Leni Riefenstahl’s
Triumph des Willens (Triumph of the
Will, 1935), documenting the 1934
Nuremberg Rally, is often seen as the quintessential documentary film. Along
with the notoriety attached to Triumph of
the Will for its propaganda material relating to Adolf Hitler and the Nazi
party, Riefenstahl is noted for crafting an early nonfiction film that
presented many innovations in cinematography and editing. Additionally, there
is much controversy as to whether this film can be understood as an objective
recording of events, or if the film is profoundly illusory due to the presentation
of propaganda material as seen through the filmmaker’s subjective lens. As I
began to read about this film, the idea of subjectivity and objectivity really
started to interest me. As a film major, I have studied different ideas about
how film itself relates to objectivity and subjectivity, especially with
nonfiction films. One thing that seems to be missing in these arguments,
however, is the possibility of a film being both. I shall argue that while Triumph of the Will is subjective in its
execution, it may be objective in its ability to act as a visual documentation
of the rally’s horrifying events. Furthermore, by focusing on a few specific
scenes in Triumph of the Will, we
will be able to understand the film as both a piece of subjective propaganda
and as an objective visual document, in order to think about subjectivity and
objectivity in film more broadly.
First, it is important to provide an overview
of Triumph of the Will and how it
came to be. The film documents the Nazi Party Congress of 1934 in Nuremberg, an
event that had been taking place there since 1927. The film was commissioned by
Adolf Hitler, who provided the funding for the project and even chose the
title. This project was unprecedented in its funding situation, as an enormous
amount of money was given to Riefenstahl and put into this film. Hitler and
Riefenstahl came to meet shortly after he came to power, and embarked on what
was noted as “a productive relationship.”[1]
Adolf Hitler came to recognize Riefenstahl’s work as an artist after he had
seen her film Das blaue Licht (The
Blue Light, 1932), a mountain film that also starred Riefenstahl. Riefenstahl
was also seemingly fond of Hitler, as she had been to Nazi party rallies and
was impressed enough to reach out by letter for a chance to meet the Führer in
person.
Triumph
of the Will, however, was not the first film that Riefenstahl made documenting Hitler
and the Nazi party. Sieg des Glaubens (Victory
of Faith) chronicles the Nazi party rally in Nuremberg, which was held from
August 31 to September 3, 1933. The film, released later that same year, was an
early example of Riefenstahl attempting to craft a nonfiction film. In Victory of Faith, there are countless scenes
of Ernst Röhm, the head of the Nazi’s parliamentary wing the SA
(Sturmabteilung), marching together with Adolf Hitler seemingly on behalf of
the same objective. However, Ernst Röhm was murdered per Hitler’s orders, along
with hundreds of other SA leaders, after this film had been released. Adolf
Hitler essentially wanted to present a new film to the masses that highlighted
his rise to power, while also presenting the party without the likes of Röhm
and the other purged members. By commissioning Riefenstahl to document these
events as she did the year before, Hitler was working to erase Röhm from the
Nazi party, as well as show that he was in complete control of a party that was
very unorganized behind the scenes. Of course, Triumph of the Will does not show any of this disarray, but there
was much confusion inside the party as to what direction it was heading
towards. Furthermore, the death of
President Hindenburg in 1934 allowed for Adolf Hitler to merge the positions of
Chancellor and President, therefore giving him complete control of the state. Thus,
Triumph of the Will came to fruition,
as an attempt to show the Nazi party in a different light, with Hitler strong
as ever at the helm. Furthermore, the planning and funding of the film marked a
grave difference from the previous Riefenstahl-Hitler collaboration, which had
been much more informal. Additionally, it has been reported that Riefenstahl
had a staff of up to 170 people, with over a dozen people specifically
operating cameras.[2]
The understanding of objectivity and
subjectivity is often talked about and argued over in a way where film as a
medium is considered, which is definitely necessary for proposing overarching
theoretical constructs. However, it may be that certain films cannot conform to
one specific theoretical approach regarding objectivity and subjectivity.
Therefore, it is important to look at a films specific techniques and
historical background, in order to interpret the relationship it may have with
objectivity and subjectivity. By first understanding how film as a medium
relates to Triumph of the Will specifically,
we can then move forward and see how it may be significant in some historical
sense.
As a medium, it may not be possible to ever
achieve objectivity in a film. For instance, the simple act of a filmmaker editing
different clips of footage together is subjective. That is, filmmakers have to
make decisions on what to show and what not to show, so that the film takes
shape through their decisions. Furthermore, clips juxtaposed together work to
create some form of meaning that is not there before an edit. Andre Bazin notes
that editing and montage works to “create meaning which is not objectively
contained in the images and which derives solely from placing themes and images
in relation to one another.”[3]
An example of this form of subjective editing can be seen in Triumph of the Will around the 43-minute
mark. In this instance, Hitler enters a rally event and the film cuts between
shots of Hitler acknowledging the huge crowd and young men in a marching band.
Furthermore, there are shots of young members of the audience juxtaposed with
Hitler waving, as if he were specifically acknowledging the young members of
the crowd. This type of editing is similar to the Kuleshov-effect, where one
can simply place two images together to create some form of meaning that was
once unrelated. While these young men may have been at this same rally and
really participating, the fact that they are in some way related to or
empowered by Hitler is implied only through the use of editing.
Additionally, in film, the camera has to be set
up in a way that is partial to the filmmaker. Unless a camera is dropped into
the middle of a scene and left untouched, the framing and location have to be
decided by the filmmaker. In Triumph of
the Will, there are many examples of the camera being placed in a way that
seems to be set up and subjective. Often times, Riefenstahl uses low angle
shots, which portray Hitler and other Nazi leaders in a powerful and
influential way. For instance, there is a specific scene towards the end of the
film where Hitler is introduced to give a speech. As he walks on stage and
begins to talk, Riefenstahl has the camera lower than his body, to give the
impression of him looking down on or being above the crowd. Riefenstahl then
cuts to shots of the crowd, and this time the camera is placed high above
everyone else as if it were looking down from the ceiling. These two camera angles
work to create an impression that Hitler is above everyone else, as well as
having control over the crowd of people who are before him. This goes hand in
hand with the intentions of Riefenstahl and Hitler himself, as the objective
for this film was to portray Hitler as being in charge and commanding of the
Nazi regime. Riefenstahl claims to have crafted a cinema vérité style film, by
simply observing and documenting history.[4]
Ultimately, the scenes where low angle shots are used make this a false claim,
since there is a clear intention in trying to present Hitler in a specific way.
For these reasons, I argue that as a medium,
film could only be objective if it were to take on the role of some kind of
live-streaming camera that was not to be moved, that is, a long take of images
that are not cut to create some form of montage. As Bazin said, “The automatic
way in which photographs are produced has radically transformed the psychology
of the image. Photography’s objectivity confers upon it a degree of credibility
absent from any painting.”[5]
When this objective reproduction is
tampered with, we begin to see the effects of the filmmaker’s own ideology
transformed onto the screen.
Film as a medium is susceptible to subjective influence
since a filmmaker has autonomous control on what images are shown and how they
are juxtaposed. This idea of what a documentary film even is comes into
question, as the word itself implies the survey of a real event. As Brockman
notes, “However, Triumph des Willens
also illustrates how difficult it can be to define terms like ‘propaganda’ and
‘documentary.’”[6]
This idea of what a documentary film is becomes blurry once the influence of a
filmmaker is recognized. In conclusion, objectivity seems to be hard to achieve
in film due to the filmmaker’s control and influence on an image. In Triumph of the Will, the editing and
camera angles show the film’s ideological purpose, thus, it is important to
note that this film is subjective in its execution.
