Is Triumph of the Will a truly dangerous film? I don’t think that anyone in my film class would disagree when I say that, in its modern context, this film would not sway anyone into joining the neo-Nazi party or bring them to tears of pride. That being said, regardless of historical or geographical context, is aestheticizing politics--turning politics into “art"-- a loaded process?
Marxist critic Walter Benjamin seems to think so. According to Benjamin in his essay “ The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” modern cinema absorbs the spectator and subverts their identity to that of the mass audience. Films are, according to him, impersonal “works of art” that construct a crowd mentality and thus are authoritative tools of mass political movements.
I do not disagree with Benjamin—the politicized film does bring viewers together into a dangerous mass identity where individualism is threatened. Many references have been made to Obama because of his ability to rally a diverse group of people to a single party/cause—an ability attributed to Hitler in “Triumph of the Will” through the use of montage that combined shots of Germans of all ages and (regional) backgrounds to one nationalistic cause symbolized by his person. Obama’s eloquence at the Democratic national convention, combined with the inspiring usage of the “Remember the Titans” film score, had everyone glued to the screen, committing to the idea of One Nation. So yes, unity and nationalism forwarded by film and media is a dangerous tool (but thankfully here and now, dissidence is obviously allowed). However, Benjamin forwards the idea that this is a new phenomenon, stemming from modern digital technologies that remove the unique “aura” of original artwork and causes the “liquidation of the traditional value of the cultural heritage.” (668)
But is this really a new phenomenon? I argue that turning politics into “art” embodies the inherent nature of politics itself. Politics is an art. If it weren’t, the varnish from the politicians’ rhetoric and media spin would wear off, and the idea of citizens would become moot. We have to be appealed to—our aesthetic senses must be stimulated, in order for us to commit to ideas (however false) and support the political agenda. Whether it is a democracy full of biased media stations, or a monarchy that needs to ensure the support of people to prevent a coup, mass-producing aestheticized politics has been around since the first nation state. Isn’t rhetoric an art of speech? And what about mass-produced propaganda posters posted throughout towns and cities during WWI? Taking it even further back, Shakespearean plays during Elizabethan England appealed to Brits of all classes and ages, and many of the Bard’s were politically loaded and censored by the queen. Therefore, historically art and politics have always been inseparable, and have played a role in bringing a mass audience together and presenting an aestheticized view of politics.
In a modern context, how was this achieved with “Triumph of Will”? In class we discussed filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl’s ability to portray the universal appeal of Hitler through her use of camera angles and montage. After doing the close reading of a specific segment, I realized how powerful the use of montage is. This film therefore supports Eisenstein, and many other formalists’, theory that meaning arises from the contextual relationship between shots; for example, the juxtaposition of the smiling girl, the boys straining to get a glimpse of something, and the final shot being Hitler, all construct an aura of magnetism of all sexes and ages towards Hitler. The almost manic light in Riefenstahl’s eyes when she points out the aesthetic fluidity of the editing during the marching shows just how powerful this artistic view of Nazi is. If it had just been a mere “reproduction” of reality, as realists argue, with the camera lens acting as an objective observer, then the same meaning would not have manifested. The combination of disparate close ups and medium shots combined to forward the idea of parts making up a whole—a central ideology of the Nazi party.
Therefore, through the use of montage and the adroit manipulation of shot composition, the aesthetization of politics is made possible with the mass medium of film, as we see in “Triumph of Will.” This is a loaded process able to subvert the individual identity to that of the crowd, yet this is not a new process, as is evident in the use of art to present politics throughout history.
