Documentary Film April 1
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
WHY WE FIGHT: THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN
Why We Fight is a proper time capsule into the world of propaganda films in the WWII era.
The people getting out of the tunnel and going on with their lives as if nothing happened after a night of war seems really odd and unrealistic to me.
Realism is a relative term. To call something “real” means you have some basis of comparison and some sense of history, some understanding of the world the film depicts. In other words, you would need to know how people in London did react to the war by consulting other sources. Do you know? If not, find out.
When looking at documentaries that are of subjects that have taken place a long time ago it is certainly difficult to put yourself in the situation being explained. For example it is difficult to imagine how regular the wartime life became. In the same way today we have difficulty fully understanding documentaries and just news in general on subjects taking place in other countries.
In efforts to educate viewers, there is reenactment. To the original question posed, this reenactment is understood to be a degree of realism.
In the context of the film, the sense of realism is drawn by the reflection of how desensitized people became as a result of the war. Even though the war brought upon tragic events, people became numb to it because it was happening so often. Although it is not realistic to us to be reacting so apathetically, we must realize that these people have been living in war for a long time.
Realism is a term that is hard to define because we all have a concept of what’s real, but certain events like these make an observer feel as if it’s not real. The fact that people just went on with their daily lives after such a terrible night of war is crazy to the observer. The observer feels that there should be a collective remeberence or appreciation for what they went through as a way to ease all of that tension and violence. I think I agree with the observer in that it is odd that everything just went back to normal.
Very true, but in that specific case it seems unrealistic that the people would act in this way. Though stranger things have happened in history.
It is important to understand the predicament of the British people in order to be able to fully comprehend the reality portrayed in this film. In this context the people coming out and going back into the tunnels day in and day out whilst living their lives shows how durable the human spirit is, however in this case the British spirit. Even though it seems unrealistic to the audience, to them it was everyday life. It was either bend to the nazi reich or continue the lifeblood of their country.
I think the film shows really well how people all felt connected. They had the same purpose, a goal. The war build moral and was even an exciting time for some (for some women for instance, since they finally got to work instead of being home). They were all in this together. You see solidarity. So it is a propaganda film but in a great way, it compliments the people.
I feel like this is exemplative of all film and documentary. In the eyes of the observer isn’t always the eye that you want/need to see.
I think the film shows how the British lived during the wartime. Although the scenes of tunnels seem unrealistic to the audience, people who were going inside the tunnels and coming out show their everyday life and duties of citizens. They followed the orders just like soldiers.
In the film, you had people seeing war happen around them. But this is something they are used to now. They move forward, knowing what happened, but deciding it won’t keep them from progressing.
I think this film more focused on people’s live such as how they were connected and how they rebuilt their proper life-style again, even though they went through the harsh realities. The film did tell the truth but it didn’t include the part of tragedy.
The concept of realism can vary. In this case, realism pertains to the believability of the film is question. In this circumstance, the individuals navigating in and out of the tunnels periodically whilst existing, displays their endurance in the face of adversity. Conversely in this case the fortitude of the British spirit. Though these trails may seem impractical to the audience, it was reality to these folk.
Why does this film use a voiceover narrator?
While in certain films the narrator is used to sway the opinion of the viewer, in this case I feel it is used to just explain the images and reenactments. Although Riefenstahl would say that the images and reenactments speak for themselves.
While explaining the scenes and clips on screen, the narrator also sets an overall tone for the film. In other words the narrator is used to explain emotions and feeling attached to certain topics that may otherwise not be obvious .
Well just in general a male narrator sets a different tone than a female narrator. In what we have seen, the documentaries on world war II have a very serious, deep voiced narrator while Zelig had a goofy, fake news anchor type voiced narrator.
In this case I think she would say a narrator is unnecessary in telling the story. She would rely more on real life tell the story and the events and sounds of everything that happens tell the story, rather than to a narrator come in and narate to the viewer.
I think a voiceover narrator is used to defined a certain perspective. Although the voiceover was narrating facts and images, there are ways that narration can implicitly express views. I think Riefenstahl being a director of propaganda would support this— using narration to explain events but also using narration in a tone that can imply messages to define a perspective.