On an individual level, however, Triumph of the Will may be able to serve
as an important historical document, which we can classify as objective. Of
course, it is the case that the film was made with subjective filmic techniques,
but that should not stop us from viewing it as a representation of Nazi
propaganda itself. Those who argue that Triumph
of the Will should ultimately be dismissed as providing any true account of
the Nazi rally because it is subjective and set up are failing to recognize
that this film serves as a purpose in providing evidence of Nazi history. Siegfried Kracuer argues that Triumph of the Will is not credible due
to its staged material. He says, “From the real life of the people was built up
a faked reality that was passed off as a genuine one.”[7]
Ultimately, it is this exact faked reality that we should be studying and
trying to understand. Triumph of the Will
as a piece of propaganda is important to understanding how regimes and
filmmakers use visual media to skew the truth. Rather than try and separate
these two arguments of subjectivity and objectivity, we should work in a way to
acknowledge the de facto status of both.
As I considered
this film, I could not help but think about our own political situation in the
United States, and what would happen if our President suddenly announced the
plan to commission a film of an upcoming rally. The purpose of this speculation
is not to spark a political debate, as that would be redundant given today’s
tense landscape. Rather, I thought about Triumph
of the Will and how this is an example of horrifyingly effective propaganda.
By studying the techniques that Riefenstahl uses, such as camera angles and
editing, we have an example as to what propaganda material may look like, and we
are able to point back to this film as an example of Nazi obfuscation.
Brockmann argues that Triumph of the Will should be looked at as a historical document
that chronicles the Nuremberg rally.[8]
While he does a good job at presenting the case for Riefenstahl’s film as both
objective and subjective, he ultimately settles on one specific side, that of
it simply being a historical document. By contrast, my goal is to introduce the
idea that something can be both. That is, a film can serve as both subjective
and objective, by doing different things. As a document, Triumph of the Will serves as a valuable record of what Nazi
propaganda looked liked. Additionally, it is important to take into account
that while some of the scenes including crowds of people were ultimately set up
and reshot, these people are still supporters of Hitler and the Nazi party and
gathered in Nuremberg to show this. I feel that Triumph of the Will may serve as an important survey on the level
of support for the Nazis coming from seemingly young and mainstream citizens.
It is important to note that if you are to view this as an objective piece, you
should do so in a way so as not to ignore the clearly propagated and staged
material. For instance, David Bathrick argues that this is exactly what is
happening when filmmakers use clips of Triumph
of the Will in their own films, as a way to present “the facts” about
Hitler and the Nazi party. When discussing the implications of using these clips,
he writes that filmmakers “quoted verbatim from Triumph’s celebration of party sound bites as the self-evident
truth of Nazi reality.”[9]
This idea that Triumph of the Will is
being used in contemporary film to misrepresent true Nazism is why it is also
important to classify Triumph as
subjective on a broader level. Then, as you are able to navigate through what
may be shown through the filmmaker’s ideological lens, the film may be seen as
a historical document that helps us to conceive of what Nazi propaganda looked
like.
In conclusion, instead of separating the idea
of objectivity and subjectivity in film, I feel that it is necessary to embrace
both. Triumph of the Will is a clear
illustration of film being able to achieve both objectivity and subjectivity.
While the filmic techniques used by Riefenstahl are clearly subjective and
match the Nazi ideology, the film ultimately acts as an objective document, being
an example of visual propaganda and Nazi ideology. As the argument over
objectivity and subjectivity in film will surely continue, I hope that the
conversation shifts towards trying to understand films’ specific implications.
By doing so, we will be able to consider the significance of a film that may
have once been understood in relation to a single theoretical concept.
[3] André Bazin, et al, What Is Cinema?: Volume II,1st ed. (Berkeley: University
of California Press, 2005), 89.
[4] David Thompson, The new biographical dictionary of film, 5th
ed. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2014), 822.
[5] Andre Bazin and Hugh Gray, The Ontology of the Photographic Image,
(Film Quarterly: vol. 13, no. 4, 1960), 4–9.
[7] Siegfried Kracauer and
Leonardo Quaresima, From Caligari to
Hitler: A Psychological History of the German Film (Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press, 2004).
[8] Stephen Brockmann, A Critical History of
German Film (Rochester, NY: Camden House, 2010), 151-66.
[9] David Bathrick, The Afterlife of Triumph of the Will: The
First Twenty-five Years (2008.), 74.
Submitted by Gannon Dodson.
Submitted by Gannon Dodson.
