Film Propaganda: Triumph of the Willas a Case Study
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Film Propaganda: Triumph of the Will as a Case Study Author(s): Alan Sennett Source: Framework: The Journal of Cinema and Media, Vol. 55, No. 1 (2014), pp. 45-65 Published by: Wayne State University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13110/framework.55.1.0045 . Accessed: 10/07/2014 11:40 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Wayne State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Framework: The Journal of Cinema and Media. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 68.191.205.73 on Thu, 10 Jul 2014 11:40:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Film Propaganda: Triumph of the Will as a Case Study Alan Sennett Until a reassessment by historians and film critics in the 1990s, Leni Riefenstahl’s cinematic “record” of the September 1934 Nazi party rally had generally been regarded as the quintessential example of the art of political film propaganda. Susan Sontag argued in a seminal article for the New York Review of Books that Riefenstahl’s “superb” films of the 1930s were powerful propaganda as well as important documentary art made by “a film-maker of genius.”1 She concluded that Triumph des Willens/Triumph of the Will (DE, 1935) was “a film whose very conception negates the possibility of the filmmaker’s having an aesthetic concep- tion independent of propaganda.”2 Although still an important source, Sontag’s assessment has been seriously challenged on a number of counts. While her 1975 essay certainly breaks with an earlier insistence upon the separation of artist from historical context,3 it nevertheless makes huge claims for the quality and power of Riefenstahl’s film as both art and political propaganda that are difficult to sustain. Brian Winston, the prominent media scholar, has argued that the film might better be seen as the antithesis of persuasive propaganda and that it is more powerful as a warning against the very political and social ideas the film espouses rather than a successful projection of them.4 Moreover, Winston contends that the film does not stand up very strongly as a work of art and is certainly far from the masterpiece Sontag and others such as Richard M. Barsam claim it to be.5 For her own part, Riefenstahl always maintained that she was not a political filmmaker and her film was not propaganda but a documentary record of the Nuremberg rally. She maintained, perhaps most passionately in Ray Müller’s 1993 film, that she had been engaged—reluctantly on her part—in a technical exercise Framework 55, No. 1, Spring 2014, pp. 45–65. Copyright © 2014 Wayne State University Press, Detroit, Michigan 48201-1309. 45 This content downloaded from 68.191.205.73 on Thu, 10 Jul 2014 11:40:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Alan Sennett to document the event and had no interest in or sympathy with the political views of the National Socialists.6 Clearly, this dispute over the film’s nature, purpose, and status raises questions about its production history and wider issues around the characteristics of politi- cal cinema and the specific nature of film propaganda as a form of political cinema. In an attempt to explore the relationship between art, politics, and propaganda, this paper addresses three main issues. Firstly, how can we conceptualize “political propaganda” and how has this concept been understood by some of those who study film history? Secondly, how does Riefenstahl’s film function as political propaganda? Can it be argued that technical and aesthetic qualities help under- score the film’s political aims? Th irdly, is it possible to judge the eff ectiveness of the film as a piece of propaganda in its historical time and place? Indeed, a major concern here will be to restore a crucial element absent in so many discussions of the film, namely that of its specific historical context. Defining Propaganda In the English-speaking world, there is a tendency to apportion a negative mean- ing to the term “propaganda.” Here propaganda connotes the dissemination of particular messages of a dishonest and dangerous kind; ones usually associated with authoritarian and tyrannical regimes. Propaganda is associated with the manipulation of large numbers of people and is seen to involve deliberately misleading them either by obscuring reality with a partial or slanted view, or through downright lies. Yet it is evident that in some cultures the term has retained its Catholic usage alongside the modern negative sense. In Latinate languages, the term retains something of its original meaning of “propagation” and is used as a colloquial expression meaning advertising or “junk mail.” Yet it is important to reflect upon the fact that propagandizing has not always been thought of as something to be ashamed of. It can be viewed as a positive activity, as in the original use of the term by the Catholic Church in its 1622 Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide. Here the reference is to the active promotion of a worldview perceived to be the absolute and unquestionable truth.7 In the Anglophone world, the tendency has been to avoid the label “propa- gandist” even when describing agencies with a clearly propagandistic purpose. If Nazi Germany had its Ministry of Propaganda, wartime Britain simply had a Ministry of Information and the United States an Office of War Information. Th us, the democracies eschewed the propaganda label and claimed to produce “information” to counter the “propaganda” of the regimes of which democratic Western society disapproved. Th e implication is that “our” information is bal- anced and honest whereas “their” propaganda is one-sided and deceitful, designed 46 This content downloaded from 68.191.205.73 on Thu, 10 Jul 2014 11:40:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Triumph of the Will to transmit a false view of the world. Our “ideas” are open to contention, their “ideology” is closed and totalitarian. Th us, the process of defining what constitutes propaganda has been a highly politicized and controversial matter that must itself be viewed in historical context. Th e film historian Richard Taylor has argued in favor of a tight definition of propaganda that helps us avoid any confusion with claims simply to be supplying information or “enlightening” the public. For Taylor, propaganda is concerned with the transmission of ideas and/or values from one person, or group of persons, to another. Where “propagation” is the action, there “propaganda” is the activity.8 Hence, propaganda, in order to qualify as such, must be both intentional and purposeful. It involves a conscious and deliberate action on the part of the propagandist and must always have an aim. Th is ultimate purpose aff ords the propaganda act its distinctiveness. Propaganda, Taylor insists, cannot be com- municated unintentionally or accidentally. On the contrary, the propagandist is highly conscious of the message she wishes to convey and wittingly employs techniques of persuasion and manipulation to achieve her ends. Th is would seem to preclude the possibility of propaganda being made by a producer unaware of the political content or significance of their work. Yet it would seem reasonable to suppose that such a work might be consciously used as propaganda by others. Certain artistic products might also acquire political significance in a specific context and in relation to other ideas and attitudes circulating in a particular historical moment. It follows that in order to be able to describe an activity as “propaganda” we must be able to uncover a connection between the propagandist and her audience. Th ere must be a link between the act of propagating and an intended audience. Whether or not the propagandist is successful is quite another matter. It is the intention and purpose that counts. In the mid-1930s, Aldous Huxley commented that political and religious propaganda only held sway over those who were already partially or wholly convinced of the truth of its core message. As he noted: Propaganda gives force and direction to the successive movements of popular feeling and desire; but it does not do much to create these movements. Th e propagandist is a man who canalizes an already existing stream. In a land where there is no water, he digs in vain.9 Th us, the propagandist deals with ideas, perceptions, and emotions that already have social currency. But must she strive to conceal her message from the audience? 47 This content downloaded from 68.191.205.73 on Thu, 10 Jul 2014 11:40:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Alan Sennett Minister of Propaganda, Josef Goebbels, certainly thought that the propaganda message should ideally be disguised.10 He believed that propaganda had far less of an impact once the audience became conscious of the message. Hence, he tended to favor the production of entertainment films that engaged the viewer and delivered messages through an emotional involvement with characters and storyline.11 While it is common in the literature to note that out of the 1,094 films made during the Nazi period only 153 were classified by the regime as “political,” it is evident that all filmmakers in Germany operated within a broader ideological context as well as being subject to pre-censorship, censorship, and many other controlling institutional mechanisms.12 Does this mean, then, that all films made during the Nazi period should be seen as “political” in the broad sense that they contain messages and were required to conform to or not contradict the ideologi- cal norms of the regime? Or is it possible to make a distinction between films that are “made politically” and films that are entertainment? Such a discussion draws us inexorably toward questions of politics and ideology.