People Need To Stop Slandering - Triumph des Willens (1935) Discussion

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] phatbruce 19 years ago

Yeah except no mass murders had been committed at the time the film was shot, the Nazis hadnt even begun persecuting the Jews and the Nazis actually had popular approval for what they were doing.
Its called historical context, investigate it before you make ridiculous claims.

reply

[–] docdespicable 19 years ago

You're half right, phatbruce - no mass murders had yet begun, but the persecution of the Jews was well under way. At the end of WWI, the German national mindset was sort of like the guy who gets yelled at by his boss, so he goes back to his office and takes it out on his secretary. Jews have caught a lot of flack in just this situation - people are pissed, gotta take it out on someone, they don't like the Jews anyway... Bam - then you have "Cristal Nacht", and everyone grabbing what they can carry (including the children) and making a dash for the border. They had been preparing for this since before Hitler was even chancellor.

And having said that, I have to agree with the originator of this thread - few things infuriate me quite so much as out-of-hand condemnation. I see all the people who blasted about THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST and, more recently, THE DA VINCI CODE, without taking the time to read hte book or see the movie. They have been told that it is bad and wrong and evil by the people who do their thinking for them (often the Church, but not always), therefor it MUST be a foul example of the Devil's own handiwork... Pfui.

You can't condemn a film just because it happens to be about the Nazis - especially in this case, because the Fuhrer's Little Helpers were looking over the director's shoulder every step of the way. She wasn't a fool, she could see what became of dissentors (not far away from what's happening to them in America today), but she had no reason to think she, personally, was in any danger from them. All she wanted to do was make movies, and make them as well and good as possible - which is the irony, because the last half of her life, she never got to make so much as a McDonald's commercial. Her "sin", I believe, was in her objectivity - she wasn't interested in playing politics, and I think it should be to her credit that, though she never condoned, supported or made apologies for the 3rd Reich, she never apologised for her work as a filmmaker, either.

Then, on the other hand, you have fanatically religious, antisemitic, homophobic sociopaths like Mel Gibson, who will do and say whatever they feel necessary to get what they want, manipulate like one of the Borgias, and then turn on the people who helped get them where they are. I will watch Leni Rieffenstahl's work, despite its subject matter, because of her integrity; I won't pay to see Mel Gibson's regardless of tis subject matter, because of his fundamental lack of that same quality.

reply

[–] fishingforgina 19 years ago

>>few things infuriate me quite so much as out-of-hand condemnation.<<

AND YET.....

>>Then, on the other hand, you have fanatically religious, antisemitic, homophobic sociopaths like Mel Gibson, who will do and say whatever they feel necessary to get what they want, manipulate like one of the Borgias, and then turn on the people who helped get them where they are. I will watch Leni Rieffenstahl's work, despite its subject matter, because of her integrity; I won't pay to see Mel Gibson's regardless of tis subject matter, because of his fundamental lack of that same quality. <<

reply

[–] ganstaman56 18 years ago

In other words you like Nazis but hate christians.

reply

[–] janezmd-245-816367 12 years ago

I'm sitting here failing to understand how you arrived at that conclusion . . .

reply

[–] lid-9 18 years ago

"...the Fuhrer's Little Helpers were looking over the director's shoulder every step of the way...

"...Her "sin", I believe, was in her objectivity - she wasn't interested in playing politics, and I think it should be to her credit that, though she never condoned, supported or made apologies for the 3rd Reich, she never apologised for her work as a filmmaker, either..."

Er... hm. Firstly, the Führer's little helpers were not looking over her shoulder the whole time. She was approached by the Nazis to make a propaganda film about the rally, and in order to make sure that it was as persuasive as possible, and glorified the Nazis as much as possible, she was effectively given a limitless budget, meaning she could do whatever she wanted to. For the same reason, Riefenstahl was involved every step of the way in the planning of the rally, working with Speer and Hitler to make sure that it went off in such as way that she would be able to capture it all on film. They were not looking over her shoulder, it was a completely open process over which she had a lot of control. And if you look back to some of her earlier mountain films, etc, then you will find that Nazi ideology was inherent in them even before her involvement with the party. Which is why Hitler approached her, and called her "the perfect German woman".

Secondly, keeping her nose out of politics is exactly what the rest of the bourgeois German population did in the lead up to, and during, World War II. That is how these things happen. By not condoning or condemning the Nazis, Riefenstahl was completely complicit in the rise to power of the Nazis. Apathy was the real driving force, not vehement National Socialism.

Riefenstahl was no where near as uninvolved as she proclaimed for the rest of her life.

But Triumph des Willens is an incredible film. Noone can deny this. And it served its purposes perfectly and is an invaluable historical record.

reply

[–] Constantine_Octavian 18 years ago

Triumph des Willens is a well made film. But in making this film she got involved in the german politics which leads to the jews and the killing etc. Just like Howard Campbell Jr. in Mothernight. He was an undercover american government agent helping win the war through being a propaganda minister like Joseph Goebbels. But in turn got a lot of innocent people killed. Riefenstahl's intentions may have been not to be an enthusiastic nazi and just to be a filmmaker. But she was in the wrong place at the wrong time and helped fuel the Nazi party which in turn made it look much stronger through her powerful films.

reply

[–] brower8 10 years ago

However much I despise Nazis I must give the Nazi Party much credit for choreography of the scenes of massed soldiers, paramilitary forces, Hitler Youth, and workers. It's impressive even if the object (adulation of a murderous and dishonest tyrant -- note that he has already ordered the Night of the Long Knives, an elimination of his rivals Röhm and Strasser and some from the old régime who frustrated his rise to power) and lies about such before a camera. Hitler is far from innocent even at this stage.

We get to see how Hitler can lie, which is one of the more interesting insights upon him from this film.

reply

[–] timberhoood 18 years ago

Yes, it is too bad that people automatically have the knee-jerk reaction of "this movie sucks because it's about Hitler and Nazi Germany."

Hitler and the Nazis were as close as one could get to the personification of pure evil. But to decide that this movie is not an incredible work of art simply because of its subject matter is just a shame. One has to respect just how revolutionary this film was, in terms of lighting, angles, cinematography etc etc etc. Everything about it, from a filmmaking standpoint, is incredible.

