(Someone else engrossed in Triumph of the Will)
The only thing that really caught my interest about this film actually took place before it even began. This movie is widely considered one of the most influential pieces of propaganda ever created. (I’m assuming the German’s in the mid 1930’s felt a bit more excited by the film than I did.) During the opening commentary and discussion of this film screening, the question was posed: “can a movie really be that dangerous?” For some reason this really struck me. I mean, come on, film is film, it’s only a movie. We’re just watching a bunch of glorified pictures being spat back at us at 24 frames per second. And yet, it was films like these that allowed a minority group of Nazi’s to take popular control of an otherwise sane country. These films made people believe that not only was it acceptable to exterminate an entire race of people, but that such actions were justified. It blows my mind.
In his essay entitled Questions of Genre, Steve Neale talks about different genres and their associated verisimilitudes (essentially, conventions and situations that can seem plausible or truthful in certain genres and not in others). He says that films must typically abide by two forms of verisimilitude: generic verisimilitude and broader social or cultural verisimilitude.
(See verisimilitude in the wiki page: https://courses.duke.edu/webapps/lobj-wiki-bb_bb60/wiki/ENGLISH101A.01-F2009/course/Verisimilitude)
The relevant of the two right now is social/cultural verisimilitude, which is the level of truthfulness that is determined by social norms. What I took from this part of Neale’s article is that film is a reflection of society, and, for the most part, what we see on screen is a product of we do as a society. This is the case in quite a few films. Take V for Vendetta (2005, James McTeigue) for example: the character of Chancellor Adam Sutler (John Hurt) and the movie’s plot in general were a reflection of the uncertainly and consequences of 9/11 and the Patriot Act. (Many believe the Chancellor’s character was shaped to loosely resemble President Bush.) Even the protagonist, V (Hugo Weaving), was a representation of the American people’s desire to regain the power they felt they lost.
It was for this reason that I was so surprised by Triumph of the Will; it had a reflection that was the opposite of what I had previously seen. The movie screen now had its own set of standards and ideals and it was the people changed their beliefs to better match those on screen. The movie screen and the audience were no longer one-way reflections; rather they both molded and shaped the other. With this in mind, I want to return to my original question: can a film really be dangerous? If we reach a point as a society when what we see and hear becomes so prevalent that it drowns out what we think, then yes, a film can be dangerous. Triumph represented such a time and such a movie. But is film any different from books or the media? Can’t any other opinion repeated over and over seep into our minds to the point that we call them our own? Let me know what you think.
"I mean, come on, film is film, it’s only a movie" -- aha. Famous last words. I think film theorists would have you think otherwise. A response could also be formed as a question: what makes film a potentially powerful influence on hearts and minds? This was the obsessive question of 70s film theory on ideology. Your focus on verisimilitude is an excellent place to begin an answer. How does film's "realism" make it a vehicle for ideology (in this case Nazism) -- the corollary question is, how is realism produced rather than naturally mirrored in cinema? Throughout the 20th c. governments used cinema to influence the masses (the U.S. during WWII included). The issue of "if it looks real it must be real" therefore "I believe it is true" is huge for all of us film students. In this case, Nazism is cast as collective, powerful, and righteous (there's no attempt to try to get people on board with mass extermination per se); Hitler is large, omnipotent, and widely respected... this is what makes it propaganda, I think: representing fantasy as truth. In the 30s you may have watched this film and thought, whoa, Nazism is really powerful, way more powerful than little old me... it's inevitable! and invincible! and that would have been enough to contribute to the creation of a population of bystanders.
ReplyDeleteStarting from this question of whether or not film can be "dangerous" was a great idea, and you do a great job arguing your opinion. You state (regarding Triumph of the Will): "The movie screen now had its own set of standards and ideals and it was the people changed their beliefs to better match those on screen." This is an excellent point, and very true. But how does this work? Carrie writes about the power of the camera to capture specific details and views of events in life that we do not normally recognize or acknowledge. Film makers in general (but probably more so in a legitimate propaganda film like this) seek to convey a certain point with their work. Every little angle, detail, zoom, focus setting...etc..ALL of this is intended to add to the intended ideological message of a film. This, I would say, is why people change their beliefs-- because we do not realize that our POV is deliberately manipulated.