The film adopted the use of a voiceover in order to fully explain and identify the scenes. I also feel the film used a narrator to explain what was going on. In Riefenstahl films, there had not been any story line just many shots that were self explanatory and open to interpretation.
Our brain will recall the image quicker. visuals contribute to about 70% of our learning and recall. We will naturally remember an image more frequently as oppose to remembering what some one said. I believe and remember images more than words. Riefenstahl probably had this in mind
I’ve heard in the case of blog posts and digital marketing that people only read 20% of a page if there is just text, but retain 65% of the content three days if a picture is attached. So I’d say visuals have a lot to do with how we retain and absorb information.
Because it’s the authority, ‘God’, a propaganda film for the people from Britain, telling them how strong and indestructible their country is. Again: it gives this feeling of solidarity, power, “we’re all in this together”. I think that’s something that Riefenstahl achieved with her films as well. It’s something a good propaganda film does. (Action, not standing still.)
Riefenstahl would probably not like the voice over narration. She would think documentary film is first a film before it is a documentary. Having someone chronologically giving you the details of the scenes you’re being shown, which could break the entrancing quality that movies should have.
Riefenstahl would not recognize the power of narration. She would believe natural sound is the best way to create a documentary film. But, in the Battle of Britain, the narration described the sacrifice and courage of the British. For example, narrator gave numbers of airplanes to deliver news of the success of the British defenses.
I think it is abundantly clear that the narrator in this film is used to set the pro British tone. Although Riefenstahl didn’t use a narrator she was still able to set the pro Germany tone through her means of directing her films.
The reason why this film use a voice narrator is because it enhances the understanding of their cooperativity – like how they went through the war as acquaintances. But Riefenstahi seek harmony in the film to show what is living, so she would not use a voiceover narrator in this film because it controls the viewer’s judge.
Why We Fight is a time capsule that contains clips and examples of what everyday life was like during World War II in England. It covers all aspects of life and is like a time capsule because it feels as if this was a recent occurrence in Great Britain. The shot that makes it seem like it will stick with me for a while was the one of the backyard that slowly panned around to the fighter plane hidden in the bushes.
The history.
a time and place.
Propaganda is a part of history, but it has gotten a bad rap. Propaganda used to just mean marketing and advertising, but because of war and dictators, it has been used as a tool to brainwash and control people. Which can still be said about advertising.
This time capsule contains a very one sided representation of how the war went. Though it has clips from the German side, it predominantly focuses on the British struggle and how they had more spirit than the Germans. And that is why they won the battle. This film does not bother to explain the German experience or why they are fighting but only serves as a focused look on British nationalism.
The way the people in Britain were connected and all fighting for the same purpose: their brothers, their country. You have the scene with this persons from different ‘classes’ talking to each other (different in accents and the way they talk). I’m not sure but I think one of them used to be a writer, an advertiser or something. Now he’s fighting too. Everyone was in it together. That solidarity is captured.
After watching this film you see that Capra directed this film to show a history of events that ultimately shows the resilience and successful tactics by the British. For every German attack, British did not surrender but they kept on fighting and responded with winning attacks of their own. This is what Capra wanted the viewer to see, the ruthless behavior of Germany, which resulted in their own eventual demise and Britain’s victory.
I think what in the time capsule here is that comparison of British side and German side throughout the war.
Though in particular movies the narrator is used to influence the view of the audience, in this case I believe narration is used as a tool to illuminate the images and reenactments. I think Riefenstahl might state that the images and reenactments address the subject for themselves. I think a voiceover narrator is used to describe a specific perspective. Although the voiceover was narrating realities and pictures, descriptions can also fluently express views and agendas. I think Riefenstahl being a administrator of propaganda would encourage this
Given that this film was focusing more on “the people”, it was used to depict the everyday life of how people lived in Britain during the war.
And that script is subject to editing in itself. The type of film presented doesn’t really open itself to being totally objective.
I think in this case the narrator’s purpose was to convey facts and context that would not have been apparent from the footage alone
General Document Comments 0
How would you contrast the ideology of Triumph of the Will with Why We Fight?
Why We Fight was a much more watchable and down to everyday life style that was very factual. Triumph of the Will took a more artistic approach to documenting its subject with artistic cuts and long panning shots.