That being said, I can understand why some people have an automatic revulsion to the film. For many people, it's hard to seperate the art from the subject. And if one cannot seperate the two, then it is only natural to feel that revulsion, because one should feel revulsion when thinking about Hitler or the Nazis.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] smigrobustus 11 years ago

Mel Gibson is now a sociopath......ok dude....your whole post just went down the toilet.........exaggerate much???

reply

[–] supremegenius-378-52067 13 years ago

No Murders??????????????
This film was made only 2 1/2 months after what is called "The Night Of The Long Knives" where Hitler had almost a thousand of his own citizens murdered by the SS on his orders.
Also, the "World Jewish Congress" had already declared war on Hitler (in particular) and on Germany (in general) in the world's leading newspapers at the beginning of March, 1933 - thereby giving the Nazis' a reason for rounding up and incarcerating all Jews as possible spies & saboteurs.
A 2nd declaration of "War Unto Death" was pronounced by the "World Jewish Alliance" September 1939 in a major London newspaper, thereby precipitating what is now called the Holocaust.

reply

[–] gjampol 11 years ago

Condemnations of the Nazis by the World Jewish Congress and World Jewish Alliance didn't precipitate the Holocaust, which was the inevitable result of Nazi racial theory. Even if European Jews had been relocated to Madagascar, the Nazis could not tolerate anything but the eradication of what they called "Jewish Bolshevism."
Their attitude is not much different than the Muslim intolerance of Israel and the Islamic cry of "death to the Jews." (BTW, the Muslim-Nazi connection has been well documented.)

Eventually, even on Madagascar, the Jews would have been blamed for something or other and exterminated.

As for "Triumph of the Will," it's an enthralling spectacle. Yet those who defend the director should be mindful of what Edmund Burke said:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] panzerMKV 19 years ago

I agree with vzescnm.

reply

[–] eerwicker 19 years ago

phatbruce, go read some history. By 1933, a year before Leni started work on her vacuous opus, there were concentration camps open at Dachau, Oranienburg and elsewhere; the SA had embarked on wave of mass violence and the Gestapo were up and running. Repressive laws were already in place against the Jews. Hitler and his followers had been carrying out a campaign of chicanery, hatred, intimidation, violence and murder for years in their pursuit of power. I am afraid people need to stop apologising. Triumph... is an artistic failure: at best, a hollow achievement in cinematography: an empty document of an empty celebration of a hateful, murderous ideology. An artist asks questions. Leni does not, and - whether this is because she was complicit (which gets my vote), or simply because it did not occur to her to ask - it is an indictment of her and the film. In any case, if you leave politics aside, the film as a bum-numbing, interminable, repetitive, wretched bore. Now do grow up.

reply

[–] Papa_Doc 19 years ago

The film is a triumph of cinematography, of that there is no doubt.

They were masters of propaganda, and many people have learned that from them no matter the ideology.

Understand that the film glorifies an evil ideology and government, and watch it to compare and contrast what they did and how they did it with what the people in power are doing in your country these days. That is the continuing power of the film today.

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

I believe the reason we use derogatory comments about this film is because the people who made this film lost the war. Simple as that. If the Germans had won that war then Leni and Albert Speer would be known today as artistic geniuses; which they actually were.

reply

[–] davidgoesboating 18 years ago

You can really only judge a film on its merits, such as cinematography, directing skills, screenplays and whatever else makes a good film, including whether it was well made. Of course, you can dislike the subject matter, or the message of the film, but that should not blind you to the possible brilliance that the film-maker displayed. It is interesting how people are so quick to condemn films such as this and Birth of a Nation, and the respective directors, and yet Eisenstein is (rightly) seen as a genius. However, his subject matter was as wrong ideologically as that of Riefenstahl (for example, in Potemkin, one of the young revolutionaries says "kill the jews", after which we see a stereotypical Jewish banker who looks like something out of a nazi propaganda poster). Griffith, and from all accounts Riefenstahl, deserve their place in history and reputation as brilliant directors.

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

They were, and Speer was a genius as an architect. Too bad, for everybody, that he became Minister of Armaments.

reply

[–] VelvetLady 18 years ago

I thank everyone up there who put the historical facts in order, because that was definetely "in order" lol.

I agree it is a masterpiece of cinematography, from the technical point of view (cuts, lighting, the esthetics etc.) But it is impossible to judge a piece of art (may it be a movie, a painting, a piece of music, a book, an article or whatever) just by its "looks" i.e. the way it was made. One has to put the topic or message in the critisizm too (actually that IS part of "critisizing" something, look it up in any dictionary and it will say so, and I study literary criticizm as a sub-subject at university).

So i agree it certainly is a work of art, Der Triumph des Willens, but one should also consider that Hitler appointed Leni Riefenstahl especcialy to make this movie a propaganda film, and when one watches this, this should certainly not be underestimated. I agree that this movie shouldn't be condemmed per se, and neither should it just be watched as something without any political context (just imagine showing this to kids at school as a piece of art without telling them that it is propaganda).

For me this isn't, so to speak, just a matter of black and white, but more a grey; theres two sides to it.

~*°Real diamonds! They must be worth their weight in gold!°*~

reply

[–] brower8 10 years ago

The stars of this movie -- the political bosses of the Third Reich -- lost the Second World War in no small part due to their cruelty and reckless overreach. In truth the Nazis underplayed the antisemitism so central to Nazi ideology, at least in the film. Leni Riefenstahl may have so chosen, and for once Goebbels likely agreed if the film was to be distributed outside the Third Reich. Even Julius Streicher's usual vituperation against the Jews is cut significantly to a call for Germans to be proud of their racial qualities and avoid 'polluting' those.

But this said, this is the wrong place for debating such the merits and faults Nazism had.

One can admire the cinematography and the ballet-like staging of regimented youth groups, militias, and labor brigades while despising the purpose. It's the "Fuhrer command! We obey!" stuff that offends my liberal sensibilities. In Nazism was no room for reassessment of the effectiveness or desirability of a decision of the Fuhrer.

It is telling that the Jews of Hollywood (and, yes, the Hollywood studio bosses were largely Jewish in the 1930s, and really did dominate American cinema in those days) could never produce anything so compelling as this -- at least until they could re-purpose the standard gangster film into a vehicle for expressing Nazi crimes. That is not for lack of talent, but instead because the Jews of Hollywood could never offer a one-sided view of the world as could the Nazis.

reply

[–] agentbach 18 years ago

Whether you like the nazis or not, you can't deny majesticness of the film.

reply

[–] hs09 18 years ago

you need to look at the PURPOSE for which it is majestic, look at the sheer amount of resources at Leni's disposal, the hundreds of people it took to make this movi, the cameras

leni said, in an interview, that the rally ITSELF was made FOR the film, it was set up FOR the cameras....

art, whatever, you need to look deeper than asthetics to judge art, give me a camera and unlimited resources and a subject matter...will i end up making propoganda? no, she did.

she was, plain and simple, a Nazi. you cant not be a NAzi and make triumph of the will, and to say "she had a mind of her own" is, essentially, saying everyone in the crowd had a mind of their own to decide....she was one of them, plain and simple, she bought up what hitler said, he wrote Mien Kamph 10 years before his ideology was NO SECRET

give 1000 monkies the full backing of the NAzi government and they will make art

that last line doesent make sense, but ive gota run,

take care

reply

[–] agentbach 18 years ago

we know that already but thanks for sharing anyways.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] grlnxtdoor 18 years ago

I believe that yes the Nazi ideology is horrible, however I think this film, Triumph des Willens, is a propaganda masterpiece. I mean the build up to the end where Hitler is giving his speech is genuis. While I think that the historical background of it sucks, I still think this film did what it was supposed to do. It had such a great affect on its audience from the premier on word. You must admit that it is a movie you wont forget, which was partically the purpose.

reply

[–] gil-65 18 years ago

The marching band music was really cheesy.

reply

[–] jerryuppington 18 years ago

"she was, plain and simple, a Nazi. you cant not be a NAzi and make triumph of the will, and to say "she had a mind of her own" is, essentially, saying everyone in the crowd had a mind of their own to decide."

