that create this perfect image of Britain and its people.

In addition to that, Riefenstahl’s film shows many visuals of the Nazi party in formation. Riefenstahl wants to show their efficiency and obedience. Capra also worked off those visuals and focused on Britain’s citizens to also show their efficiency and obedience, not for a person but for a nation.

In Triumph of the Will, Riefenstahl had many shots capturing the crowd listening to Hitler’s speech. The shots show their dedication and belief in their nation. Same in Why We Fight, there are many jump-cuts showing people’s preparation for the war. Their moves tell their inner thinking. They devote themselves to their country’s victory.

Capra discussed how Triumph of the Will “fired no gun, dropped no bombs. But as a psychological weapon aimed at destroying the will to resist, it was just as lethal”. I think this idea was equally as terrifying as it was inspiring for Capra. I believe he borrowed, among technical things, this idea from Riefenstahl. His film is not riddled with blood and murder, but with the spirit of democracy. He tries to instill a positive, loyal feeling in the audience, just like Riefenstahl tried to instill a positive, obedient feeling in her audience. This is the main similarity I see in the films, but some visual things were similar as well. There are certainly a lot of shots in both films where the audience feels like they are in the crowd, in the car, right in the middle of the action. Both directors make a conscious effort to make sure the audience feels a part of the experience (which seems very important in propaganda filmmaking). They’re not trying to create someone else’s story for you to watch, they’re trying to show you a story that you can be a part of.

Both Triumph of The Will and Why We Fight, are extreme examples of a films potent potential to promote Nationalism. Triumph of The Will, although heavily focused on its deity-like figurehead, promoted a unified Germany thought the speeches and organization of the German populace and its leadership. Although Why We Fight isn’t as grand in its words and spectacle, it does exactly the same by showcasing the will and work ethic of a British populace who are caught in the mix of an intense war that has come to their doorstep.

That was able to gain support of the people in the United States.

Capra borrowed from Riefenstahl the use of fascism in the films. The use of the group of people that run the state and have overall power is strongly used in both films. Capra also used this to give a sense of civilization in the film for the Americans.

Capra used narration in his film, whereas, Riefenstahl did not include narration in Triumph of the Will but included voice overs of speeches.

I think Capra revisited a lot of techniques that Riefenstahl used such as shots from a plane overseeing the ground, a shot of an eagle statue which was also a symbol of power in Riefenstahl film, and also shots of actual events occurring in both still and moving shots. Capra also shot sequences where he would go entirely around an object or person like Riefenstahl did.

Capra and Riefenstahl both show the resilience and passion people have for what they believe in. In Why We Fight being, the support the British people as a nation for their troops and the hope for a good outcome in the war and in Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will being, the admiration people have solely for Hitler.

Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will shows how one person can take power and make thousands of people support him. Capra showed the efficiency of the people to grab power and put it towards what they feel is best for the people, rather than a specific person. As we had discussed in class last week, Triumph of the Will shows a leader that would not be able to come into power in America because we never view ourselves as subjects. It goes back to the debate of a democracy rather than a dictatorship. Because of this, when Capra borrowed from Riefenstahl, it seemed as though it was to poke holes in the argument rather than encourage it.

Capra was able to present the glory of Germany in a different light, one of fanaticism and diabolical devotion to a dictator.
Why We Fight and Triumph of the Will have propaganda techniques that are symbolic of the individuals during World War II. They reflect common racial stereotypes, upright moralist tendencies, and individualist natures that were present during this time period.

Capra wanted the American people to unit together and by showing what the axis powers have done and what was going on at the time. The axis power wanted to establish the same unity for their people as they fought the allies.

It is interesting that the comparison between something evil and dictatorial and a filmmaker can be made in the first place, but it is arguable that both of them had the same goal. The Axis powers wanted their countries to be the “best darn” countries ever and Capra wanted to create the “best darn documentary films ever”. However, what Capra truly did was create a documentary film that unified the American people, as the reviewer argues, for the first and last time. By showing how evil the Axis powers cruelty in his blunt way, Capra got the support of the American people for the war. By showing that the British were unprepared, Capra proves to the American people that they are needed because the other top power at the time couldn’t be entrusted with “saving” the Allies, America needed to step in. Also, as the reviewer mentioned, Stalin and Chiang Kai-shek were made to be heroes because Capra knew that the Americans needed to come in on the Allies side so you cannot really show the cruelties of Stalin and gain support for his side.