Leni Riefenstahl dies at 101 (or 100, depending on source). (1 Viewer)

[Dome Vongvises]

Thanks, Holadem, that was a good read.

Three hours of silent is a little daunting.

I don't know, Holadem. I'm more than willing to guess that the silence isn't the bad part in your situation.
But seriously, do give it a try. The immensity of your perspective would only be matched by your own body's.
I'm hoping somebody knowledgeable of TOTW will chime in on my questions.

 

[Seth--L]

By tomorrow night I'll have time to type a full response (no more classes after 4:25pm), but on a basic level, what's brilliant about "Triumph of the Will" is its ability to take an image and convey both power and beauty.

 

[Lew Crippen]

There is a reasonable discussion on Birth of a Nation in the S&S Club thread, beginning at post #689. I goes on for a while and some of the posts are a bit long. The focus was a bit more on Griffith’s place in film history, but there was a reasonable discussion as to the incipient racism in the film as well.

Now to be sure you have to wade though a lot of long winded Seth posts , but he, Brook, George and I did get into this a bit.
I’ll wait for Seth-L to comment on TOTW.

 

[Seth--L]

As promised, an explanation of why "Triumph of the Will" is brilliant from a technical point of view.

Despite what Riefenstahl claims, TOTW is a propaganda film. It depicts Hitler as a god, commanding seas of faceless soldiers and cheering crowds, while also mythicizing him and the Nazis. Now it's the way Riefenstahl goes about doing this that makes it ingenious.

Everything you see is reality. Nothing was staged. The film presents the Nuremberg rallies as they truthfully unfolded. TOTW also has no voice over commentary telling you what you're seeing or why you should be impressed. In a sense it really is an early example of direct cinema documentaries. More importantly, the film is pure cinema - a perfect example of how to tell a story visually. The realism of course all works towards the propaganda nature of the film. It makes that aspect more transparent since nothing is fake.

So how does one depict Hitler as a god when you only have documentary footage to work with? Take the very first scene. The film opens with Hitler's plane descending from the heavens (clouds) onto Nuremberg where a crowd of cheering citizens await him at the airport. A frequent motif throughout the film is cutting from a shot of Hitler occupying the entire frame to one of a faceless crowd. There is a constant juxtaposition between him, a single man, and the masses who are always offering their support. Whenever Hitler is in frame with someone else, Riefenstahl places the camera in a place to give the illusion that Hitler is physically larger then whoever is around him. Lastly, many of the shots of Hitler are low angle ones, obviously giving the impression that he is looking down on everyone including the viewer.

Much of the film's power lies in the sheer display of the number of people participating in the rallies. Probably the most famous shot in the film is the wide angle crane shot of Hitler walking through a parted sea of soldiers (quoted in such films as "Star Wars"). Riefenstahl knew exactly how to photograph a crowd to best turn its size and organization into a symbol of power while also making them look aesthetically beautiful. Most importantly, the film's beauty is precisely what makes TOTW watchable. The subject matter is rather dull, but Riefenstahl transforms it into a visual feast for our eyes.

 

[Dustin James]

.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Coincidentally, although Wonderful, Horrible Life was out of print for a while and commanding high prices on eBay, it is back in print and readily available, for those interested in seeing a solid look at the woman's life and work.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Thanks Seth--L. I was looking for a post like that.
But this brings up another interesting situation: has such techniques ever been refined or even done much better?

 

[Seth--L]

There are a few ways to answer this:

Since TOTW is universally considered the best propaganda film/advertisement ever made, not really. However, no one else has really made or attempted to make a film quite like. There have been a lot of superb non-narrative experimental films that are great examples of pure cinema like TOTW (such Stan Brakhage's films), but since the Hollywood commercial narrative is so dominant, they are rarely seen by anyone besides film students and professors.

 

[SteveGon]

Go here for Roger Ebert's thoughts on Riefenstahl's passing.

 

[John Watson]

I had ToW on tape for awhile, but found it long, and ultimately boring (plus I could feel the horror from knowing what it all represented.) I also was wondering whether Riefenstahl is credited as much with conceiving and designing these spectacles, as filming them? Seth L's post is very informative.

Personnaly, I've come to hold nearly all spectacle in horror, whether its processions of strangely garbed and brocaded priests chanting, the opening of the 1984 Olympics, Gladiator-StarshipTrooper -Star Wars vignettes, massed hordes parading portraits of Chairman Mao, or those ridiculous spectacles still staged by that north Korean dwarf, Kim Ill SingSong.

These spectacles are meant to manage emotions and suspend thinking. They create masses and mobs.

Yet the other side of me knows the masses can suppress the genius. William Blake's double vision comes to mind.

I had an intelligent clergyman uncle, and he and I and a friend visited Dachau one sombre day a few decades ago. And my uncle was a great enthusiast of Wagner's music. And Apocalypse Now made very fitting use of it.

It's a very strange world.

 

[Holadem]

The immensity of your perspective would only be matched by your own body's.

I just caught this. That is one strange comparison if I've ever heard one
--
H

 

[Seth--L]

Yeah, it doesn't hold up all that well on multiple viewings over a short time period - half the film is Hitler with his hand in the air. Not very exciting. But like I said before, the only reason it's watchable is because of Riefenstahl's direction.

 

[Tim Raffey]

Stanley Milgram:

Let's put it this way. There are many talented filmakers today who are heavily criticized for "selling out". I myself can't think of anything more indicative of selling out then what Leni Riefenstahl did.

Very well put (though personally, I find an artistic offense is easier to complain about on the internet than a political one--less at steak, or something).
However, as a human being, I've come to recognize the weaknesses inherent in myself and I'd like to think that if I ever do 'sell out' (though I cannot see the possibility of a comperable scale to Riefenstahl) the rest of the world wouldn't find it necessary to ignore the fact that I ever existed--regardless of anything akin to regret, sorrow, etc.
That being said, I'd be far, far more interested to see the the A.M.P.A.S. mentions the passing of Stan Brakhage this past year.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Very well put (though personally, I find an artistic offense is easier to complain about on the internet than a political one--less at steak, or something).

Mmm...steak...

I'm hungry again.

 

[Seth--L]

My guess is that they won't since they don't want viewers to think that a narrative film isn't the only type of film that can be made. And if they do, it will probably be done in a condescending fashion

 

[Tim Raffey]

"...less at steak..."

Curse you, Dome! Now I can't edit it and save myself a little dignity...:b

 

[Henry Gale]

This may be morbid, or even in bad taste, but I have to wonder if Riefenstahl's death will be acknowledged at next year's Academy Awards?

Yes, it was...

The 76th Annual Academy Awards (2004) (TV) .... Herself (Memorial Tribute)