RIEFENSTAHL’S “TRIUMPH DES WILLENS” (1935): AN ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
The 1935 film “Triumph des Willens” or “Triumph Of The Will” (in English) was directed, edited, and co-written by Leni Riefenstahl at the behest of Adolf Hitler. It contains footage recorded over four days during the 1934 Nuremberg rally which was organised as a show of Nazi power. (Rawson, n.d.) The film was reportedly made on a generous budget and involved a crew of about 172. (Meran Barsam, n.d.) The director made use of thirty cameras and this team was supported by an additional crew of newsreel cameramen. (Ibid.) Production made use of the most sophisticated technologies and techniques of the time.
This essay attempts to analyse the manner in which this acclaimed propaganda film manipulated reality through the use of technology, narrative, imagery, and all the artistry made available by the cinematic medium.
Knowing as we do that this film was intended as a piece of propaganda declaring the rebirth of a powerful German nation under Nazi leadership, we should hardly be surprised at the fact that it entails a fair bit of exaggeration. However, given that this film has also been held up as an exemplar of the documentary form, a genre that is widely considered synonymous with nonfiction, it is worth examining in detail just how much exaggeration was involved and to what effect. Where does one draw the line between artistic exaggeration and outright falsehood? Why does the distinction matter? In exploring such questions, this essay will attempt to engage with broader discourses regarding the uneasy relationship between the documentary genre and ‘reality’.
MANIPULATION OF REALITY THROUGH THE PROCESS OF CREATION OF THE FILM
This film draws its affective power from its visual perspective, drama, music, and sheer scale. These are basic visual and narrative tools available to all filmmakers, which would imply that any piece of film is, by default, a subjective version of reality. However, the way in which these tools are used belies the actual intent of the filmmaker. Creating a heightened sense of exaggeration, as in this film, reveals a deliberate intent to distort reality and influence perceptions. It creates a sense of hyperreality if not outright fiction.
Riefenstahl stated that the film contained no reconstructed shots or re-enactments and that none of the scenes were actually staged for the purposes of the film. However, this claim is somewhat shaky. For instance, cameras following close behind Hitler were mysteriously absent in shots taken from the opposite vantage point. (K. Boland, 2010) Clearly, there were at least a few retakes.
As critic Roger Ebert astutely observes, the film contains none of the nuts-and-bolts details of how the rally was actually organised or of the various preparatory activities. (Ebert, 2008) It betrays no hint of the disorder and chaos that always accompanies such enormous events. In fact, even the chanting of the crowds is suspiciously well-synchronised and was most probably added in post-production rather than recorded on the ground. The director has stated that under the conditions on the ground, it was difficult to obtain recordings and that the sounds of the crowds needed to be recreated later in the studio. (Meran Barsam, n.d.)
This film is particularly noteworthy for its treatment of the individual and collective body. Throughout the film, we are shown scene after scene representing the masses and their reverence for their Fascist leader. One need not dissect the visuals and composition very closely to understand how the director has created a neat and stark binary between the heroic leader and his devoted followers. The use of scale through low-angle shots presents Hitler as a larger-than-life, God-like figure and he is arguably the only character to be treated as an individual in his own right. The others, such as the spectators at the rally and the soldiers marching in perfect formation, are treated en masse, as blocks of humanity with a singular purpose and a singular mind. Even Hitler’s party comrades remain background figures. The camera lingers upon a few ‘representative’ faces in the crowd in order to highlight an ideal or to emphasise certain emotions. However, these ‘chosen’ faces remain paradoxically faceless and nameless and are reduced to archetypes. The ordinary individual is subsumed within the crowd and has no identity save as a follower of Hitler or as someone ready to do his bidding.
One must admit that, of necessity, the act of editing alters perceptions of time and of the relatedness of events in temporal terms. This film is particularly well regarded for its editing. In fact, Riefenstahl reportedly spent as long as five months editing it. (Meran Barsam, n.d.) In her own description of the making of the film, she recounts the difficulties and challenges involved in obtaining footage during the rally. Ramps, dollies, cranes, elevators, and other special arrangements were installed in order to avail of unique perspectives and angles. However, due to logistical difficulties, the main instruction given to her scattered camera crews was to obtain kinetic rather than static shots and to leave out nothing. This resulted in footage of varying quality and the unifying narrative only emerged during the editing process which was entirely controlled by Riefenstahl herself. (Ibid.) The final edit condenses the events of four days into a neatly flowing sequence. However, as anyone who has watched journalistic reportage of political rallies or participated in them can attest, such events are rarely as well orchestrated or perfectly coordinated as this film would have us believe.