This is not true; she was never a member of the Nazi Party, even when it would have been to her extreme advantage if she had been a party member.

She was apolitical, as many artists are; I've met quite a few artists like this, with absolutely no interest in politics.

What she WAS was a lying, narcissistic, manipulator, who begged, borrowed, or stole whatever she required to get to the top; who said whatever she had to say, or did whatever she had to do. A contemptable person, indeed, but no Nazi.

reply

[–] tjantus 18 years ago

I cannot and will not debate the morality or ethics of these people. The crimes of the Nazi era will stain human history for as long as human memory persists. I had relatives who perished in that terrible time, and relatives who stood up to them at the risk of their lives and fortunes, and came away intact.
But whatever Leni Riefenstahl's faults as a human being, she was a brilliant film maker and a cinematic artist who's work stands as monument to a way of life and school of thought that needs to be looked at, understood, and learned from. This is something we owe to those poor souls who perished because of it, and to enrich our own understanding. It is something we need to pass on to future generations.
I hate what it stands for, as I despise D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation", but these are timeless classics, milestones in the development of film history, and they need to be preserved, viewed, and discussed. I believe it was David Ben Gurion who once said, "Forgive, but never forget!"

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mynameisdouglas 18 years ago

the idea of obejectivity has to be thrown out when viewing this film today. everybody has an opinion of the holocaust, whether for or against it.

what i can say for certain is that this film was made as propaganda. very cleverly (and timelessly shot), yes...but it is what it is.

it doesn't matter whether or not she was a nazi. what matters are her contributions and her message.

reply

[–] digifighter 18 years ago

A lot of people are stupid, that's why they say stupid things. People go on and on about how this massacre is so horrible or that massacre is so horrible as if humanity is nearing extinction or something.

Several million people get whiped out every year and several million are born and then some, so it all evens out. Who cares? If it were any other way, all of the world would look like Africa. They aren't starving for no reason, they are starving because the land is unable to provide adequate food for the population.

Sometimes it actually seems that some people are unable to grasp this concept. If there are too many people, food will become scarce and the quality of life will plummet to unbearable levels.

reply

[–] TeaTaker 18 years ago

*SIGH* I will fight the temptation to make the OBVIOUS comment about digifighter's post... when he says:

"A lot of people are stupid, that's why they say stupid things."

It is SO tempting to say something like: "It takes Stupid to Know Stupid" === but, he actually does show some THOUGHT... not very deep, and clearly biased, lacking in logic, and, sadly, displaying little care nor concern for the welfare of literally millions, if not 'everyone' on our planet, past-present-furture !

I have to wonder, doesn't his opinion about 'the meaning of life' that he presents sort of seem a bit reminescent of Hitler himself ? I don't mean to sound derogatory, nor take any 'cheap shots', but, really, I feel distressed over the assumption that human suffering is 'the final answer' behind life on our planet. And, simply put, that is, in essence what his 'world view' entails; that life itself is balanced out by suffering and death.

I could go on at length disputing this, but I assume it is pointless, that I can't say anything here to dissuade him, and that all others here will either identify with me, already, or perhaps see it 'his way'... but, I do feel confident that his abherrant viewpoint MUST be in the minority.

What bothers me, also, though, is how his misanthropic and rather myopic view allows him to see 'no evil' in ANY situation in which suffering is perpetrated PURPOSEFULLY, with INTENT, to cause other people's lives to suffer and end painfully.

I guess that I am just too much of a 'humanitarian' to accept such a bleak evaluation of what life has to offer. Faulty logic aside, his theory about 'the balance of nature' is allowing him to justify all that can 'go wrong' even if that encompasses 'things' that are entirely at the control of RESPONSIBLE and CARING souls.

Tis sad to learn someone can hold such sour feelings of ultimate hopelessness.

All that aside, I WAS thoroughly enjoying all the critiques that preceeded his post. For the record, as a Jew who KNOWS what it is to suffer 'modern day' prejudice and bias, including that from youngsters who have no real concept about the "Why" of it being sensible to hate a Jew, other than it having been something that they parrot because they have heard it spoken by their parents, I must LAUD Leni's achievements, while also faulting her in the interviews that I have also seen of her, most notably on a recent DVD issue of this movie. In those interviews, she continued 'to her grave' to EXCUSE not just what she had done (which, Artistic MERITS aside, DID propel Hitler's ambitions exceedingly well), but, ALSO what the Nazis stood for and accomplished. Sadly, she literally went to her grave refusing to admit THE OBVIOUS: that the Nazis WERE 'bad.' No, in the final dying attempts to claim her RIGHTFUL claim to having done something brilliant, she felt compelled to EXCUSE the evil that her subject matter most certainly represented. She really would have been much wiser to have admitted the obvious, while attempting to defend her place in it. She indeed MAY have been 'just a filmaker' and IF she had stuck to JUST that, and defending the merits of her work, she COULD have been condoned, and deservedly HONORED... but, instead, she died a disheartened, STUBBORN, person who claimed how badly treated and unfairly judged she had been === terribly bitter, reminescent to me, ironically, in many ways comparable to Orson Welles (which is most deffinitely an entirely different topic), unwilling to acknowledge that her monumental accomplishments in any manner contributed to something that WAS evil incarnate.

*SIGH* again, for dear Leni herself, who ultimately ended up being her OWN 'Worst Crtic' because she refused to acknowledge and admit just how successful her magnificent attempt at propaganda had been !

reply

[–] treatalicious 18 years ago

"the idea of obejectivity has to be thrown out when viewing this film today. everybody has an opinion of the holocaust, whether for or against it."

Whether for or against it? Utterly disturbing that you seem to have run into people (or yourself) who are for the Holocaust.

"what i can say for certain is that this film was made as propaganda. very cleverly (and timelessly shot), yes...but it is what it is."

Who's the authority to say this is a timelessly shot piece of propaganda? Griffith shot "Birth of a Nation" fifteen years before she did and his film was far, far, far, more complex and technically sound then TotW. Leni merely had to set up a camera and watch as one of the most haunting figures is flanked by fifty thousand people all marching to the same drum. I would hardly say that her technique is timeless as much as the depth and severity of the subject matter she is shooting. We watch so intently because we know we shouldn't; just like a car wreck.

"it doesn't matter whether or not she was a nazi. what matters are her contributions and her message"

Doesn't objectivity have to be taken into account then if we're critquing her message??

Overall your post made little to no sense at all, and honestly it sounds like you sympathasize with the Nazi party and Leni far too much.

As for Leni, I don't really care if she's just the patsy artist. We have condemned people throughout history for crimes of far, far less magnitude. But, on here, she is an artist. I didn't know that artists were not also citizens of the world and had the responsibility, just like every other person at that rally, to stand up for what is morally right, no matter the consequences. A previous poster said something along the lines of "there were Hitlers men with her all the time and she couldn't refuse etc. or she would be killed". To that I say: maybe in her death she could have saved the lives of millions of innocent peoples. But no. Even if she persuaded only one person to sympathasize and join the Nazi Party, then she is also accountable for the atrocities carried out by them.

To say that what she made was art is simply a gross insult to the word and what it stands for.

reply

[–] Dantès 18 years ago

Funny that you favourably compare Birth of a Nation to Triumph, considering how racist Birth of a Nation is.

I't been a few years since I've seen Triumph of the Will, but I don't recall there being much about Jews in it. Personally, I found this movie overlong, but I certainly appreciate the brilliance as a propaganda piece, and that's the whole point. It's to trigger awe in Hitler and how he mobilized the country. Sure, you can argue that to create support for Hitler is to tacitly support the Holocaust as well, but that's a very simplistic argument.

reply

[–] treatalicious 18 years ago

I was comparing the two (Birth and Triumph) because of their controversial content and their historical place in the cinema world; not because I support the message of Birth of a Nation. However at least Birth of a Nation was a film with some skill in terms of creating a story and introducing new techniques (flashbacks etc. Triumph of the Will is simply Leni being fortunate enough as a filmmaker to have half of the Third Reich marching down a street. Very little skill involved in what she did.

"Sure, you can argue that to create support for Hitler is to tacitly support the Holocaust as well, but that's a very simplistic argument."

I'm not sure exactly how that is a "very simplistic argument" Dantes. She made propaganda for a regime that was already showing great signs of oppression and violence to Jews and other minorities in the German state. The argument goes something like this:
"Hitler and the Nazi regime inflicted on mankind some of the most terrible crimes in history. To support him and his party is itself a crime against humanity. Leni Riefanstahl created the largest piece of Nazi propaganda. Therefore, Leni was supportive of Nazi's and their ideas, and should be labeled as a criminal."

The argument is valid and sound, therefore undeniable.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Dantès 18 years ago

Just because an argument is valid, that doesn't make it undeniable. That's a leap of logic that leads me to suspect this argument will be pointless, but I'll respond and see where this goes.

Here's the crux of your argument: "To support (Hitler) and his party is itself a crime against humanity."

That's a totally reckless blanket statement. Going by that rationale, Nazi party men like Oskar Schindler and John Rabe (who saved some 200,000 Chinese civilians during the Rape of Nanking) are war criminals. Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg was a Nazi, but also tried to assassinate Hitler in 1944.

But your argument dictates every single Nazi must be a war criminal.

Making your statement is supposing that every single Nazi embraced every single tenet of Nazism, which is also inaccurate. Nazism comprised many different concepts. Many people supported the nationalism of it, but not necessarily the anti-Semitism or other aspects. Stauffenberg was just one of many like this.

Although Triumph of the Will came out in 1935, it was a record of the 1934 Nazi Party Congress. This precedes the Nuremberg Laws, Kristallnacht or the Holocaust. While it's likely that Riefenstahl was aware that Hitler was a rabid anti-Semite, you can't expect her to have anticipated something like the Holocaust. Knowing someone hates a certain group doesn't necessarily lead to expecting they will slaughter millions of them. Even during and after the Holocaust, people didn't or couldn't believe it. Was Riefenstahl supposed to have seen it coming?

Also, as far as the Holocaust goes, your argument depends on intentionalist view of the Holocaust, which the vast vast majority of historians agree is erroneous.

That's why your argument is simplistic. First, because it looks at the Nazi/war criminal question in entirely black and white, when it's more complex than that. As well, using this film as a reference, you can't accuse Riefsntahl of supporting one of the worst crimes in history. If it had been made maybe 10 years later, then your argument would hold more water.

reply

[–] treatalicious 18 years ago

There are obvious exceptions to any rule, but unlike Schindler and the others, Riefanstahl didn't DO anything to make us think otherwise. She denounced her support for the Nazi's after they had lost, but with her talent why not make an anti-Nazi propaganda film? The argument though is not complex; it doesn't need to be. If you supported the Nazi's then you in turn are responsible for the ideologies that they preach.

"While it's likely that Riefenstahl was aware that Hitler was a rabid anti-Semite, you can't expect her to have anticipated something like the Holocaust."

First: While it's likely? Let's just consider that statement erroneous because it is a guarantee she knew Hitler's thoughts on the Jews- everyone did. Mein Kampf was published ten years prior to this film and it was a bible to a large majority of the German people, especially the supporters. In that book there's enough blatant Jew hating and slander that a 5 year old could understand it.

Let's not forget also that the first camp was erected in 1933 at Dachau with 200 communists. With all the huge speeches on cleansing the race, I don't think it would be far-fetched to assume that people like Riefanstahl and other supporters could guess what might be in store for the Jews.

In this matter there can hardly be anything other then black/white descriptions of people. As I already stated and alluded to, there are obviously exceptions to this, but on the whole, to support a party that was responsible for the deaths of so many innocent persons is a crime itself. It doesn't matter if YOU supported the actual killings, your support forwards the war machine. Unfortunately for you this situation is not a subjective one but objective.

A- If you support the Nazis
B- You support violence, hate, murder
Leni Riefenstahl supported the Nazis
She also supports violence, hate, and murder.

It's called the Law of Modus Ponens; If A->B. A. B.
That is a valid and sound argument.

reply

[–] Dantès 18 years ago

Well, according to your definition, Schindler is not an exception to the rule. He ran a munitions factory and produced materiel for German troops. Therefore, in your words, he supported the Nazi war machine and is at least partly responsible for the Holocaust. See, it's not as simple as black and white.

Mein Kampf doesn't advocate genocide. It voices fierce anti-Semitism, which was nothing new in Germany. Anti-Semitism was rampant throughout Europe at the time, and had been for years. It had been a staple in German politics since 1892. Hating and slander is a far cry from organized, state-sponsored murder.

Example: your friend Bob hates gays. He first tells you this in 1999. Over time, he continues to bash gays. In 2007, he kills a gay man. THEREFORE, you support homophobia and murdering gays. Just because he told you he hates them, that means you KNEW he would kill one. Sound simplistic? You bet. And yet, it's also your argument.

It's also clear you don't know the Holocaust well enough. History shows the Nazis hadn't even planned the Holocaust in 1934. There are piles of historical evidence to show the Nazis tried all sorts of plans to relocate Jews, like sending over 4 million to Madagascar. Hitler, Goering and several other top-ranked Nazis supported this plan even as late as 1939. Emigration failed, for the most part, because other countries didn't want Jews either. The Nazis wanted to get rid of Jews and settled on the "Final Solution" because the other options didn't work.

Concentration camps had existed since the Boer War, but they weren't expressly used as death camps until the Holocaust. Saying that a small camp in 1933 indicates the Holocaust will happen… that makes no sense.

Speaking of which, your suggestion of making an anti-Nazi propaganda film? In 1934 Germany? Are you serious? Sure, why not commit career suicide and incur the wrath of millions of Germans and the ruling political party by making a anti-Nazi film, especially when you don't believe in it? As a contemporary example, look at people who opposed George W. Bush after 9/11, like the Dixie Chicks getting death threats. This is very easy for you to say, but if you were in Riefenstahl's shoes at the time, you wouldn't be so bold.

Applying modus ponens to a case as complex as Nazism and the Holocaust is philosophical ignorance. It's a basic argument form and it doesn't apply here.

Your argument is valid because it reflects your opinion and everyone's opinion is valid. However, it's also based on a poor grasp of the history and circumstances around the Holocaust. So while your argument is valid, it definitely isn't sound.

reply

[–] fast_fierce_and_funny 18 years ago

Saying that a small camp in 1933 indicates the Holocaust will happen… that makes no sense.

It does, actually. I'll explain.

You don't put people in camps without there being a reason behind your doing so. People are put into camps ("concentration" or otherwise) primarily so that they can be tightly controlled . To use your example from the Boer War, the Boer women and kids were put into British-controlled camps so that they could not provide aid (food, supplies, shelter) to their husbands, brothers and sons (the ones doing the fighting).

[Of course, the Brits fell victim to the short-sighted thinking that all countries succumb to during wartime. Like not considering the possibility that sticking women and kids into camps might actually strengthen the resolve of the menfolk they were trying to subdue. Personally, I can't imagine anything more infuriating than seeing your wife and kids staring out from behind barbed wire. And particularly if they haven't actually done anything wrong]

Likewise, when the Boers were put into the camps, it made controlling the countryside that much easier. After all, all of the "innocent" civilians were in the camps, right? This gave the British carte blanche not only to shoot anything that moved, but also to destroy the Boer farms and kraals, making it harder for the Boer fighters to find food and shelter (and a safe place to hide from the British). And if a few of the women and kids in the camps happen to die (as an estimated 25% of the Boers in the camps did) due to the sort of crowded, unsanitary conditions that concentration camps typically feature, well, that just means there's a few less mouths to feed, right?

And since roughly a quarter of the Boers who went into camps never came out again, the whole "camp" concept should worry you. Because the British camps were not explicitly designed to kill the civilians that they were trying to control. So with fatality rates like that under relatively benign conditions, just imagine what it was like when the Germans started putting people into camps whom they clearly didn't care to have around.

All that aside, I'll agree with you if you're trying to say that no one could have guessed the final scale of the Holocaust when the camps were first being built.

But you don't have to be the smartest monkey in the cage to realize that when your government starts sticking people in camps (even if the particular people in question are not "your" people) that this does not bode well for either the future of your country or your own personal future. And I don't think you have to examine world history all that minutely to uncover the fact that any atrocity that a particular government claims is being done purely "on behalf of" (or "for the benefit of") its citizens will also be done to the citizens themselves at some point, given enough time for the citizens to become inured to their government treating people like animals.

Any American who's still cheerleading for the camp at Guantanamo Bay, and the fact that the US holds "terrorist suspects" indefinitely without trial obviously hasn't given much thought to those very same mechanisms being used against them someday should they, say, decide to fart in a non-government-approved key.

reply

[–] Dantès 18 years ago

You're right in that nobody would have guessed the scale of the Holocaust based on the one camp, but I don't find your argument very solid.

Here's why:

Firstly, what's-his-face cited an example of a 200-person camp as a precursor to the Holocaust. Not only was this not a death camp, but the scale offers no indication that there would later be camps 1,000 times that size that were expressly intended to murder people.

Sure, Dachau got much larger, as did others, even by 1936. However, this argument pertains to pre-1935, since what's-his-face says Riefenstahl should have known the Holocaust was coming when she made Triumph of the Will.

Obviously camps are not a positive thing and you have to wonder about your own well-being if you're being stuffed into one. However, if you need to monitor a group of people, camps are the only logical way. Deaths will happen but, as you point out, these are incidental. The question here is whether the deaths of the interned is the goal of the camps. Although many people died in the Boer camps, as in many others, these were not extermination camps. Treating people like animals and callously planning to exterminate their entire race are pretty different things.

Furthermore, the argument that a camp in 1933 should have predicted the future doesn't work because it's using 20/20 hindsight, not considering what knowledge or precedent was available at the time.

By 1934, internment camps had been used in Algeria, Canada, South Africa, the U.S., Finland, New Zealand, Russia and dozens of other places. Yes, conditions in some of those places were horrific and many people died. But, not one of those was an extermination camp. History provided no precedent for herding large ethnic groups into camps for the express purpose of systematic murder. It had never happened before.

The question here is all about reasonable expectation.

That's the glaring flaw in the other guy's argument, as in yours. You say that, with no historical precedent to even suggest such a shocking future, Riefenstahl should have seen the Holocaust coming 5 years before it really began. Again, the Nazis had not even planned the Holocaust at by then.

Given all this, expecting anyone to predict it at that point in time is entirely unreasonable and unrealistic.

reply

[–] TeaTaker 18 years ago

Dear Dante:

Again, I DO agree with you, especially with your closing statements...

HOWEVER, for ME, the question is not 'What Leni Knew/could Forsee' at THAT TIME... rather, when I find fault with her, it is due to how she spent the ensuing years literally to her grave as both an unrepenting 'apologist' for the Nazis (NOT that they 'did wrong' when I "Knew Them", but that they really have been MISUNDERSTOOD), and that she, herself, with her fantastically successful attempt at promoting 'the cause' DID in fact, 'promote the cause.'

I really can't say what Leni thought, or knew WHEN she made her magnificent movie.

I CAN 'say' what she had to say about that, LATER, as I have read and SEEN her tell it to us.

Leni made it abundantly clear that she felt misjudged, and, too, that she also tried to assert that the Nazis had been misjudged, also.

There is plenty of evidence to support that assessment of how she portrayed herself, and her 'subject matter.'

It thus matters not to me what she 'had in her heart/mind' when producing that movie, but rather it DOES mean a significant measure what she expressed many years later.

I wish that I could separate her attempts at 'redeeming/explaining' her personal actions, from her defense of the Nazis. Perhaps she felt incapable of 'pleading her case' without also addressing 'her subject matter'... but, the overall result is that she made herself appear to BE in support of the Nazis, at least to some degree. That, in itself, doesn't mean that she WAS a full-fledged supporter of 'the cause', but, indeed, it does tend to color her that way.

History may try to be kind to her, she WAS a great Movie Maker... but she herself left behind a legacy of attempts to temper the world's negative view of the Nazis... which most sane and thinking people OUGHT to find difficult to accept.

I really do wonder if she only said some of those statements ONLY in her own self-defense, OR if she actually DID think that 'they weren't so bad'... BUT, that is truly giving her a huge lattitude of 'benefit of doubt.'

The last interview I have seen of Leni shows her totally unrepentant, and judging all who condemned her work as being basically despicable people... the ironic contrast between THAT and the generally held view of the Nazis is rather disturbing, to say the least.

I feel very sorry that Leni clearly died a very frustrated and unhappy person. However, apparently she was quite responsible for that, if not totally so. She didn't have to attempt to 'answer for the Nazis' in order to justify what she had done. Doing so DOES make her seem like a true 'Sympathizer' unfortunately. That MAY BE an innaccurate assessment of what was actually 'in her heart'... but, then, THAT is the 'last legacy' that she left us with.

Judge it at your own peril, no one can ever really 'know'... we all percieve through our own filters, and 'reality' is a purely subjective CONCEPT.

reply

[–] Dantès 18 years ago

I'm sorry you felt like you had to write such a long post, because I agree with most of it. I suspect you might misunderstand my argument.

I'm not a Nazi apologist and I don't necessarily believe that Leni Riefenstahl was a virtuous soul. Truth be told, I don't know very much about her, I just know the history of the time.

I'm not defending her for all time. I'm responding to the argument put forth by what's-his-head, which says that she should have known the Holocaust was coming in 1934.

If she continued to defend the Nazis in 1944, or later, and try to explain away the Holocaust, then she's a nasty and inhuman soul and I don't defend that. All I'm arguing here is the total historical fallacy that she should have been able to predict the Holocaust.

reply

[–] TeaTaker 18 years ago

Sorry that I DID feel a need to go on at length, and I DID understand that you were attacking the concept that she should have known 'then'... I agree, what I was trying to drive home is that I actually see that arguement as being entirely 'besides the point'... since LATER in her life, she kept trying to justify what she had done.

At the time when she did THAT, everything about the Nazis was already well-known history, and there could be no denying that she must have known THEN the extent of what the Nazis had sought to accomplish. Thus, in her claiims that they really weren't as bad as people thought, she DID come across as being way too apologetic for them.

I had attempted to explain that this is how I have percieved her, based upon interviews that she gave. I wished to give her full 'benefit of doubt' that way, for although to ME she seemed like she very well may have 'supported' the cause, to its most extreme levels, I also understand that she may have felt she had to ameliorate 'her subject matter' in order to justify her past actions.

I really don't know if she supported the Nazis in ANY of their ambitions, whether or not she had any inkling at all about the so-called 'Holocaust' part of it or not --- but, what I do FEEL is, viewing her statements MANY YEARS LATER, that she casts quite a shadow of suspicion upon herself that she may have indeed supported them quite fully.

If she did NOT, then it is most unfortunate that her last legacy gives that impression.

Regardless, I also tried to make clear that I personally think her movie IS most certainly a 'Work of Art.'

Along those lines, I also happen to feel that "Birth of a Nation" really doesn't compare. That movie may have been 'ground-breaking' for its time, but what it accomplishes cinematically is 'nothing' compared with what Leni did.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fast_fierce_and_funny 18 years ago

By 1934, internment camps had been used in Algeria, Canada, South Africa, the U.S., Finland, New Zealand, Russia and dozens of other places.

I guess my question would then be: were any of these other camps incarcerating people for political purposes?

In the case of the Boer War, the Brits could rationalize the establishment of the camps by claiming that they were merely trying to keep the Boer women and kids out of the crossfire.

In the case of the German camps, though, I'm pretty sure that the rationalization given for them was that the Communists who were the first "guests" were deemed Enemies of the Reich.

reply

[–] TeaTaker 18 years ago

Dear Dantès

I am not a historian, and must rely upon ANOTHER movie, Schindler's List, for my knowledge of 'the facts'... thus, it might be faulty.

BUT, what I recall, from THAT movie, is that what Schindler DID was very subversive, actually, and that his 'munitions' were PURPOSELY faulty, with the INTENT that they not only would be inefficient at harming 'the enemy' but, worse for the Nazi movement, that they also were capable of inflicting wounds upon the person using them !

IF that is an accurate and true depiction, then, indeed, he was most certainly NOT a 'supporter' of the Nazi cause !

Also, YOU were the one who equated the the so-called 'simplistic' arguement to include ALL members of 'the party'... it is YOU who are now, also, expanding it to encompass any and all who MIGHT be 'exceptions' as being, in fact, a 'part' of 'the rule.'

Personally, that is not how I read and understood the presentation of logic that you are replying to.

I agree that few things are ever a clean cut case of 'Black and White', but it is beyond arguement or debate that the Nazis WERE the epitomy of evil. Given that context, I do think it is accurate to judge others as being at least somewhat complicit in having been responsible for some very bad acts and actions IF they chose to identify with the Nazis in some manner. That being said, ANYONE can show/demonstrate remorse and repentence for decisions and actions that they later regret, and Schindler and anyone who even THOUGHT about attempting to kill Hitler certainly deserve our recognition that they demonstrated an unwillingness to FULLY support 'the cause.' Some were most likely 'caught up in the wake' with no real idea of what was going on, and for sure, some who had gone along with SOME of the developing atrocities probably found themselves witnessing things that eventually exceeded what they personally wished to participate in or be a part of. THAT is where it definitely becomes VERY 'grey'...

Ironically, when I read the exchanges that you are having, it is YOU who is the one most guilty of 'generalizing' and trying to inaccurately 'lump' everyone together. For instance, not all members of the Nazi Party supported killing all the Jews, I ASSUME. Nor did all those who supported killing all the Jews possibly wish to see the German Empire swallow up all of Europe. I don't KNOW that for fact, but it seems most logical to make that assertion.

What is 'KEY', here, as a distinction, is whether or not someone SOUGHT to further 'the cause'... Leni does become a debatable 'black and white' in that respect... DID she INTEND to promote the cause, or was she merely seeking to 'do her job' as assigned ? That her movie IS magnificent, in many theatrical and cinematic respects, is clear in my mind. Also clear, to me, is that from her interviews and articles, she IS guilty of trying to argue something that does not 'hold water'--- that her movie was JUST a movie, and that she shouldn't be judged for its subject matter. The TRUTH is that her movie WAS persuasive, it DID 'further the cause', and it cannot be separated from that reality. That the movie CAN be seen as a wonderful achievment, while at the same time also be viewed as having promoted a very 'wrong' issue, is also a matter of fact. She CAN be viewed separate from that issue, but she herself condemns her complicity by arguing that the Nazis 'really weren't so bad' at the time she made her paen to them. She sought, to her deathbed, to belittle what they had done, and her knowledge, AT THAT TIME, of what they were doing. Sadly, history and facts do not bear out HER version of that. But, then, it is also part of human nature to view EVERYTHING from our own personal perspective.