Triumph of the Will was made to show the strength of the Nazi party. Their image and power was meant to be boasted. In Why We Fight, however, the film is used to persuade Americans about involvment in the war. These are two very different uses.
However in Why We Fight, we see the experiences of Americans and their participation in the war, which gives off a more democratic presence.
The difference between these two films and their two ideologies they represent is pretty obvious. The answer is kind of intangible but I think it boils down to spirit and perspective. Triumph is supposed to detail the struggle of the German people but it ends up being a puff piece for the already unstoppable German army. It kind of fantasizes the German people and Hitler as if they are already gods. On the other hand we have the British. This film is much more about the climb of the collective people. Britain knew it was struggling at this point, the Germans had them out maned and had more tanks and planes, but somehow they held them off. This film expreses a great sense of spirit and comradery, you can feel the passion of the people. It’s really just about glorifying Germany for triumph.
While Triumph of the Will was very obviously filmed for propaganda romanticizing the power of Nazi Germany. This was intended to persuade people to follow Hitler’s fascists ideologies. However, why We Fight showed the other side of how people lived on a day-to-day basis as well as factual content. Also in Why We Fight, we learned more about the history of the war and why soldiers were fighting the war from the British point of view.
Triumph of the Will focuses on the greatness of the leader, Hitler and his power. The others adore him. It shows the power of Germany under Hitler’s power. Why We Fight shows the power of the people, the power of the nation, the Britains. I think that’s a very different ideology since the first one kind of wants you to follow a person and the second wants you to think for yourself.
I’d contrast the ideology of Triumph of the Will and Why We Fight in such a way that in Triumph of the Will it was more about power/dominance being the most important part of a country, projecting that message towards the people. While in Why We fight it was more about connectedness and helping themselves out, as the British people, to overcome hardships. The control of the Nazi’s in Triumph of the Will was a central focus, while in Why We Fight that control was shown as evil. For example how in Why We fight how the graph maps demonstrated how Germany’s Nazi party was taking over all the countries in Europe. Triumph of the Will’s message to the people was that you must benefit your country and take part in its focus of an extreme powerful force. In Why We fight it was more about peaceful democracy and helping each other out, while fighting against control/power hungry Germans. For the people themselves in Why We fight, they were all doing normal jobs in society to help strengthen their defense as the people against the Germans, in order to instill democracy as a success in the end. While in Triumph of the Will the German youth were shown as being prepared to overcome any boundary that would face Germany in terms of protecting their country’s extreme Nationalism and power. German youth were shown as idols for Germany, that the German youth should benefit the country no matter what, to be loyal to Germany. Same with the adult German public, during the rallies, heiling and idolizing Hitler’s messages as one entire mass of people. The defense against a collective threat, the Nazis, was a focus in Why We Fight, there was more of a feeling of justness concerning the civilian people in Why We Fight, as the British were fending off an extreme threat. The German people at rallies, as well as the German youth were shown as focusing on the continuation of the empowerment of the German country, while the people of Berlin were shown as focusing on the aid of one another to overcome a controlling threat.
Triumph of the Will glorified Hitler. Hitler was the person who was making Germany great and he will continue to do so as long as you continue to follow him. Why We Fight on the other hand was glorifying the average citizen. We are fighting not for the government but for ourselves. We must rely on our strength. Triumph of the Will Hitler out to be something above the average person, while Why We Fight made people like Churchill and the Queen the same as the local baker.
Both types of Propaganda films have the same purpose to persuade people. However, fascist propaganda film, for example, in Triumph of the Will, shows a worship of Hitler and the Nazis’ conquest of Europe. This film may manipulate Germans glorify Hitler. Democratic propaganda film, the Battle of Britain, encourages people by delivering factual war stories.
In Triumph of the Will, Riefenstahl sets out to show the political genius of Hitler and the Nazi party. This is before the war and probably added more power to Germany as she carefully showed the charismatic and attractiveness of Germany’s leaders. In Why We Fight we see the “spirit of Britain” through actions and a voiceover that emphasizes these heroic actions by the British people.
Triumph of the Will indicates fascist – German’s leader Hitler. He was leader, fascist and God to them. On one hand, Why We Fight indicates the democratic propaganda – in Britain, social position didn’t matter throughout the war. They fight together to win the victory.
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments