Documentary Film March 11
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
Documentary Film March 11
To call Leni Riefenstahl’s The Triumph of the Will and The Olympiad masterpieces is not to gloss over Nazi propaganda with aesthetic lenience. The Nazi propaganda is there. But something else is there, too, which we reject at our loss. Because they project the complex movements of intelligence and grace and sensuousness, these two films of Riefenstahl (unique among work of Nazi artists) transcend the categories of propaganda or even reportage. And we find ourselves—to be sure rather uncomfortably—seeing “Hitler” and not Hitler, the “1936 Olympics” and not the 1936 Olympics.
I think it has quotations because the movie is propaganda. So it shows you Hitler in a very scripted way, almost like a God, by that creating ‘Hitler’ and not the real Hitler. Also because there is sound added which is not the original sound and because everything is very well edited (different shots, panorama/close-up/low and high angle), it creates a different kind of Olympics, making it the ‘1936 Olympics’ instead of the real ones so to speak. By having shots of us being in the plane with Hitler or in his car, we get a different point of view then the people in the audience.
Reading Hitler vs. “Hitler” can have different connotations. Without the marks you are speaking about the man, the person and the dictator that ruled with an iron fist. Whereas when you add quotation marks you almost add a sense of an ideal. “Hitler Youth”, “Hitler’s Final Solution”, These are all things that create an idea that sprouted from the mind of this man but stemmed to other parts of society do this planning. When it comes to the “1936 Olympics” the same thing occurs. With the marks you are referring to a event in Nazi era where their ideal that the German purebred citizen was the greatest nationality in the world. Overall when you add the quotation marks you are referring to something in greater significance.
The film’s portrayal of the Nazis varied between a documentary and an ad campaign. We, the audience, saw a country who was proud and happy to be Nazis in this film. While watching the film, one of course begins to wonder how they could be so happy in starting a world war and committing hate crimes. If it were not for what we know now, the film could be considered a beautiful masterpiece. That will never be the case because one’s good conscience would not allow it to be held in that regard.
I think what quotation marks here indicate is that difference between Hitler that we know in history and Hitler that we see in this film.
I agree. We’re shown a Hitler from the perspective of Riefenstahl in regards to the film. He is able to paint the picture of both Hitler and the 1936 Olympics in whatever light he saw fitting: which was in a positive light, opposite of what is known from history
I think that both “Hitler” and “1936 Olympics” are a specific character and a specific event, which seems to be created by Leni Riefenstahl. Riefenstahl uses these two specific contents to represent reality for Nazi propaganda.
“Hitler” and “1936 Olympics” are in quotation marks because in the film Hitler was shown but not image of Hitler we usually think about. Triumph of the Will shows the Hitler that was revered by his people, smiling and waving from his car, instead of the Fuhrer we know. As for the 1936 Olympics, Riefenstahl focused on the athletes of the Olympics, instead of the racial conflicts that society remembers the Olympics had that year.
The 1936 Olympic Games took place during a controversial period of time that went on to become one of the greatest tragedies/travesties ever to occur in the world. This was not presented in the film. It wasn’t even acknowledged. Clever editing would make one believe that the time period smelled like roses. This is why real vs “real” is important when it comes to distinguishing the two.
Through Riefenstahl’s genius as a filmmaker, the “content” has—let us even assume, against her intentions—come to play a purely formal role.
I think by this they mean because it is a documentary you could show at political parties or screenings at school or something like that. It is formal in a way that you see how Hitler behaves, what kind of powerful person he is and how people adore(d) him. You do not see shots of him getting ready to go to bed or struggling with his power or something like that. They show you a purely formal setting.
This can mean that the content (the substance and material that originates from the nazi movie) in its use creates and provides form to the movie. The content allows a form of rebirth and authority to both Hitler and his people. For Hitler it adds a right to rule due to what he is doing for his people, whereas for his people the authority to believe they are the best people on the world.