ReplyDeleteGreat job this week :)
Dude, Triumph of the Will is SOOOOOO boring. Now that that's out of the way, I can say that the filming techniques were really cool, especially after seeing the commentary and imagining what crazy things she would have done to attain certain shots, especially during the time period. My little nitpicky thing I want to say is that V for Vendetta is actually based on England. It was a graphic novel written by Alan Moore (God bless him) reflecting a general consensus that England was having too much power and mirrors the events of the gunpowder treason plot by Guy Fawkes, a man who thought the same thing as V during his time. I do agree however with your discourse of verisimilitude. The reason why Triumph of the Will is so dangerous is because of a Germanic notion of the Feuher (spell check?) and the notion of the Volk, meaning all Germans are united in their beliefs and existence. The Feuher is basically next to God and if one doesn't side with him, one is not German. That's how it goes, so Hitler can play off this, and he does. So does the film. That's why it's so good. Hitler comes across as a Messiah figure for Germany and it works really really really well.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, media in general really can be that powerful! It’s crazy how easily we can be persuaded with a film, especially. I can believe that during the time this film was created, if I was in German, and of course not a Jew, I’d be influenced by this film. The Germans were looking for hope and this movie showed mass people conforming to Hitler’s view, putting their trust in him, and included applauses and smiles- all characteristics of elements that help persuade people one way or another. Looking back now, I see this film as ridiculous and I couldn’t really handle watching it. Yet, for the time it was created it makes sense. The film was clearly a propaganda film. In addition, books can also be that powerful. For example, I became a vegetarian after reading a book about animal cruelty!
ReplyDeleteGreat layout of your blog. You made a dull film into an interesting blog. I too felt nauseus watching the Nazis being praised and realizing the significant details that the film omitted. I think that film (and other types of medium for that matter) can be very dangerous and influential in certain situations. If someone came into a prosperous area, in which most citizens were already happy, a film like this would have no weight and would probably fizzle out. However, in Germany in the 1920s/1930s, the general outlook was very bleak and people needed a cause, a reason to believe him. It is when people are desperate that they are the easiest to sway or persuade to follow a cause. The opportunity presented itself for the Nazis to come to power, and using "dangerous" films such as Triumph of the Will (which is the only one I have seen although I am sure there are others), they were able to reach a large enough size to rule the country. This film is a great example of a "dangerous" film and how it can influence the population of a nation.
ReplyDeleteI have to say that I love the open-ended question or questions that you always leave at the end of your blog. It definitely gives your readers more to mull over and to potentially debate.
ReplyDeleteAs to my take on your question, I definitely do believe that propaganda can be influential in other mediums.
Print newspaper, before the advent of the internet and mass propagation of digital information, had a HUGE impact on popular opinion. "Citizen Kane" could be considered a tribute to the depth of that influence, since it outlines the life of a man who made his fortune off telling people what they "should" think. Yellow journalism and the Spanish-American War are more examples.
Still, nothing beats the combination of sound and moving image when it comes to influencing opinion. I'm sure a film on poverty in Africa would have far more of an impact on us (and our consciences) than a simple article in a newspaper, no matter how well-written.
So I suppose my final conclusion would be that while film is not unique in its ability to influence opinion, it has far more potential to impact our sensibilities, for obvious reasons.
I certainly did not see before this film how films could be dangerous but after viewing Triumph of the Will it is certainly a work of dangerous propaganda value. It is somewhat horrifying to see this film personally for me because I was not able to seperate it from its historical context. Watching the rows after rows of Nazi soldiers and citizens marching and cheering I couldn't help but think of the monstrous destruction they were about to launch upon the world. I also thought about the fact that by 1945 most of those people themselves would also be dead. I think this is a dangerous film because it makes Hitler relatable. I think that it is dangerous to allow people to view a film that portrays the greatest mass murder in history in a human light. It was also horrifying to hear the director praise the film so long after she had made it, not taking into account the effect it had on people, sending them into the streets to commit horrible acts. I do also agree with your assertion that anytime something stops us from thinking it is dangerous.
ReplyDeletePropaganda in other mediums is a really great way to open discussion, and thanks for leaving a topic for us to discuss. I feel that film as propaganda is perhaps the most startling usage of art as politicization. Books can absolutely be used as propaganda (Mien Kampf is a great example, which I'm sure I misspelled), but film is so devastatingly effective at doing it. Film is, moreso than other media, a passive experience. Many readings have touched on this in one way or another, but regardless of what those authors have said, it just seems intuitive. There is no effort of actively reading a book, so we can enjoy film which much less thought. Pictures can function well as propaganda, but they can only convey a visual image, not the full-on immersive propaganda of moving pictures and sound. The music tells us how to feel, the images tell us how to feel. We come in expecting to be entertained, and so we submit to the power of film. So, while I think other media can absolutely be used as propaganda, film is tremendously more dangerous, and that to me made Triumph of the Will so unsettling. That, and the asshole with the ridiculous mustache.
ReplyDelete