Most recent public comments by William Prystup https://nowcomment.com/users/20384 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=520938 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=520938 I think the role of natural sound in this film is to separate and distinguish different emotions. For example a bombing runs sound gives the viewer an intense feeling, while when the firefighters aren't in action, they're acting casually before they have to go to work. That gives the viewer a feeling of calmness. That to me represents how fast emotions can change in a situation of war. From casual jokes while eating to complete alertness. I believe that was an incentive when creating this film. Sat, 14 May 2016 07:58:26 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=509975 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=509975 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. Fri, 15 Apr 2016 07:47:53 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=509900 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=509900 Perhaps but the way I see it is as long as it's natural in terms of how it was made it's in a way natural technology. For example a beaver's den made for shelter. Fri, 15 Apr 2016 07:46:25 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=509895 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=509895 High as in showing exactly what he's personally feeling with the music and picture combined. Fri, 15 Apr 2016 07:45:16 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=509891 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=509891 Honest with everyone in terms of her dedication to perform hard scenes such as the avalanche one. Fri, 15 Apr 2016 07:36:55 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=509293 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=509293 This documentary had a great amount of perspective coming from Leni Riefenstahl. Who she was in real life seemed to reflect how she was in film; adventurous and committed. She seemed to portray herself in a way that suggests that she loved art, and the seriousness of it. All these films she was in have a lot of nature scenery and action, and her dedication to complete those roles as an actress proved that she was honest with everyone, not portraying herself as something she wasn't. Fri, 15 Apr 2016 07:36:55 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508375 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508375 I believe this film creates the reality that countries could still compete against each other in the Olympics no matter what political disagreements were at play between countries during that time. It gives the audience the impression that the entire world is at peace when watching this documentary, when it wasn't politically, and wouldn't be literally during the years that proceeded these Olympics. These Olympics were a small period of time in which countries could express themselves through competition in complete freedom and bliss. Even Hitler seemed to be acting casually, rooting for his own country and such. This reality of peace between the world, emitted by this film, became the complete opposite the next year with a world at war. Sun, 10 Apr 2016 07:39:08 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=506065 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=506065 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. Wed, 06 Apr 2016 06:54:01 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=503296 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=503296 In this documentary the film maker's perspective is high. This being because of the simplicity of the two factors that are in the documentary. Music, and activities performed by people. He'd make the music fit what the film was showing. Even if the viewer wouldn't immediately recognize what the director was trying to put forth with the music, after some thought the viewer could start to understand. The point of the film accompanied by the music in my opinion is to try to connect them both together, in the viewers own personal way. Not a single perspective's the same. Fri, 15 Apr 2016 07:45:16 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=503295 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=503295 I believe the moral lesson portrayed in this documentary focuses on the will to live fairly. Everything the Eskimo family does to stay alive is done naturally. Whether it be hunting, traveling, or sleeping. They'd take full advantage of what nature would present to them. Rather than cheating and using modern technology back then to gain easy access to food and shelter, they would be one with nature instead. They had the will to live fairly with nature. Fri, 15 Apr 2016 07:46:25 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=503291 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=503291 The statement does relate to seeing is believing. What an individual bears witness to is of absolute certainty. This might be a problem as far as film is concerned because for one, you simply can't film everything. For example, a location in a film might be impossible to film for a movie, so the director would symbolize the area with an object. Also, sometimes a director would want to recreate a state of mind, and sometimes that would be portrayed artistically instead of literally. This would suggest a viewers mind to improvise and be creative, in order to understand what the director is portraying. Wed, 30 Mar 2016 06:46:32 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=503289 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=503289 These films by the Lumiere brothers created an entirely new perspective on reality which concerned observing others. In these activities that were being filmed, normal daily activity was recorded. This made it unique to view considering other normal people (who performed daily activities themselves), would watch them. It's like a double-vision on reality through a simple everyday lense. Wed, 30 Mar 2016 06:43:55 -0400