So again we see the content playing a purely formal role in order to convey one story, like is Nanook of the North.
I agree with Kim Brands. The documentary is only showing how powerful and admired Hitler was by the German citizens, the film maker was not going to show personal details of Hitler.
The content in Riefenstahl’s film takes on a formal role in that it is carefully constructed to fulfill an objective. Although “documentary,” this is also a propaganda film in which content is preconceived and executed accordingly to fit the objectives that the film is trying to project (pro-nazi / pro hitler sentiments.)
Her format of this film was easier for the audience to what comes next.
What is actually taking place in the film is serving a purpose to glamorize Hitler, the Nazi Party, and Germany, whether the viewer knows it or not. That is the formal role the scenes and content in the film is playing.
I think using “Hitler” that does not exist indicates how she plays a purely formal role. She tries to manipulate the audience’s perceptions by creating a specific character, “Hitler,” and thus turn the audience’s perception about “Hitler” into Hitler, the real person, in the same way.
Fascist aesthetics include but go far beyond the rather special celebration of the primitive to be found in The Last of the Nuba. More generally, they flow from (and justify) a preoccupation with situations of control, submissive behavior, extravagant effort, and the endurance of pain; they endorse two seemingly opposite states, egomania and servitude. The relations of domination and enslavement take the form of a characteristic pageantry: the massing of groups of people; the turning of people into things; the multiplication or replication of things; and the grouping of people/things around an all-powerful, hypnotic leader-figure or force. The fascist dramaturgy centers on the orgiastic transactions between mighty forces and their puppets, uniformly garbed and shown in ever swelling numbers. Its choreography alternates between ceaseless motion and congealed, static, “virile” posing. Fascist art glorifies surrender, it exalts mindlessness, it glamorizes death.
I think the parts where Nazi’s give a speech about Hitler at this huge conference or something like that. They talk about ‘one country’, ‘a great nation for all Germans’ and ‘everything for Germany.’ Also when Hitler is visiting this labor camp with all the people standing there with shovels, he names that every work is equal, it is all important. ‘One person, one country’ and you could almost add ‘one mission’ and ‘one vision’. I think those examples, so the things you hear in the speeches and how you see everyone is cheering for the same leader/person, show how this documentary, this fascist art, glorifies surrender, exalts mindlessness and glamorizes death.
Everything from the fly over of Nuremberg to the Olympics add substance to this last sentence. Displaying so many people adoring the “Hitler” image (a image that shows him as magnificent and the savior of the German people) at his parades, speeches and events show how it is not just a normal man but the idea behind the man. By having this man portray himself as a savior it allows for the idea of fascism to blossom and take root in the minds of the German people because they are coming from a period where inflation was high, they were humiliated and reduced to a nation that was obligated to repair the damages from the First World War.
its seems logical for them to give back, no matter how/what they must do.
I don’t believe that the Nazi’s got to leave a carefree life. I think the film portrayed it to be that way but in reality it was quite the opposite. I think that death was glamorized here because they were “taught” to worship their country and their leader. Dying for their country and their leader meant that they were doing something right and I think this is how it came to be glamorized.
The film glorified mindlessness and surrender specifically in the boys camp scene. The boys were alive, free, and playful. They also wrestled with each other and pinned each other down, showing playful, yet competitive behavior. As for glamorizing death, I would say the flyover and Hitler’s speech did the trick. The film in beginning with the plane were scenes of surrender and triumph. They were reminiscent of planes dropping bombs. Hitler’s scene took a turn in the film because this is where the film is no longer playful or artful. Those men looked as if they were prepared to die.
I think how people are listening to the speech about Hitler exalts mindlessness here. This means that they are brainwashed to believe that what Hitler was doing is the best and there are no better one. Also making them believe to devote their lives to Hitler is what they can do best. That is the meaning of glamorizing death.
I think when you see the people of Germany standing and listening it shows the mindlessness they possess, despite how believable Hitler sounds, they should have been able to use their own minds instead of just acting like puppets to his words and commands. Since they weren’t using their own minds, they were figuratively ready to walk through fire for this man.
