At the end of The Way We Live, people who have lived and experienced life after war are motivated to rebuild their own city as it is their home. The focus on the “youth power” represents people gather up for their own bright future. In Triumph of the Will, the mass marching shows German people’s belief and faith in Hitler. They march for their leader but not for the future of themselves.

The people choose to march in THE WAY WE LIVE; by doing so, they are expressing their opinions. In TRIUMPH OF THE WILL, it is military. They are doing it because they were ordered to do so.

While the mass rituals supported one voice.

By the war and its immediate aftermath, the assembly of people in The Way We Live had Craigie emphasis on integrating continuity and changes a community coming together for a brighter future. In Triumph of the Will Riefenstahl’s captures Hitler’s strict image of absolute discipline and unconditional obedience of the organizational of loyal people.

The assembly of people at the end of “The Way We Live” was organized to be a passionate march to bring together the people of Plymouth. The people of Plymouth are coming together after a time of suffering but, they are still showing that despite what had happened. In “Triumph of the Will”, during this march they are organized in a structured forum. The Nazi party projected power and organization. The people of Plymouth showed community and pride.

The marching scene starts with teenagers marching, and the expert says “youth… I forgot how impatient they can be.” This means that the start of the march is because the youth of Plymouth want to see change. They are marching of their own free will, not the will that a dictator has instilled in them. They want to rebuild, and are carrying signs that say things like “a theater” and “a classroom,” showing the things that THEY would like to see happen.

The marching in Triumph of the Will is marching that is instilled in the people. They are marching for a different cause… for a dictator and the start of a terrible war. It’s almost as if they are marching for destruction in Triumph of the Will, and reconstruction in The Way We Live.

In The Way We Live, the marching are self-driven by the people. They are doing it for themselves. Its democratic. For example: The sign says “BIGGER HOUSES for (drawing of people).”

In Triumph of the Will, soldiers and people are marching for Hitler because Hitler portraits himself as their savior. Its fascism. For example: The hands are for Hitler.

I will state the obvious first. The march in The Way We Live are a group of all woman, whereas in Triumph of the Will it is a group of all men. This may not seem like a big deal, but women marching is a form of expression in this film and is not something you see often in films during this time.

In Triumph of the will the march was masculine, powerful, and symbolized hierarchy and strength. In The Way We Live, the march was a protest, which is a huge difference. In Triumph of the Will the march was mandated, in this film it is a choice.

In Triumph of the Will, they spend a significant amount of time on the Hitler youth and their ability to make improvements to an already powerful Germany. They were used as a means to focus on a hopeful future. In showing the parades of youth carrying those signs about their approval for the redevelopment plan, the movie does the same thing.

The Way We Live leads to this motivational way of being for the people. Something like a new start to life. In Triumph of the Will, it is as if a celebrity has been intorduced. Although during the time it was as if Hitler was a celebrity. The tone of the mass marching paint two very different stories. One of new life and the other of obsession.

Also, urban planning is the focus of the film. It involved and encouraged urban sprawl that might be hard to accept by the audience at the time. The reconstruction would demand heavy labor and intensive use of money. These could cause a lot of pressure on the citizens.

In extension to what another student wrote (Jing Zhang). I also believe the reason why people would boo the film was because of the way the City Center would wipe out any other competition. Businessmen who ran small markets/delis/etc. would no longer be able to stay in business if the center would open. Everyone would simply go to the City Center where they could find everything they needed.

Documentary or ‘serious’ films capitalize on WW2 mostly receive negatively because it was “too soon” for people to disgust the experience they may have saw. It was much later that these films were praised.

The audience went to the film to be entertained. The film focused on the reconstruction of the city but, the audience may not have expected the work and money needed to be put in effort.

People sometimes go to the cinema to escape from their world for a little while. The reconstruction of a town in one’s own country, though important, does not serve as any sort of escape or entertainment. In some cases it may have even brought the issue closer to them than had they not even gone to the cinema. This is a pretty serious film and is mostly for informative purposes, so somebody seeking out entertainment would not be enthralled when the chronicling of post-war reconstruction pops up on the screen.

Craigie did not impose too much of her own ideas. Rather, as the director, she served as “an interpreter” and conveyed the experts’ (architects, the town councilors, and politicians)plans for rebuilding Plymouth. The plans of the experts were delivered in a very practical way with the scenes of professional presentations.

On the locals’ side, Craigie brilliantly managed the effect of character acting versus the real-life issues. Even though “the locals” in the film were fictional characters and played by actors, they effectively elicited sympathy towards the postwar problems they were facing.

Even though Craigie did not wanted her ideas, the town planners and here were both motivated by public service indispensables. The narrative of a journalist played by Peter Willes on the population in pursuit of an expression of public opinion.

Craigie wanted to reflect the views of the people of Plymouth and the struggle they want through. Craigie focused on the locals to express their will to continue on with their lives. Craigie wanted to include her views but, not take away from the locals.

I felt like, although there was a pretty clear and concise plan in the works for the redevelopment, the bureaucracy of it all was pushed in a way that was having a detrimental effect on its possible approval. Some government officials approved, while others did not, and this deadlock of opposing opinions was a means of both showcase how the redevelopment plan was never going to go anywhere in the hands of the government and also the power of the local populace. By making it clear that nothing was going to get done on the political side of things, when they finally showed the parades of youth who approved of the plan, it let the audience know that this redevelopment depends on what the people want, not the government.