Triumph of the Will

Walter Benjamin posited in his article, "Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" that all art was political. In speaking of the "aura" of certain original works of art, and the lack-of-aura that comes along with such mediums as film, Benjamin discusses the effects of a mass-produced product on an audience. He defines the term aura as the unique quality or identity of an original piece. While certain things, such as actual objects like trees, have an aura around them, a painting or a film of the tree loses the aura by portraying an interpretation of one person to an audience of many people. Benjamin is wary of the effects of a communal audience, which he felt created a mass identity for the viewers, a single point of view. Benjamin's argument is a worthy one of discussion, but I wonder what he would have to say about political films specifically, instead of only the medium. Did Benjamin, in 1934, see in the codes and conventions of cinema the tools for a nation of mindless drones? I think, while he may have realized this, Benjamin was more wary of the idea of a communal experience of art, rather than the abilities of that art to trick an audience into belief.

At this point you may be wondering how a film goes about "tricking" an audience. After all, film captures the real world like no other medium can, in that it can successfully reproduce real world images and movement for an audience. To really understand the way this is done, however, it is important to note the "rules" or the "language" of cinema. Just like any other medium, film uses specific conventions in order to relate something to its audience. While these are so common that they are now understood as a realistic portrayal of the world, they do not reflect real-world actions and sounds. Take for example, the shot-reverse-shot, the classic element of filmic convention in Hollywood cinema. This effect is created by the montage of two shots, which is basically a word film theorist's use for editing. (Hitchcock explains the capabilties of montage here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R-zCVFbwLw ) Understanding of the shot-reverse-shot, which describes the editing between two shots, often between two people in a conversation, is necessary for any person who desires to watch a film. By seeing a shot of one person talking, which is then edited in sequence to a shot of another person listening, we understand as viewers that these people share the same space, and that they are talking.

This type of distinction, (i.e. shot-reverse-shot, montage, and editing) describes what Christian Metz argues make up the discourse of a film. Metz theorizes that our understanding of film is based on two concepts: story and discourse. Story is exactly what you imagine it is, in our basic hypothetical scene: two people talking. Discourse however are shot-reverse-shot and editing, the ways the camera is used to tell the story to the viewer. Through the director's use of discourse, we are able to understand a story. The trouble with film, however is that sometimes the story being presented is not always true. Discourse can be used to trick the viewer into believing something that is not really there. (Consider Hitchcock in the above video, describing the way a shot of a man smiling can be sequenced with either a woman feeding her baby, or a girl in a bikini) This, is where the real danger of film, in my opinion lies. Not in its ability to present a single view to an audience, but in its potential for trickery, which stems from our basic understanding of the language of film.

A great example of a film that does this is "Triumph of the Will," a 1934 film which documents the Nazi Party congress in Nuremberg, Germany. I have recently watched this film in my Intro to Film Class, at Duke University, and the great thing about it is that it manages to bring into discussion many of the key texts with which we have been engaging throughout the year. Benjamin was one of our first, and while few people understood what he was saying at the time, after viewing "Triumph of the Will," it is apparent to many why he says that art and politics are so intertwined. In addition, the film is a great example of the classic combo of story/discourse gone awry. Through normal filmic conventions, the film's director, Leni Riefenstahl, manages to create a thoroughly positive image of Hitler, and the Nazi party. Her use of basic discourse to propagandize a point of view is revolutionary in that it reveals the potential film has as a medium. By filming Hitler from the ground up, Riefenstahl is able to create an image of the leader as one of greatness and mightiness. Hitler appears larger than life, and, coupled with shots of children smiling, boys waving, and women grinning, the audience believes that Hitler has captured the hearts of millions. Indeed, "Triumph of the Will" is a beautiful film, but it scares me. By using such simple tactics as non-diegetic music to score the film, an image of a grand, happy ol' empire is created. One that makes the audience want to join in on the fun. This scares me because I see the power film has for manipulation, but also makes me wonder at the many possiblities it offers as an art form. The simple tweaking of a shot's basic elements can turn it into something powerful, beautiful, or disastrous. This is the true beauty of film: its possiblities as a medium, however scary they may be.