I think that the film is created to manipulate the audience’s perceptions. Exalting Hitler is assumed as a kind of image making. It glamorizes death, and thus it makes people control with any circumstances such as entering a war as a military solider.
Aesthetically things seem to be fine, but in the end the devastation will always occur and the bad will always lose.
Triumph of the Will focuses on shot selection especially when Hitler is conducting his speeches.
The word ‘conducting’ is well chosen because that is definitely what Hitler did. He had control over everything, organized and carried out a certain message and vision. I think the documentary wants to show a good and stable country and that all because of Hitler. It wants to show that people love him, that Germany will never have problems again if you choose his side. In those speeches you see everyone listening at him, as one nation, all together, same vision, etc. It all looks very well organized (but propaganda is of course very well thought of).
They were many shots in Triumph of the Will, with each putting forth a message. “Conducting” is the appropriate verb to use because of what Hitler was doing when he gave his speeches. To conduct means to organize and carry out – and this is what exactly Hitler did. His speeches were organized to captivate and motivate the audience to such a degree that it caused them to blindly be filled with motivation to follow Hitler and the third Reich. By being in tune with the emotions of his audiences and how to move them to different mindsets is similar to the way a orchestra follows the conductor.
Not only were his speeches powerful and motivating but also captivating the masses was the fact that his propaganda made it seem as if everyone he spoke to immediately supported him. It was this classic case of conforming just because everyone else was when in reality there was a large portion of the country looking elsewhere for leadership.
I think the word “conduct” is especially well chosen because that is in fact what Hitler did; he “conducted” his speeches. Hitler was able to get everyone to watch him, listen to him, and follow his every action. Hitler is the conductor and Germany was his orchestra.
I think it is interesting to compare the propaganda films we watched in class and to compare them to the medias portrayal of the presidency candidates. The media today can twist and blur the truth in their reports the same way the documentaries do by showing only what they want and with the upcoming election nearing we will see more and more of this in the news.
The shot selection was rather brilliant because the shots were taken as if we, the audience, were accompanying Hitler. A key scene was the shot of the car tour. The camera was to Hitler’s back most of the scene as he was waving, as if we, the audience were waving too. When he conducted his speeches,we were forced to look up, as if we were soldiers. Riefenstahl captured the emotions of her subjects and forced it upon us.
Triumph of the Will focuses on shot selection by romanticizing Hitler in a way that perceives him as a savior for Germany. “Conduct” was a well chosen word because it showed that Hitler knew how to execute his objectives in a way that would persuade people to believe in his Nazi mission. Since Hitler was a very strong oral presenter, Riefenstal’s inclusion of his speeches contributed to the propaganda effect of persuading people to glorify Nazi Germany.
The word “conduct” is well chosen here because there are many scenes that we see through Hitler’s back. When orchestra play music we won’t see conductor’s front, but always back. In film, there are many shots as if viewers are standing right behind of him. And Hitler also conduct/control people’s mind to create one big belief.
The shot selection, first you see the passionate, charismatic Hitler preaching his message to his country and then you see the people standing there, listening carefully and enamored by his remarks. Hitler is the conductor as he is in total control over his people, his pawns.
The film may not view his followers as just pawns but I do because these followers we know would die for Hitler and many of them did. Hitler must have known he had this control over them. Pawns are expendable and I think all of Hitler’s followers were expendable besides himself and his main goals.
I think the word “conducting” is well chosen. When Hitler was making a speech, he looks like a maestro of a huge orchestra. Military officers are musician, and people are music instruments. Military officers follow Hitler’s order, and people follow military officer’s order, which comes from Hitler.
Hitler was like a conductor when he made his speeches. He stood in the middle, wagging his arm around, keeping the entire Nazi party focused on the goal. This is like a conductor keeping an orchestra on rhythm. Everyone has to be on the same page as the conductor.
The film made it seem like Hitler was the father the citizens didn’t realize they had or wanted. That he had their wellbeing in mind when he made his decisions. That he was there for them even when he wasn’t physically present.
The close-up shots of Hitler are from below, so that we have no choice but to “look up” to him as we watch. The camera than pans over his vast, spellbound audience to show the extent of his power, the way they clamor for their leader, and the soldiers that carry out his orders.
The word “conduct” is especially fitting for Hitler because of the style of his speeches. In the sense that he is the focal point. He demands attention and his audience like a conductor to an orchestra.
There is no narrative in Triumph of the Will. This leaves the audience to view Hitler any way they please instead of using a narrator that will influence the scenes.
In present day, we obviously are privy to Hitlers path of evil. Albeit many years ago, Im sure people knew what was going on as well. The perspective of the film paints Hitler in a grandiose, leadership role, because thats what he was to some people, and probably to the director of this film. If you were aware of who he was, watching this movie, you’d probably think he was a positive person.
I agree there is no denying the charismatic, manipulative skill set, and persuasive abilities Hitler possessed but he mainly came off as a positive person to Germany. They were vulnerable and Hitler took advantage of that.
I think that since I am viewing this film today with knowledge of what actually occurred after the events of film, I can see their vulnerability. But if I was a viewer watching the film when it was released I don’t think I would see the vulnerability of the Nazi party. In fact, I think Riefenstahl does a good job disguising the vulnerability of the Nazi party by overshadowing any signs of that with the grandness of the leaders of the Nazi party and Hitler, of course. What are the people attending the Nazi rallies supposed to do when they are witnessing such powerful and great speeches?
The words you use are the appropriate words, “If you were aware of who he was”. Because many weren’t. But again, what if you’ve actually never heard of him? and yes many view and thought of him a highly favored being.
It allows for the audience to see the significance of what hitler was to his people— godlike. The german crowds seemed to be in awe of him and would focus all their attention on him as his presence commanded. Without words to guide the piece, you get a scope on how Hitler was both revered as a savior from death to Germany, but also as a commander who expected to be followed.
Even without narrative there is much to infer from the rapt faces of Hitler’s audience, the airplane flying through the crowds, the soldiers in perfect formation, the trumpets playing, and the swastika flags lording over the crowds. The message is triumph and power and the supposed unification of a nation.
I think now we do, because we know what happened afterwards. It is history. I think when the documentary came out, it was way more difficult to view Hitler in any way you wanted. It is a propaganda movie and it appeared in a time where the Nazi’s and Hitler were very powerful already. I think this documentary did a good job in showing you Hitler’s power and the stability of Germany. So I do not really agree, I think now it is easy to say what a bad man he was, but in that time, it might not have been as easy to recognize it already (not to say the people who choose Hitler’s side were good people but just to point out that even if there is no narrative, there can still be a very well scripted story that can convince a lot of people).
It is also interesting to see how Hitler would interact with people in the crowd. He would seem very welcoming to women and children, shake their hands, and a couple times even saw him smiling. Did people actually take a liking to Hitler or were most just afraid of him?
The audience is not free to view Hitler anyway it pleases. Simply, seeing the film, if you were against Hitler, how would you be able to go publicly against him? By seeing the film that he masterminded you would see how many people, politicians and workers support him and attend his events just to see him. The way he speaks to the German people, the German workers and the German Nationalist Socialist party all show that the majority of Germans are with their leader. And that leader is portrayed by this film to be straight forward thinking, loving of his nation and ruthless in the pursuit of excellence for the German Reich.
beliefs but was scared to step out of line and go against what seemed to be “the norm” because then he would become a target. So, while we watch these men follow Hitler, we also consider the reality that not everyone may have been on his side because they believed it was the the right thing, but rather, for survival.
It was through Hitler’s lead that helped to restore life into the city, so it helped create his following among those he saved. He represented a change and a voice of reason through the trials and tribulatons, so following and being loyal to his ways seemed as a just way to stay at pease for the believers.
