Triumph of the Will Absolve Riefenstahl From Responsibility for tis Nazi Propagandist Impact - Essay Example

Triumph of the Will absolve Riefenstahl from responsibility for its Nazi Propagandist impact Indicate here grade name Date Introduction Among the many existing disputes and controversies underlying the roles of art is the production of materials which are termed to be propagandist by the audience and analysts. More often than not, creators of art find themselves in the middle of great turmoil of controversy whenever the work they produce is considered as propagandist in nature. An example of a piece of art that continues to be looked at as controversial and propagandist is the film/movie Triumph of Will (Riefenstahl, 1935). Although many people argue that Riefenstahl, who is the director, stands out as a deliberate propagandist through this film, others argue that the form of propaganda exhibited is not as a result of her intention. This paper aims at reviewing this movie in light of the historical and philosophical context as far as the propaganda in it is concerned. How Propaganda Comes in To begin with, the proposition that this film absolves Riefenstahl from the propagandist role that this movie plays can be historically challenged. Even though Riefenstahl is in denial of having well understood the heinous nature of Adolf Hitler, history has its own reservations on the same. As such, her excuse can be dismissed as a simple and odd escapist’s excuse since someone with the creativity and originality akin to Riefenstahl’s is expected to see better, especially on an obvious issues such as the activities of the Nazis and create a film which opposes rather than supports such a movement. As it would be expected in a natural societal setting, Riefenstahl defends herself that she is not a propagandist and blames it all on her naivety and lack of knowledge on the real identity of Adolf Hitler and Nazism when she was forging out this piece of entertainment. On the contrary, one may find it necessary to argue out that this is just a way of freeing herself from the imminent guilt that she compromised truth so much in order to making money and gain fame using this film rather. Praising someone who is not humane might not trace one to a direct injustice but is tantamount to praising Satan, which does not leave him or her innocent anyway. As such, much as the content and style of this book might be delineating Riefenstahl from any form of propaganda, the historical and philosophical reality of the Nazi movement are in contradiction to what she presents. The fact that one of the major characters in this movie is Hitler himself leaves no doubt that Riefenstahl deliberately understood what burden of blame there was to carry as she produced this movie. In fact, this movie is a falsified presentation of the facts and the truths as they were during Germany’s historical times in as much as Nazism is concerned. For instance, the way the Jews were inhumanely treated over the years that was a key and most defining feature of the Nazi ideologies, a element of truth that is never presented in an objective manner in as far as this movie is concerned. Given the understanding that Hitler himself approached Riefenstahl to deliberately to have her produce this movie (Riefenstahl, 1935) also leaves little or no doubt that Riefenstahl was fully aware of the propagandist intention in Hitler’s heart and just wanted to use this movie as a tool to accomplish the same. Nothing points out to her denial of this, as there is no any form of evidence of her negotiation with Hitler on how best the reaction or taken care of the world would be tackled given the attempts of the movie to brainwash the people around. The way power has been presented in this movie can be seen as not only falsified but also vague in equal measure. (Reeves, 2004). In this movie, Hitler is brought out as someone who is out to surprisingly bring about cohesion among his people through the endearing speeches he gives to the masses of Nazi followers, which is in contravention of what people really knew about him. History brings out Hitler as someone who took democracy as not a necessity for the growth and survival of his people and that his word was always final, a key characteristic of a dictator, even if it meant confirming this by use of someone’s blood. As such, the kind of power that Hitler had is in real conflict with the kind of power that the audience is convinced to understand in this movie. The possible defence against propaganda claims Even though many claim that there is too much propaganda in this movie that was deliberately put forward, as has been seen above, Riefenstahl can have a number of scape routes as to the existence of the movie with the content as it is. Firstly, her claim that she knew not what Hitler really stood for in as far as Nazism is concerned while she was coming up with this movie cannot be overly dismissed. Heinous people and leaders who are out to mutilate the sobriety of the society like Hitler always have ways through which they access all the systems of information available in order to blow trumpets in praise of themselves. With this understanding and given the political atmosphere in Germany at the time this movie was being produced, Riefenstahl can be fairly excused for coming up with such a provocative and controversial master piece. Secondly, one would argue that Riefenstahl was overwhelmingly brainwashed with Nazism ideologies that there was nothing better she could present to her audience, apart from the wishful Nazism that everyone would have loved to see operate in a country like Germany as such a time of desperation. One way through which a good message can be sent out to the audience is by trying to artistically convert bad leaders into good characters in a movie. This, in a way can quench the thirst and quell the desperation akin to that which was prevailing across the world after the First World War. Having Hitler act the good leader as it is in the movie, for instance, can be a message to him that good leadership is a necessity