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.
When I saw Triumph of the Will, I was disgusted, mainly because it was the celebration of the worst dictator of the 20th century. However, I do have to agree with what one of our classmates said. The movie is aesthetically beautiful and from what I read on it, a huge landmark film in the history of cinema history. However, what gave me pause in class this week was the question, "What if this movie was about Obama?" Being a huge Obama supporter, I found myself kind of disgusted at myself for potentially liking a movie that is so "worshippy". Yeech!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile watching Triumph of the Will in class I found it rather dry and uninteresting, which really made me question its ability to rally the support of a nation. But when you make the comparison of Hitler's film to Obama's campaign, it really contextualized the appeal of Triumph of the Will for those who watched the film around the time of its release. I realized that, as a modern consumer being bombarded with dynamic, provocative images, I cannot expect to have a similar experience as a typical consumer during Hitler's reign.
ReplyDeleteYou really drove the point home that film is very socialist in nature, that it reduces a diverse group of people into a single audience. In the right hands, film can be a dangerous weapon that can move this mass audience toward a single goal, thus creating the crowd mentality that you described. The marketing war that ultimately decided the fate of the recent presidential election was the perfect example to demonstrate the relevance of this phenomenon in the present day.
Your post really illuminates how film specifically has the capabilities to be a very dangerous medium, because of the way montage can be used to have an effect on a viewer. Your example of the smiling girl and boys straining for a better view juxtaposed with Hitler's face are fitting. As Benjamin says, this montage does not recreate the "aura" of the original rally, as it is not viewed from an objective perspective. Rather, it plays on the audience's identification with the principles of montage to give us the same fleeting desire and adoration that the children seem to have for Hitler. It is unknown what these children were looking at or smiling at, but because of the way Riefenstahl is able to connect the shots, the audience understands that Hitler was loved by all. While this argument is certainly backed up in your post, your other claim that art and propaganda have been linked just as film and politics are is not as substantiated. While it is true that all types of art had made political commentary over the years, you do not examine the actual way that mediums other than film achieve this effect. I am not convinced that any other form of media is able to reproduce this type of message as effectively as montage can in film.
ReplyDelete