I think that if you do not know the history of Hitler, you would not necessarily see him in a bad light in this film. If you simply know him from this documentary, you would never know that he was responsible for all of the mass murders. However, sine I am aware of the history of Hitler, we are able to pick up on signs; his forceful nature, and his demanding personality. Eventually, you can see all of the signs coming out leading up to the person we know him to be. With that being said, I don’t that you will ever be able to view him in any other way.
Was it true adoration or was it more adoration out of fear?
I could see both sides. But given his personality is stands to reason that it was more out of fear.
I think the majority of people at these rallies were dedicated and faithful followers/servants of Hitler. These were Nazi faithful, nevertheless it doesn’t represent how the entire Germany felt about him.
This goes back again to not knowing. Some civilians certain parts of the world even today still doesn’t know who he is. Some back then didn’t know he exist as well
Any scene with hitler showed dominance. He did not prefer any less. He was saluted and recognized in every scene. In all of the shots involving hitler, you were either behind him or below him. The Nazis filmed were either excited or focused on the Nazi mission. There was no other option presented.
Yes absolutely, we are free to view this dictator through whichever lens we wish. Despite the image of hitler that the world promoted he could in fact be viewed differently. The film maker and the shots captured were 100% in the interest of Hilter, therefore people who are have not been educated about Hilter will have a different perspective. I completed elementary school in the Caribbean, I also completed grades 7,8,9 there. Believe it or not nowhere in my global studies/history through that time period included information about Hilter. Therefore, if I viewed this film immediately after moving to the US I would have a different view of who this fuhrer was.
Also based on my analysis, in theory the shots illustrates the narrative possible intentions- if there was one. That is, Hilter’s flaws and ‘’the bad Hilter’ as many know him-were somewhat blurred, not omitted.
Ok yes. I agree. However, I have questions. Should one listen to how Hitler was praised in the film? Or overall. If you are referring to how he was praised in the film or through various sources? Either one will generate different and complex views/theories via the audience that he/she wishes to subscribe to. Therefore, the audience is completely free to view this man however they please. Despite his evilous actions didn’t he bring joy to some human beings? Despite his causation of WWII, isn’t that part of the reason the US decided that the ideology of isolationism isn’t the best one to go with?(isolationism-as it regards to international relations and its history).
I’m only aiming to demonstrate how complex answers to your initial questions can be approached. Of course the film shows one thing but human intelligence along with human reactions will generate many different views. My point is one can view another however they please, this is done through analyzing the awareness and actions that individual thus causing the complexity of views of that individual.
Yes I understand what you are saying now. Yes pretty coherent.
After watching the film, the audience is free to view Hitler any way it wants— based on the audience’s extent of prior knowledge of Hitler. Given the limited content that only exposes and spreads one-sided propaganda on Nazi Germany, it is hard for audience members who do not know any better to look at Hitler in a negative light. Riefenstahl did a good job in depicting Hitler as Germany’s savior in maintaining a “pure” and “strong” country, but her exclusion of Hitler’s insidious actions (mass genocide) skew’s the audience’s perception of Hitler.
Well again, what about those who have never heard of this guy? what evidence do they have?
I’m not sure if I can agree with that the audience is free to view Hitler any way it wants. It’s true that without the narration and knowledge of history, the audience might feel that this “Hitler” is “powerful good leader” in the film. But I think this film shows the blindness and mindlessness of Nazi’s, and tells the view of what we are not familiar with. Making the “Hitler” unrealistically best leader for mass leaves uncomfortable feeling to the audience.
