Triumph of the Will

Documentary films are objective renderings of reality, yet they are invariably shaped by a specific viewpoint. This phenomenon is clearly illustrated in Leni Riefenstahl’s 1934 film, Triumph of the Will. Chronicling the 1934 session of the Nazi Party Congress, Triumph of the Will is historically viewed as propaganda favoring Hitler’s reign. This perspective caused the film to be banned for over three decades. Upon closer inspection, however, we must ask ourselves if Riefenstahl’s film is faithful to historical fact? Is the film truly Nazi propaganda or is it a propaganda film given life by a non-Nazi female filmmaker? There is a thin line separating the underlying objective. Clearly, the primary issue of representation in this documentary is its design as a propaganda tract absent any objectivity on behalf of the filmmaker.

Despite its purpose and design as propaganda, Riefenstahl’s considerable talents are often underestimated due her close personal association with Hitler and Nazi Germany. Nevertheless, Triumph of the Will displays a variety of powerful cinematic techniques of persuasion, ones that were adopted afterward by politicians, advertisers, journalists, and others interested in influencing human behavior. Though Triumph of the Will is the recording of an event, biased in favor of Nazi beliefs and ideals, it is also a superb film with a voice relying on mise-en-scene, editing, and music to cr

. . .
Many argue that Triumph of the Will is propaganda because of the manner in which it was constructed, filmed, scored, edited, and released. However, David Thomson (1964) disagrees with the “propaganda” category for Triumph of the Will. As he maintains in an interview, “Triumph of the Will was a recording of an event, not a propaganda film. The film doesn’t contain a single reconstructed scene. Everything in it is true. And it contains no tendentious commentary at all. It is history. A pure historical film…It reflects the truth that was then in 1934, history. It is therefore a documentary, not a propaganda film,” (Thomson 1964). Audiences were unsophisticated in 1934 compared to contemporary audiences. This was particularly true with the new ability to engage the emotions wrought by the advent of cinema. Riefenstahl’s claims about her film might seem to have a parallel with the definition of an objective documentary, but she does not address the power of formalist technology to influence the public by covert means of persuasion along the lines of brainwashing. According to documentary theorist Bill Nichols (2001), “A documentary is evidence of an argument; everything about the film, its structure, editing, images, and
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Nuremberg Shots, Axis Allied, Triumph Riefenstahl, Triumph Hitlers, Germany Gross, David Thomson, Hitler Nazis, Congress Triumph, Nevertheless Hitlers, Triumph Wills, cinematic techniques, propaganda film, nazi germany, nazi party, gross 1995, james 2003, triumph propaganda, triumph recording event, propaganda propaganda, school cinema-television, triumph recording, university southern california, 2003 argues film, school cinema-television usc, hitlers authoritarian leadership,
Approximate Word count = 2923
Approximate Pages = 12 (250 words per page)