For me, the challenge at discerning the 'black and white' of it all, is in trying to determine just what Leni REALLY believed... was it that she decieved herself, after years of denial, into thinking that she was actually as innocent as she stubbornly maintained, even in the face of irreputable evidence to the contrary, or did she actually have such a distorted view ? Probably she knowingly LIED for years, in seekiing to defend herself from the 'horrors' until she had succeeded in blurring the distinction between what she claimed, and what she actually thought... but, that is my conjecture. I DO believe that she felt guilt, but that is because I also choose to refuse to believe that she, or ANY human being could be as cold=hearted as her actions and claims would tend to imply she would have had to be... BUT, then, how to explain Hitler in my viewpoint there, that 'no one' could be that cold ? Especially, if you look at my first post, above, in answer to someone else, HERE, who feels that nature has its own version of 'The Final Solution'=== that deaths equate with 'balancing' out births, which allows him to accept ANY and all acts of violence and inhumanity as a sort of 'Cosmic Retribution'... does that not harken to something akin to Hitler ? Is it possible that people exist today who STILL feel that they have a God-Given right to commit mass murder ? Or, at least, a "God-Condoned" one ? Well, that is another topic, in itself, but, sadly, history and current events both seem to indicate that I may be foolish in thinking that it is an extreme abberration for a human to be so calculatingly cold and cruel, while intelligent and creative, as to be a master-mind behind something as inherrently 'wrong' to me as what the Nazis perpetrated. There were others before Hitler, and others since, and, lo, it looks like a fellow poster, here, may have similar 'world views'...

reply

[–] Dantès 18 years ago

Hiya,

Well, that's a lot to respond to. I might miss some, but here's what I'll say in response.

If you think it was me who lumped Schindler et al in with the rest of the Nazis, you lost the drift of the argument (and this is not said to insult you). Yes, I did mention their specific names first, but that was to show what's-his-name the fallacy of the argument they made, which was, "If you support the Nazis, you support mass murder." In making that argument, what's-his-tits instantly lumped every single Nazi together in one big bowl, they just didn't mention specific names.

Schindler's List is somewhat accurate, but you can't rely on that for facts. His factory did produce faulty munitions, it's true. But he didn't just produce munitions. He produced enamelware and other materiel for soldiers to use, meaning he supported the German war effort. And, according to what's-his-face, that makes him a war criminal.

But that's not really relevant anyway. The argument revolves around what's-his-head's contention that being a Nazi means supporting the Holocaust. Whether Schindler made faulty shells or pasta shells doesn't really matter here. The fact is, he was a Nazi, which apparently makes him a war criminal.

reply

[–] TeaTaker 18 years ago

Dear Dantes...

Don't worry, no offense taken. I appreciate that we can civily disagree, here, and in truth, as you too observe, we actually DO agree on quite a lot.

That said, however...

You say:

"...I did mention their specific names first, but that was to show what's-his-name the fallacy of the argument they made, which was, "If you support the Nazis, you support mass murder."..."

Treatalicious had FIRST said:

"As for Leni, I don't really care if she's just the patsy artist...I didn't know that artists were not also citizens of the world and had the responsibility, just like every other person at that rally, to stand up for what is morally right, no matter the consequences...I say: maybe in her death she could have saved the lives of millions of innocent peoples... Even if she persuaded only one person to sympathasize and join the Nazi Party, then she is also accountable for the atrocities carried out by them."

This is, I believe, the 'what's-his-name' that you refer to, and, here is where he is 'guilty' of equating JUST Leni's 'support' rather than 'resistance' with supporting 'atrocities' such as mass murder. That poster really wasn't saying "If you support the Nazis, you support mass murder" so much as saying that Leni COULD HAVE chosen a different path. As I see it, the message when mentioning 'every other person at that rally' isn't condemning them for merely BEING there, but, rather, it condemns HER for 'persuading someone ELSE to sympathize and join'... to me, this means, LITERALLY, that even those who WERE present, were not as complicit, UNLESS they, too, were trying to urge OTHERS to join in... just by being there, or even by being a member of the Nazi party, was NOT the same as persuading OTHERS to join it... this might seem like an inconsequential distinction to make, but it IS how I read that poster's intended message...

THEN you responded to that with:

"Sure, you can argue that to create support for Hitler is to tacitly support the Holocaust as well, but that's a very simplistic argument."

And, so, you see...it was YOU who brought up this entire question of the HOLOCAUST... 'whats-his-name' had ONLY mentioned 'atrocities' and did NOT even imply that Leni may have had any idea at all about 'what was to come'... just that by her movie promoting Hitler, and his minions, and causing OTHERS to join in, she WAS responsible for augmenting his actions.

I don't find fault with that assessment.

Ironically, it is YOU who created this 'tie-in' between 'support Hitler and you support the Holocaust.' It is actually like you literally 'put words into whats-his-names mouth' as it were. HE didn't make that statement !

His reply, back to you, also did NOT specifically mention 'All Nazis,' nor the Holocaust... rather, he justified HIS arguement thusly:

"...Leni Riefanstahl created the largest piece of Nazi propaganda. Therefore, Leni was supportive of Nazi's and their ideas..."

Note that he doesn't say any SPECIFIC 'idea', Holocaust or otherwise. He spoke in generalities, except for how he SPECIFICALLY limited that 'arguement' to Leni, herself, and what influence her movie DID have...

YOU then replied with:

"Here's the crux of your argument: "To support (Hitler) and his party is itself a crime against humanity."

That's a totally reckless blanket statement. Going by that rationale, Nazi party men like Oskar Schindler and John Rabe (who saved some 200,000 Chinese civilians during the Rape of Nanking) are war criminals. Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg was a Nazi, but also tried to assassinate Hitler in 1944.

But your argument dictates every single Nazi must be a war criminal.

Making your statement is supposing that every single Nazi embraced every single tenet of Nazism, which is also inaccurate. Nazism comprised many different concepts. Many people supported the nationalism of it, but not necessarily the anti-Semitism or other aspects. Stauffenberg was just one of many like this. "

BUT, do you now see ? That really wasn't HIS arguement, it was YOURS ! YOU are the one that expanded it to include EVERY Nazi. I don't know, MAYBE that is also how the other fellow DID think, but it is NOT what he wrote !

And, yes, absolutely, extending it into some sort of 'blanket statement' DOES make it a rather foolish arguement !

HE didn't mention nor include Schindler, YOU did... and, that is why I 'jumped into the fray'... for, I think that YOU mis-read that other fellow.