I believe that back then this film was made strictly for the people of Germany to make them idolize their leader. A German person back then that thought of Hitler’s regime as neutral, could start to like it a bit more after watching this film. These messages of a strong German country, that is brave and obedient, radiated itself strongly with the German people. Although some messages portrayed in this film were bad, the way in which Hitler says them inspired the people nonetheless. That’s all that mattered to them. The strong emotion was for the people of Germany, and the Nazi party’s true motives were hidden behind the curtain. And when WW II started, his previous messages were put to an extreme when the Nazi party targeted Jews for extermination. Even if some of Hitler’s messages before the war seemed inspirational to the audience, to create a strong country, when the war started many Germans who might have seen this documentary in 1935-1939 would change their mind immediately due to what was happening during the war.
It’s interesting because the fact that their is no narrator might give a viewer the idea that okay there isn’t a narrator trying to lead you down the path of Hitler but in fact that is still what the film is truly doing. To say that the audience can view Hitler in any way they please is really not true because the way Riefenstahl orchestrated and directed this film was done in a way that leads the audience into viewing Hitler in a positive way.
I do not think the audience is free to view Hitler any way it wants. Although the film has no strong narration, it is made for the German to worship their supreme leader. It shows Hitler’s demands for obedience, and the Germans are welcome to him in the film.
Riefenstahl has certainly done a very good job in terms of showing the aesthetics of Germany and its culture.
It shows Germany as a stable and organized country. A nation where there is no disagreement and everybody helps each other. Work is equal, Hitler is a winner, and so on. I think it really captures Germany’s culture for a big part during that time. Examples would be the ‘conversation’ between Hitler and the people in the German labor camp with the shovels. They do not look like if they just made this speech up or arrived five minutes before it started. It looks solid and presentable and I think that is really how Hitler wanted the message of the film to be.
Th e more interesting aspect to Hitler and his rise to power was how during his political campaign he was just another candidate running, though much more influential. Having a family that comes from Germany it is eye-opening to see photos of Hitler in parades as just another photo in the album. Which shed light on just how much propaganda and his pure persuasion through public speaking made it seem as if the whole country were behind him.
I think that if you are viewing this film, its easy to generalize Germany into being a country where no one has an opposing viewpoint, a country where you worship the ideology of one man, etc. and it is hard to see everything else that Germany had to offer.
It is a culture of unity and progressiveness towards a bright and vibrant future Germany. Everyone in Germany at the time remembers the life their country lived following the first world war. Now you have Hitler who is portrayed to be a man that has taken Germany from its low point and is anchoring it up to a new time of prestige, unity and advancement.
It is a symbol that is everywhere and represents power, unity and perhaps even surveillance.
what do you mean by surveillance? I honestly don’t understand. I get how it represent culture, dignity and patriotic values, but surveillance?
The focus of the film was Germany restoring its pride again. Germany was broken but now they will rise again. Didn’t matter if the entire country wasn’t with the Nazis, they wanted you to feel proud to be German again.
Exactly Deja, I agree we see how Germany is a country that has done what it has to do with or without Hitler. Germany proved to be a rising power and worried many in the second WW under Hitler but to some degree it caused so many chaos in past without Hitler’s presence
What I could see in this film was how the entire Germany followed “Hitler” and created the huge power of unity. This one country’s solidarity is the aesthetics of German culture presented in the film.
I think it is the grandness of Germany that is represented in the film. When you see so many people attending the speeches by Hitler and cheering, it is sort of beautiful, especially seeing all of the soldiers. This is the aesthetics of Hitler and Germany’s power.
I think that Riefenstahl exactly portrays the German party rally at that time. This political campaign should be assumed as one of the significant moments, which shows the German culture.
We mentioned in class that the film shows Hitler riding in a plane at the beginning of the film to display the greatness of German engineering. The plane also comes in handy to show the architecture of Germany. When it flies over the town, you get a great view of all the houses and buildings in the town.
We are showed the flag through numerous to represent a solidarity formed under the Hitler regime that has restored the faith and pride of the followers to bring the city back up from ts downfall.
General Document Comments 0
Possibly to show respect and importance in first quotations but after certain time period or after certain event that importance and respect was lost? I’m just trying to take stab at it here I may be wrong
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments