ET 6 TRIUMPH OF THE WILL AND POTEMKIN COMPARISON: REALISM (EDITED)

       vs   

“Triumph of the Will” by Leni Reifenstahl and “The Battleship Potemkin” by Sergei Eisenstein are two propaganda films which execute their job well in conveying their message across to their targeted audiences. However, both movies have very different ideologies where Einstein promoted communism whereas Reifenstahl publicized fascism.  Although they have differing ideologies, there are a few elements that are common to both films namely crowds, uniforms and children and I am going to compare how these elements are treated by each director in their respective films.

To start off, both directors have cleverly made use of crowds to convey a message to audiences. In “Triumph of the Will”, this can be well illustrated in the opening sequence of the film where we are shown an aerial view of a large crowd of people.  The scene then cuts to show Adolf Hitler exiting an airplane and receiving thunderous rounds of applause and cheers from the crowd.  Hence, Reifenstahl used crowds to show audiences that Hitler has many supporters  who worshiped him, thus giving him a “god-like” entrance in the film.  On the other hand, Eisenstein has used crowds rather differently. Right before the Odessa Steps sequence, a large crowd of people were seen happily cheering the arrival of the sailors. In the crowd, we could observe close up shots of people from different walks of life, among them being a young boy and his mother, an old woman with glasses, a rich young woman and even a disabled man. However, their happiness did not last for long  as the Tsarist soldiers were shown marching down the seemingly endless Odessa steps in a straight line formation and shot anyone who was not with them. In that epic scene, we could see all hell’s running lose as people were running away to save their dear lives.  It can be said that in the beginning, the crowds represented unity but the unity was soon disrupted by the bullet shots that threatened to break apart the once united Soviet Union.

Moving on, uniforms play a huge role in both movies and very well represent their respective propaganda. In “Triumph of the Will”, soldiers in their uniforms, farmers dressed in their farming costumes and people of various social classes are seen to be greeting Hitler. This shows that the Nazi’s ignore social statuses and regard everyone as equals.  Also, in the camps where the soldiers live, they make a point not to wear uniforms because without uniforms, there won’t be ranks and a sort of “brotherhood” is formed.  While uniforms were seen to promote equality in “Triumph of the Will”, it has quite the opposite purpose in “The Battleship Potemkin”. In the first part of the film, we could see clear division between the ruling class and the working class as sailors, captains and other crew members of the ship wore their respective uniforms. Another example of difference in ranks is also observed in the scene where the sailors refusing to eat the rotten meat are punished with a heavy white canvas sheet thrown over them and were waiting to be shot by the firing squad under the orders of the high-ranked officers. However, the squad refused to kill their own men and this is where a revolution for equality begins in the film as all sailors joined forces to fight against their superiors.

Last but not least, children were also used as a means of propaganda in both films. The Youth Rally scene in “Triumph of the Will” is the perfect example as it portrayed orderliness and Hitler’s ability to bring together such a huge crowd of  young boys whom most people often perceive to be naughty and lack the ability to follow orders! It  also showed the Germans that Hitler cared for the younger generation and he was fighting for their better quality of life.  In comparison, children were used as victims of violence in “The Battleship Potemkin”.  For example, the once cheerful boy who sent off the sailors to sea was trampled to death by the crowd at the Odessa Steps sequence. The close up shot on the boy’s face was really pitiful as he was in terrible pain and was crying helplessly for his mother before meeting his end! The director knows very well that the effect of the child’s death would be more powerful to audience as opposed to the death of an adult because children are often used in movies as they are thought to be pure, vulnerable and innocent.

All in all, Leni Reifenstahl and Sergei Eisenstein have very well fused the three elements that I have described into their respective movies and no doubt, it has resulted in the world’s greatest propaganda films.

ET 6 TRIUMPH OF THE WILL AND POTEMKIN COMPARISON: REALISM

       vs   

“Triumph of the Will” by Leni Reifenstahl and “The Battleship Potemkin” by Sergei Eisenstein are two propaganda films which execute their job well in conveying their message across to their targeted audiences. However, both movies have very different ideologies where Einstein promoted communism whereas Reifenstahl publicized fascism. Also, it’s important to note that “The Battleship Potemkin” was an entirely fictional film which had the Soviet Union as its backdrop while “Triumph of the Will” chronicled the 1934 Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg, Germany which was attended by more than 700,000 Nazi supporters.  Although they have differing ideologies, there are a few elements that are common to both films namely crowds, uniforms and children. Now, I am going to compare how these three elements are treated by each director in their respective films.

In movies, generally, crowds typically represent the unity of people and both directors have cleverly made use of crowds to convey a message to audiences. In “Triumph of the Will”, this can be well illustrated in the opening sequence of the film where we are seen to be flying in the clouds on an airplane and shown the aerial view of the city Nuremberg which looked very peaceful and untouched by modernization. Then the scene cuts to large crowd of people cheering when the plane lands and Adolf Hitler is shown exiting the plane. All of these happen in the first 5 minutes of the film and there’s a reason why Riefenstahl has made it as such.  Reifenstahl used crowds to show to audiences that Hitler has many supporters and even those who might not have agreed with Hitler’s ideologies, will feel threatened looking at such large crowd of followers.  On the other hand, Eisenstein has used crowds rather differently. In the Odessa Steps sequence, the Tsarist soldiers were shown openly firing gun shots at a large crowd of innocent civilians. In that epic scene, we could see all hell’s running lose as people were running away to save their dear lives.  We as audiences feel helpless watching such an inhumane act happening before our eyes and there’s nothing we can do to stop those evil soldiers! Hence, it can be concluded that crowds are used as a tool to instill fear in “Triumph of the Will” whereas in ” The Battleship Potemkin”, the helpless crowd evoke anger and rage within audiences.

Moving on, uniforms play a huge role in both movies and very well represent their respective propaganda. In “Triumph of the Will”, soldiers in their uniforms, farmers dressed in their farming costumes and people of various social classes are seen to be greeting Hitler. This shows that the Nazi’s ignore social statuses and regard everyone as equals.  Also, in the camps where the soldiers live, they make a point not to wear uniforms because without uniforms, there won’t be ranks and a sort of “brotherhood” is formed.  While uniforms were seen to promote equality in “Triumph of the Will”, it has quite the opposite purpose in “The Battleship Potemkin”. In the first part of the film, we could see clear division between the ruling class and the working class as sailors, captains and other crew members of the ship had their respective uniforms. Also, we could see that the working class experienced harsh working conditions as they were forced to eat meat that was infested with maggots.  That particular scene agrees with Marx’s theory of Alienation where Karl Marx says that a worker under the capitalism system has no control over the conditions of his work as the owner decides the hours, environment, rules and procedures.

Last but not least, children were also used as a means of propaganda in both films. The Youth Rally scene in “Triumph of the Will” is the perfect example as it portrayed orderliness and Hitler’s ability to bring together such a huge crowd of  young boys whom most people often perceive to be naughty and lack the ability to follow orders! It  also showed the Germans that Hitler cared for the younger generation and he was fighting for their better quality of life.  In comparison, children were used as victims of violence in “The Battleship Potemkin”.  For example, there was a scene of a boy being trampled to death by the crowd at the Odessa Steps sequence. The close up shot on the boy’s face was really pitiful as he was in terrible pain and worse of all, he lost his life for no apparent reason! The director knows very well that the effect of the child’s death would be more powerful to audience as opposed to the death of an adult because children are often used in movies as they are thought to be pure, vulnerable and innocent.

All in all, Leni Reifenstahl and Sergei Eisenstein have very well fused the three elements that I have described into their respective movies and no doubt, it has resulted in the world’s greatest propaganda films.

ET 3: CHARLIE AND BUSTER

VS

Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen, Ashton Kutcher and many other contemporary comedians of today owe a huge deal to silent era comedians before them and in my opinion, the greatest two are Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton. Despite originating from the same time period, they both have very differing styles of presenting comedy. I am going to reference both artistes based on the movies that I watched in my Film 101 which are “The Cure” starring Chaplin and “The General” starring Keaton.

To start off, Chaplin had a toothbrush styled mustache, carried a cane, wore baggy pants, a tight suit, clown shoes and off course, his signature bowler hat! Keaton on the other hand used a pork pie hat but apart from that, dressed rather normally. Charlie Chaplin sort of limped when he walked and it evokes laughter because he looks like a duck waddling whereas Keaton sorts of walks and runs clumsily, giving me a feeling that he looks unstable and could fall down anytime.

Both characters are alike in the sense that they both are part of farce comedies where their characters receive violent physical misfortunes, thus being comical to audiences because we are grateful to not be in the same sorry situation as either Chaplin or Keaton! On the other hand, both characters are different as Chaplin made use of many facial expressions that made audiences laugh whereas Keaton always had a blank look on his face immaterial of any situation he was facing which also amuses the audiences because his expressions never changed!

Both Chaplin and Keaton have different ways to deal with problems that arise in their movies. For example, in “The Cure”, Chaplin’s character had a clash with a fat and arrogant aristocrat suffering from gout. He often escapes from trouble by being lucky most of the time. This can be seen in the scene where Chaplin tries to rescue his ladylove from the bad guy and when the aristocrat tries to catch Chaplin to hit him, Chaplin just happens to magically slide away from his grasps. Thus, it can be said that Chaplin was a rather slippery fellow and no wonder he’s known as the Trickster! Keaton on the other hand faces his problems in a different manner. In “The General”, when his ladylove was captured by the Union soldiers, Keaton risked his life by sneaking into the Union’s headquarters to rescue her. He uses his heroism and skills to fight his enemies rather than just being lucky like Chaplin.

In my opinion, I prefer Charlie Chaplin over Buster Keaton because of his perfect timing in his comedy sequences which never fails to gain my attention. The rotating door scene at the spa in “The Cure” was priceless! Also, his body language and attributes are rather unique as opposed to Keaton. In addition, the pace of Chaplin’s movies is rather fast compared to Keaton’s as the former often acted in short films. However, Keaton should also be applauded because of his contribution as one of the pioneers of slapstick comedy and also his bravery of performing his own dare-devil acrobatic stunts in his movies.

All in all, the movie industry today has indeed suffered a great loss as there will never be another great comedian that could match the talents of neither Charlie Chaplin nor Buster Keaton!

ET 4: BIRTH OF A NATION AND TRIUMPH OF THE WILL

         

I was introduced to the movie “Birth of a Nation” directed by D.W. Griffith when I previously took a U.S. history course.  I still remember vividly that in my history textbook, the movie was glorified as a masterpiece and was a pride for racist White Americans during the 1920’s as it was about the infamous Civil War and heavily degraded the Blacks. However, it is only now, in Film 101, I got the opportunity to watch the movie along with another famous propaganda film which is “Triumph of the Will” directed by Leni Riefenstahl that chronicles the 1934 Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg.  Indeed, I have to admit, since both movies are made at two different time periods, they differ greatly in production values and technology. However, they both execute their job well in conveying their message across to their targeted audiences. I am now going to compare and analyze “Birth of a Nation” and “Triumph of the Will” in terms of their melodramatic essence and why both films act as excellent propaganda tools.

In “Birth of a Nation”, there were various close up shots used by Griffith focusing on the expressions of the Whites and not surprisingly, he rarely zooms the camera to the Blacks because I believe he wanted audiences to think of Blacks as people who don’t have any feelings thus being compared to lesser human beings.  In one of the scenes, there was a close up shot of a White child crying and children are often used in movies because they are thought as being pure, vulnerable and innocent. Thus, Griffith has convinced his audiences that the Blacks are heartless and they wouldn’t hesitate to kill the helpless child. This is indeed a good use of melodrama. Also, Griffith often used cross-cutting shots in this film. For example, in melodrama films, there is bound to be an element of suspense and the director has created that by alternately showing the scene of the Ku Klux Klan(KKK) riding their horses and the scene of a White family being held captive in a cabin surrounded by Blacks. This indeed arouses suspense among the audiences on whether the KKK will save the family. To add to that, this is an excellent use of heroism where the KKK, being the Hero comes to save the day! Griffith also has taken the opportunity to insert love sequences in this “historical film” and perhaps this is to attract more female audiences to view this film. As expected of most melodrama films, both lead couples in the film receive their happy ending as both the Southern and Northern families unite and Griffith has effectively used iris shots to emphasize intimate scenes at the end of the film.

“Birth of a Nation” works effectively as propaganda tool because the director has effectively created a sense of “us and them” in the film where “us” are the Whites and “them” being the Blacks. In many instances, there were double standards in terms of the portrayal of the Blacks and Whites. Firstly, when he portrayed the Whites as heroes who fight for all their life’s worth, he instead portrayed the Blacks as cowards who when lost the battle, took the first opportunity to run. Next,when he portrayed the Whites as being civilized and having a strong family unit, the Blacks whereas were portrayed as hooligans and people with utmost low moral values. The list can go on and on… In addition, Griffith has used religion as way to strengthen his propaganda. In the final scene of the movie, Jesus Christ was shown to be appearing to bless the Whites who have won the battle against the Blacks. In other words, Griffith wanted to point out that God himself has approved that Whites should always be superior and rule the Blacks. It is indeed a no-brainer on why “Birth of a Nation” has created unwanted animosity among the Blacks and Whites upon its release.

Moving on to “Triumph of the Will” by Leni Riefenstahl, the film’s opening sequence in my opinion is explosive and creates a perfect sense of melodrama! In the opening of the movie, these statements were displayed,

“Twenty years after the outbreak of the World War,

Sixteen years after the start of the German suffering,

Nineteen months after the start of Germany’s rebirth “

Tell me, what other perfect openings could there have been to such a great and powerful melodramatic film?  Any German at that time would have been emotionally pumped to watch the film just by viewing the opening sequence because this was what they needed, someone understanding their pain of losing the World War and now it’s time for them to reclaim their lost glory! Right after those statements were shown, the scene fades away and we are seen to be flying in the clouds on an airplane. Then, we are shown the aerial view of the city Nuremberg which looked very peaceful and untouched by modernization thus earning its name as “Old Germany”.  The scene then cuts to a large crowd of people cheering when the plane lands and Adolf Hitler is shown exiting the plane. All of these happen in the first 5 minutes of the film and there’s a reason why Riefenstahl has made it as such.  Hitler is shown to be a hero and a savior descending from the sky who was sent by God to relieve the Germans from their suffering just like the KKK in “Birth of a Nation”.

“Triumph of the Will” also contains the perfect ingredients to be a propaganda tool. First and foremost, the low-angle shot used whenever Hitler gives his speech is brilliant as it emphasizes his power and it seems like as if he’s speaking to us the audience itself. Next, Hitler was always full of energy and charisma whenever he delivered his speech and this could be seen by his well-trained body language. His powerful voice just makes us sit up straight and look forward to whatever he has got to say next. Also, the Youth Rally scene in the movie portrayed orderliness and Hitler’s ability to bring together such a huge crowd of people especially the young boys whom most people often perceive to be naughty and lack the ability to follow orders! It  also showed the Germans that Hitler cared for the younger generation and he was fighting for their better quality of life. Hitler’s propaganda of equality too is clearly seen where everyone present in the rally were wearing same types of clothes  and there were no ranks among the military men.  It is interesting to note as well that Hitler used religion as a propaganda just like D.W. Griffith in “Birth of a Nation”. This can be seen when a bishop was present during the final speech that Hitler delivered in the end of the film and as Germany was a Christian nation, the people would have felt like as if God endorsed whatever actions that Hitler took since the bishop is a representative of God.

All in all, “Birth of a Nation” and “Triumph of the Will” are indeed masterpieces of propaganda and I wish, if only they were used for a good cause rather than evil, the world would have been a better place altogether.