As I submitted, by virtue of what I 'know' about Schindler (based upon the movie named after him), he clearly did NOT 'whole-heartedly' endorse the Nazi cause...and, whether or not he DID once, he apparently became quite a SUBVERSIVE member of the party, in the end.

To that, I say, YES, it CAN BE all a very 'grey' issue... clearly, SOME members of the Nazi Party, such as Schindler, and those who sought to plot against and even assassinate Hitler, were 'working from within' to be perhaps a more effective "Resistance" than those who had to work from 'without' the Party !!!

Oh, well.

Please continue to take this well, I really DO agree with you for the most part, I just think that you 'jumped to conclusions' beyond what that other person had actually intended...

:-)

reply

[–] Dantès 18 years ago

I think a lot of this argument may ultimately be a waste of time since we're debating the meaning of what what's-his-head wrote and we can do that all day since there will never be a definitive answer.

But here's what I'll say:

First, yes, I mentioned the Holocaust by name. But what's-his-head did refer to it in a earlier post and if you're talking about Nazi atrocities and murder, what else would you be talking about really? Sure, he could be talking about the Einsatzgrüppen or something, but it's not that likely. Besides, it doesn't matter which atrocity he's talking about since he's saying supporting the Nazis supports violence and murder. In 1934, the Nazi's hadn't committed any atrocities. So sure, even if you want to make it more general than the Holocaust, it doesn't change me point.

Also, I didn't create the tie-in between "support Hitler and you support the Holocaust."

Look back a bit for where what's-his-tits offers up his simplistic argument:

<<A- If you support the Nazis
<<B- You support violence, hate, murder
<<Leni Riefenstahl supported the Nazis
<<She also supports violence, hate, and murder.

That's making the tie-in. And sure, that's not verbatim for "support Hitler and you support the Holocaust," but Hitler was the leader of Nazi party and dictated its policies and as I just said, "atrocities" doesn't have to mean the Holocaust, even though it probably does. So here's what's-his-face's argument again:

<<A- If you support the Nazis (supporting Nazis = supporting Hitler)
<<B- You support violence, hate, murder (atrocities, whether the Holocaust or not)
<<Leni Riefenstahl supported the Nazis (again support Nazis = support Hitler)
<<She also supports violence, hate, and murder. (violence & murder = atrocities, likely the Holocaust)

Remember again, that is his argument, not mine and he also says that the situation is black and white, that there is no middle ground. The argument that every single Nazi must be a war criminal is not my argument, I just re-phrased his. Again, look at the A, B argument he makes. Sure, he just Riefsenstahl, but just substitute her name for any other Nazi and it doesn't charge his argument. Besides, if my understanding of his argument was wrong, he would have disabused me of the notion. Instead, he just reaffirmed that the issue is a black and white one.

What you say about Schindler is very much my point. However, Schindler wasn't resistance. He didn't join the party to bring it down from the inside. History records that he's not as virtuous as the movie would have him look. He wasn't an altruist, he was a businessman and Jewish labour made good sense. He saved Jews because they were useful for his operation but was also just human enough to protect some of them. Schindler and many others also supported the Nazi party because they believed in the party itself.

So what's-his-butt says, "If you support the Nazis, you support violence, hate, murder."

I say supporting the Nazis and supporting violence and murder are not necessarily the same thing.

reply

[–] mynameisdouglas 18 years ago

it is hilarious that you (treatalicious) think i sympathasize with nazism.
i don't actually believe i have run into people who are for the holocaust, but if you think that they do not exist than you are kidding yourself.
i believe film critics would be the authority, ask them of the importance of this film.
of course her message was pro-nazi, but it really doesn't matter whether or not she was a nazi. if she had a pro-nazi film that is the message.

to be honest i thought this was a long boring film. but it still does not take away from its historic (for both film and political) significance.

reply

[–] TeaTaker 18 years ago

mynameisdouglas writes, in part:
\
"i don't actually believe i have run into people who are for the holocaust, but if you think that they do not exist than you are kidding yourself."

YES, sadly, I HAVE met such people, and more so READ about them... look in the News for several Arabs, and worse, Leaders of Arab Nations who either alternately 'deny' it occurred, or give their support to it.

I worked with an Emigre from Cuba who had attended 'classes' teaching that the Holocaust did NOT happen, and that Hitler actually 'was good for Germany' given how he had come into power while their economy sucked, and turned it around, and...

When I patiently and POLITELY tried to convince him that he was being 'brain-washed' with a lot of hooey by some 'white supremacist' revisionist 'history', he IMMEDIATELY said: "Oh! You must be a Jew !"

Sigh.

Then, I tried to tell him how had HE been alive, during Hitler's reign, HE would have been put to death, given how 'tainted' his personal 'bloodline' was, he insisted that wasn't the case, that Hitler did NOT kill people just because they didn't fit his ideals, and that I was guilty, funny enough, of SLANDERING his memory !

Oh, well... fools get born every microsecond, nowadays.

reply

[–] sebastian-andersson 18 years ago

Agreed. Well said.

reply

[–] ae7641 18 years ago

Will you please tell me what bad things people have been saying against it, so I can either argue against or support them?

I mean, "Rotten Tomatoes" praises the film and I did not find one bad review. Who are the people attacking the film, and what are they saying?

reply

[–] dukefan18_2003 18 years ago

People who attack this film are ignorant. I don't know what people have been saying but I can imagine the accusations being made about this movie being offensive and what not. This film is an important part of history and is very interesting and educational to watch. I even found this film entertaining. I enjoy a good old fashioned dose of "evil" every once in a while...helps clear the head...

reply

[–] Jyo784 18 years ago

We had to watch Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will in my film classes.
These films have to be considered apart from their incendiary content, the contributions they made to film language was important. You don't have to agree with the politics of the filmmakers.

reply

[–] eerwicker 18 years ago

There have been excellent critiques of this film, by Susan Sontag, Gilbert Adair and, in a recent piece in Prospect magazine (May 2007), Kevin Jackson, who finds the film 'bombastic, dull and kitschy'.
And, pace all those who find Triumph... a masterpiece, he's right. This is an incredibly dull, hollow film, completely devoid of any intellectual engagement with its subject - a camera which looks without curiosity, which asks no questions. And however eloquent you may find it, well, so what? We judge the great artists for what they say as well as how they say it. If there were no profound truths in Shakespeare or Keats, they would not still be read. There are no such truths in Triumph; its maker had nothing to say. For this reason (and the fact it is so bloody boring) I rather doubt it will survive except as a piece of historical evidence.

Or as Jackson put it (I paraphrase) her technique no more makes Leni a great film maker than the ability to play widdly guitar solos makes a heavy metal shredder a musical genius. 'Technique without larger vision is only technique, hollow virtuosity. In the service of barbarism, it becomes worse than meretricious.'

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]