Even if none of the scenes were actually re-enacted for the express purpose of filming, as the director claimed, the final edit is certainly a sanitised depiction of the rally. The choice of leaving out these ‘messy’ organisational details is quite telling. It shows that the only images one was permitted to portray were those of perfection and everything going to plan. No weakness or indecision was to be revealed.
Under the tight censorship and control that the Nazi regime exerted over the dissemination of information, this film and its like may have been the only versions of such events that were available to the German public. Under such conditions, the only available version becomes, by default, the ‘true’ version. German audiences were fed an idealised image of themselves and their power as a nation, in order to force legitimacy and public approval for the actions and motives of the Third Reich. Audiences were no strangers to the remarkably effective ways in which cinema could be used to tell entirely fictional stories. However, since films like “Triumph Of The Will” had the superficial appearance of reality, it would have been difficult to pin down the subjectivity of perspective embodied in them. This is not to say that the film was subtle in its approach. It certainly wasn’t.
Aerial shots showing the gathered masses and those shot from high vantage points emphasise the scale of the event and the sheer numbers present. They put the viewer in a unique position that he or she could never dream to occupy had they actually been present at the event. The intention behind this is to highlight the power that the regime could command. Dissenters were shown that they were severely outnumbered and that opposition was futile.
Critics have expressed both an appreciation for the aesthetics of this film and a revulsion for its content and perspective. However, one must remain aware of projecting an anachronistic moralising interpretation upon this film. Contemporary audiences, particularly if they were already staunch Nazi supporters, would certainly have been moved deeply by the powerful imagery of soldiers marching in formation and raising the signature salute. The dramatic music must have added immensely to the intensity of the experience, allowing audiences to experience the rally vicariously. Knowing how events actually played out, viewers in current times may find it challenging to separate an aesthetic and formal appreciation of the film from their abhorrence for the ideology underpinning it. While hindsight permits us to read closely into the ways in which Riefenstahl’s treatment of imagery captures the totalising control that the Nazi regime exerted over Germany, it also clouds our perception and distances us from experiencing the film in the way that its original audiences did.
The author of this essay is aware of these various problems and therefore refrains from “judging” the content of the film in light of the tragic events of the second world war. Instead, this essay merely treats “Triumph Of The Will” as an instructive case study for examining how documentary can and wilfully does slip through the cracks between fiction and nonfiction and the impact that this can have on popular perception.
FICTION OR NONFICTION - THE INHERENT PROBLEMATICS OF THE DOCUMENTARY
We are well aware of the gap between reality as it exists and reality as portrayed through a camera lens. In the very act of capturing and framing an event or an object, the filmmaker is forced to make choices. The act of inclusion of certain objects or people necessarily entails the exclusion of others. The necessity of making that choice renders filmmaking or even photography an inherently subjective practice. (Nichols, 2010) Hence, the idea of a documentary as an unvarnished representation of reality is an inherently mistaken and misleading one. This is all the more true when the superficial appearance of realism effectively camouflages the underlying ideological or artistic biases brought to the material by its creator. This is certainly true of Leni Riefenstahl’s film “Triumph Of The Will”.
Hence, determining whether or not the film is truly deserving of the title of nonfiction becomes, to some extent, a futile and meaningless exercise. Assigning one label or the other is hardly instructive in itself. What is of value here is a thoughtful consideration of the ways in which and the degrees to which reality can be wilfully manipulated and the impact that this has on audiences.
CONCLUSION
Even though nobody today is under the impression that Riefenstahl’s 1935 film was actually an attempt at reportage rather than a cannily constructed piece of cinematic propaganda, that distinction may not have been as evident or even relevant to contemporary audiences. In this author’s opinion, this is where the real problem lies. The Nazi party was certainly well aware of this gap and was happy to exploit it. (Giesen, 2008) It is this amorphousness that granted a deep persuasive power to this film in its time. Today, it is this very amorphousness that makes the film so abhorrent to us.
REFERENCE LIST
Ebert, R. (2008). Triumph Of The Will. [online]
Giesen, R. (2008). Nazi Propaganda Films. 1st ed. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Company.
Hagopian, K. (n.d.). Triumph of the Will. [online] New York State Writers Institute.
K. Boland, W. (2010). Hitler's Use of Film in Germany, Leading up to and During World War II. Inquiries, [online] 2(3).
Meran Barsam, R. (n.d.). Triumph Of The Will. 1st ed. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Nichols, B. (2010). Representing reality. 1st ed. Bloomington, Ind. [u.a.]: Indiana Univ. Press.
Rawson, A. (n.d.). Showcasing the Third Reich. 1st ed.
