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 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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.