Leni Riefenstahl changed the face of documentary film forever.  What was her contribution to the documentary genre and how is her film, Triumph of the Will unique? How does this film differ from other films during that same time period?  What can be learned from her representation of Adolf Hitler?

Leni Rienfenstahl revolutionized documentary, managing to create one of the most influential propaganda films of the age. She was requested to make a film documenting the rise of Hitler, portraying him in a positive light.Through a series of dramatic scenes, numerous cuts and brilliant editing, she delivered the character of “Hitler” and achieved her ultimate goal of glorifying the Nazi Party.

Previous documentary films by renown directors such as Flaherty and Grierson had very different feels about them. A Flaherty film, such as Nanook of the North, focused on a particular group of people familiarizing the audience with them and presenting the individuals involved almost as stylized characters. Flaherty was notoriously fluffy, Barnouw even noting in A History of the Non-fiction Film that Flaherty was negligent of the social climate when documenting the Aran Isles, in favor of depicting his method. Grierson on the other hand took a different approach to the documentary film, using commentators to clearly present a point of view with little room for interpretation. Leni Rienfenstahl, though, took a very different route when creating Triumph of the WIll.  She used no commentary; Rather, she let the material speak for itself. The message was clearly communicated, the Nazi party was solidly unified and their head was the Fuehrer.

While Rienfenstahl herself noted in a personal interview that, in person, Hitler presented himself as a quiet and reserved person, this was not the persona that came across on screen. By means of her filming Rienfensthal captured Hitler’s charisma and showed how he captivated the entire nation of Germany. Many of the scenes deify Hitler, placing him above all others literally. On screen he seemed larger than life, as many of the scenes with him focus on him only. There is no where else to look except for at Hitler, and his presence is overwhelming. Rienfenstahl made sure that there was nothing to distract the audience from his message. In contrast, Rienfenstahl had many scenes of German citizens in different states. Some of these included frenzied admirers craning to simply get a glance at their leader. Others showed the intense order of the Nazis, perfectly lined up and waiting to hear Hitler’s words.  One thing is clear though, the Nazi party is extremely unified and solid, ad Hitler comes forth as their commander. 

Eric Barnouw states that Rienfenstahl did not present the film in chronological order. Rather she edited the film in order to capture the pomp surrounding the Nazi party focusing on many of her choreographed scenes. The rallies appear extremely exciting and the swell of feeling amongst the audience is undeniable. By taking this creative liberty, she ultimately accomplished her ultimate purpose of painting a glorious picture of the Nazi party. Whether or not this was an accurate portrayal of the Nazi party remains to be seen. But it cannot be denied that Rienfenstahl did what she set out to do: create a propaganda film worthy of the third reich.

What can be said about Rienfenstahl’s portrayal of Adolf Hitler? I suppose it is that even one of the most unappealing characters in history can be made into a charismatic leader through a series of cuts and edits. Through her film, Rienfenstahl managed o show the entire world what the German people saw exactly in Hitler. While many just viewed him as a small, unassuming man- by means of the documentary, Rienfensthal captured Germany’s Hitler, a fierce and captivating individual who led an entire nation like never before.

One of the defining factors of documentary, according to Bill Nichols, is that documentaries are about real people. He goes on to note that the characters are “playing” themselves, in that they presentation may reflect the influence of the cameras presence. Nichols also states that an actor in a stage play or fictional piece must subdue certain aspects of himself in order to present the growth of the character to the audience. He also says that the act of self-presentation allows an individual to reveal as much or as little of himself as he desires, and that as a situation evolves so does the individual. This was apparent in the documentary The Act of Killing by Joshua Oppenheimer.

The film highlights the after-effects on the lives of the men involved in the Indonesian Killings of 1965-1966. In the film, we see that each individual has developed their own way to cope with what they have done. Some feel pride in their actions, seeing no moral blurred lines. Others choose to submerge the memories deep into their subconscious, and do not see any reason to dwell on the past. But the film’s most compelling character is Anwar Congo, former executioner of over a million accused communists. Anwar, though appearing to be a typical elderly man indulging in retirement with his grand-children, is plagued by nightmares of his past. Over the course of filming, the audience is privy to a transformation of Congo as he becomes more familiar with director Oppenheimer and is forced to confront his inner demons that have been festering for years.

Nichols argues that as a situation changed between an individual and the film maker, so does their response to the camera. “Friendliness prompts a friendly presentation, but an introduction of a sarcastic remark may prompt guardedness” (Nichols, 9). We see this in the act of killing in a number of different scenes. For instance, during a drive with one of Anwar’s “gangster” buddies, Oppenheimer begins to ask what can only be described as difficult questions. He began with an inquiry of the man’s moral compass and later asked him if he was haunted by the same guilty memories as Anwar. The man comes off as abrasive and arguably displays no sense of regret, at least not on camera. In contrast, Anwar, as his relationship with Oppenheimer develops, we see a change in him. He opens up to the camera and relates his true feelings to Oppenheimer and the audience. Such a honest revelation is a rare thing to be captured on the screen. By the end of the film, we see Congo dry heaving in self-loathing. This is the definition of self-presentation, and as Nichols says is not something that could have been devised by director.