After watching this movie and trying to keep an open mind I was impressed by the films effectiveness at showing a favorable side to possibly the most evil man of the 20th century, Hitler. What a frightening problem this movie shows and Mary Devereaux points out, art is capable of making something inherently evil, beautiful. In this essay Devereaux attempts to reveal the relationship between beauty and evil by examining possibly one of the greatest morally repugnant, yet aesthetically beautiful films ever created, Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will. The first part of the essay has Devereaux analyzing the film by taking her through three aspects of the documentary: its structure, its vision, and its narrative strategy which according to her is all in the strive to present the idea of Ein Volk. Ein Fuhrer. Ein Reich., or One People. One Leader. One Empire. The second part of the essay is more on the philosophical side of things where Devereaux explores her original motive of trying to find the relationship between beauty and evil.
While the actual description of the movie gives little to help Devereaux’s central purpose there are a few parts in it that help lead into the relationship between beauty and evil and the problems that arise from it. The structure of the film shows that there was actual intent to make an aesthetically pleasing film that held the audiences attention and let them feel the same enthusiasm the spectators in Nuremburg felt. Its vision, as Devereaux so clearly states, was to “present the Nazi world as a kind of Valhalla”. Riefenstahl presents Hitler as a savior to the German people that will unify the German people and rekindle the power of Germany. But, to me at least, the most singular thing about this movie is the final aspect, the narrative strategy. Riefenstahl is not only able to cleanly transition between different ideas in the movie but she also is able to make everything intertwine truly allowing for the overall idea of Ein Volk. Ein Fuhrer. Ein Reich. The gradual transition from loyal civilians to a boast of military powers helps not only to intertwine the idea of a united and loyal German people but also one of a fearsome and powerful German government.
This overall summary helps to bring us to the actual point of Devereaux’s essay, what relationship exists between beauty and evil in concern to art and is the artist responsible for the moral repercussions that ensue because of their creation? Riefenstahl says that Triumph of the Will is a “pure documentary” but also states that it was purely aesthetic in nature, these two contradictory statements according to Devereaux are refuted by the films structure. The organization of the film is not dictated by the actual order in which the events occurred but in a way that narrates a story of Hitler’s leadership of Germany. Even with this the idea of it being a pure documentary is thrown out as Siegfried Kracauer points out there is a “faked reality” within the Triumph of the Will, in that the Party Convention helped work to what the documentary needed for shots. With this the documentary made the Convention exactly what Riefenstahl wanted it to look like, instead of the Convention looking exactly like what it really was. Now the question forms is a piece of art such as Triumph of the Will able to escape its moral boundaries and just be viewed aesthetically as a formalist opinion would purpose or is there something about it’s morally vile background that makes it the great film that it is? Devereaux would agree with the second part of this but I can’t say that her argument was a great one. I feel that she glosses over the aesthetic beauty of the movie and yes while there is something phenomenal about making Hitler look good the reason it is a great piece of art, for me at least, is the amazing editing and the great camera angles that make it a visually stunning piece. After this conclusion Devereaux goes to the idea that there is more to aesthetics than beauty and form, since this allows for a middle ground when considering morality in a piece of art, it concedes that there are places where the beauty of a piece and its moral implications can be separate and can overlap depending on the work of art. To conclude Devereaux poses two more ideas one that Triumph of the Will is a flawed work of art and it eludes the supreme aesthetic praise because of its morally evil background. Two if this movie is so morally repugnant why do we watch it? Which according to Devereaux is for a number of reasons but the most important being that it allows us to see that art can make what we deem as evil appear good.
I partially agree with Devereaux and believe that she made a clear and rational argument for what evil is I can’t help feeling that she focused too much on the moral problems behind the art and not enough on the aesthetics of the film. It seems like she brushes away the fact that this film, while making a vile and evil person look like a good savior, is a visually stunning work. What really bugs me about her argument is on page 250 close to the end when she says, “If good art must not only please the senses, but also engage and satisfy us intellectually and emotionally, then we are, I suggest, justified in criticizing Triumph of the Will for rendering something evil beautiful.” This argument doesn’t seem to hold any water especially after we just viewed Picasso’s painting “Guernica” which neither pleased our senses or satisfied us emotionally. Lack of emotional satisfaction is not justification for the film to be criticized nor is the fact that is made something aesthetically pleasing which in all rights shouldn’t be. Aesthetically the move was phenomenal and nothing can take that away, the only criticism in my mind can be drawn from the repercussions the film had afterward.
Should artists be responsible for the repercussions that their art causes? Should art be valued by its moral background? Is there any other reason besides the ones Devereaux states to view movies such as Triumph of the Will?
What amazed me, watching the movie on youtube, were some of the comments left by previous viewers. The amount of Hitler love and pro-nazi sentiment that was expressed shows the effect this film still has, years and years later. It's incredible to see that some people not only agree with Hitler's policies but publicly proclaim that "the Reich will rise again!!" I wonder how many of those who commented positively would be willing to own up to their sentiments without being under the cover of anonymity.
ReplyDeleteThe film was beautifully edited and composed and I believe that adds to the evil it created. It's difficult to connect those shiny happy people doing folk dances and waving flags with the atrocities committed during the Nazi reign.
In my opinion, art should absolutely be valued by its moral background. To argue that art should not be judged on its moral background is essentially to say that art is one dimensional - that it is pure aesthetics. I think this degrades the true power and value of art and ignores the real meanings of many pieces of artwork. If all that matters is the aesthetic beauty, then museums may as well take down the informational plaques that accompany many pieces of art, it doesn't matter who painted it, when, or for what reason.
ReplyDeleteMany pieces of art can be judged on purely aesthetic bases. Photographs of sunsets for example, have no deeper meaning. But many of the most important pieces of artwork have a significant message that is inextricably linked to the aesthetic properties of the piece. To judge based on aesthetic appeal alone ignores what the piece is really trying to do.