for the prosperity and stability of the society. Thirdly, the idea of time should also be factored when considering what role this movie plays in bringing up or generating propaganda about Nazism. Most critics who are against the movie claim that initially they thought it was a film that was only meant for the good only to be overhauled by the historical truths. (Triumph of Will, 1935). It is with the sudden twists in the history of the world that this movie finds itself displaced and dismissed as a generator of propaganda to divert the minds of people away from the reality of the time. In addition to this, one would also argue that the movie director was only being sarcastic or ironic in order to flirt Hitler given that what is presented in the movie is exactly the opposite of what Hitler knew about himself and what the whole world knew about him too. Nevertheless, this argument might not get in successfully given that there was too much enthusiasm about the movie, even to Hitler himself that being considered as a sarcastic masterpiece is almost impossible. However, given the flexible potentialities that an artist can have, this cannot be fully ruled out as a possibility on why the movie came about. Riefenstahl can give credibility to her works on grounds of creativity and innovation rather than a deliberate presentation of the world as it is, which is an allowed observation among the creators of art. As such, one of the ways of coming up with something new and topping up the already existing knowledge is digressing from the truth, like Riefenstahl has successfully done. Ideally, few pieces of literature are in praise of dictatorial leaders such as Hitler. (Reeves, 2004). As such, coining up propaganda that is in praise of such a leader can therefore be seen as an attempt to keep the artistic agenda ahead of the happenings of the world that may be detrimental to humanity. In a movie like this, Riefenstahl can be seen as a perpetrator of hope for good leadership, good ideologies and good governorship in as much as her country and its relationship with the rest of the world are concerned. The role of the audience In order to completely evaluate this movie and determine whether it is really propagandist or not, the response that comes out from the audience is also vital. Ideally, people like the output of the movie as it is entertaining and superbly done. This is what accounts for the vast number of watchers and reviewers of the movie. (Reeves, 2004). However, there are a number of people who are wholesomely against what the movie portrays especially when discrepancies between what is in the movie and the true historical facts show up. A notable fact is that there has been a continuum between the first enthusiasts of this film and the most recent critics and haters of the same. There are those people who at some point ever loved the movie but now are the most outstanding haters of the propaganda insinuated in it. (Reeves, 2004). With the understandings posted through the reader response theory, then it is also important to accept the fact that the viewers of this movie have been very instrumental in bringing out the true meaning of propaganda as it is now being seen throughout the world, more than just the director did. (Reeves, 2004). As people keep giving their own versions of interpretations of the movie, it is likely that the original meaning is virtually distorted and this creates more room for propaganda. In addition to this, it is also important to note that since this movie is associated with Adolf Hitler, people’s pointing finger on it as a tool of propaganda might be just one way of restating their long held hatred against Hitler himself. One way of demonstrating hatred to someone is by also showing hatred to the things and people that are associated with whomever one hates, whether this is justifiable or not. Adolf Hitler was by no means a man who was loved by the entire world given his gory interference with human nobility. His hatred of the Jews has never, even up to this point, received any significant acknowledgement. His deeds were guised as being in the best interest of the public when they were merely of selfish nature and a demonstration of his thirst of power. (Reeves, 2004). A final verdict to this discussion would be that watchers and analysts take a neutral approach when looking at the question of propaganda, not only on this film but in other analyses on pieces of literature. Grounding this argument is the fact that artists should be let free to let out what is deep in their mind, for it is only through this that the good and the bad get to be known through art. The appreciation of the artists point of view are important, however, criticism is also important in ensuring that they do not step over-board. Conclusion In conclusion, there are a number of arguments in support or against the proposition that Riefenstahl is a propagandist, as it comes out through her film Triumph of Will. A number of approaches of looking at it have been considered in this essay. Firstly, a number of incidences that are tantamount to propaganda have been considered in the discussion. Secondly, the possible defence that Riefenstahl might have against the claims that she is a deliberate propagandist has been explored. This way, leveled analyses of whether she can jump out the blame of being seen as unfair through her talent have been explored. In addition to this, the role of the audience in interpreting what the real propaganda that there is in this film has been looked at. The role of the audience, grounded by the classical reader response theory has also been in the limelight in considering the meaning of this movie and the propaganda question that is put across. As such, the reader or the audience has a critical and valuable role to play in coming up with the final judgment on whether this movie is a propaganda or not. References Reeves, N., 2004. Power of Film Propaganda. second ed. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. Triumph of Will. 1935. [Film] Directed by Leni Riefenstahl. Germanny: IMDb . Read More