So I wrote in 1994, in a review of what in fact is a better documentary, Ray Muller's "The Wonderful

Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl." I was referring to Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" (1935), about the
1934 Nazi Party congress and rally in Nuremberg. Others would have agreed with me. We would all have
been reflecting the received opinion that the film is great but evil, and that reviewing it raises the
question of whether great art can be in service of evil. I referred to "Triumph" again in the struggle I had
in reviewing the racist "Birth of a Nation."

But how fresh was my memory of "Triumph of the Will"? I believe I saw it as an undergraduate in
college, and my memory would have been old and fuzzy even in 1994, overlaid by many assertions of the
film's "greatness." Now I have just seen it again and am stunned that I praised it. It is one of the most
historically important documentaries ever made, yes, but one of the best? It is a terrible film,
paralyzingly dull, simpleminded, overlong and not even "manipulative," because it is too clumsy to
manipulate anyone but a true believer. It is not a "great movie" in the sense that the other films in this
group are great, but it is "great" in the reputation it has and the shadow it casts.

Jadi saya menulis pada tahun 1994, dalam ulasan tentang apa yang sebenarnya merupakan film
dokumenter yang lebih baik, "The Wonderful Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl." Saya mengacu pada
"Triumph of the Will" Riefenstahl (1935), tentang kongres dan rapat umum Partai Nazi tahun 1934 di
Nuremberg. Orang lain akan setuju dengan saya. Kita semua akan merefleksikan pendapat yang diterima
bahwa film itu bagus tapi jahat, dan meninjaunya menimbulkan pertanyaan apakah seni yang hebat bisa
melayani kejahatan. Saya menyebut "Kemenangan" lagi dalam perjuangan yang saya alami dalam
mengulas "Kelahiran Suatu Bangsa" yang rasis.

Tapi seberapa segar ingatan saya tentang "Triumph of the Will"? Saya yakin saya melihatnya sebagai
seorang sarjana di perguruan tinggi, dan ingatan saya akan menjadi tua dan kabur bahkan pada tahun
1994, dilapisi oleh banyak pernyataan tentang "kehebatan" film tersebut. Sekarang saya baru saja
melihatnya lagi dan tercengang karena saya memujinya. Ini adalah salah satu film dokumenter paling
bersejarah yang pernah dibuat, ya, tapi salah satu yang terbaik? Ini adalah film yang mengerikan, sangat
membosankan, berpikiran sederhana, terlalu lama dan bahkan tidak "manipulatif", karena terlalu
ceroboh untuk memanipulasi siapa pun kecuali orang yang benar-benar beriman. Ini bukan "film hebat"
dalam arti bahwa film-film lain dalam grup ini hebat, tetapi "hebat" dalam reputasi yang dimilikinya dan
bayang-bayang yang ditimbulkannya.

Have you seen it recently, or at all? It records the gathering together, in September 1934 in Nuremberg,
of hundreds of thousands of Nazi Party members, troops and supporters, to be "reviewed" by Adolf
Hitler. Reviewed is the operative word. Great long stretches of the film consist merely of massed
formations of infantry, cavalry, artillery groups and even working men with their shovels held like rifles.
They march in perfect, rigid formation past Hitler, giving him their upraised right arms in salute and
having it returned. Opening sections of the film show Hitler addressing an outdoor formation, and the
conclusion involves his speech in a vast hall at the closing of the congress.

Try to imagine another film where hundreds of thousands gathered. Where all focus was on one or a few
figures on a distant stage. Where those figures were the object of adulation. The film, of course, is the
rock documentary "Woodstock" (1970). But consider how Michael Wadleigh, that film's director,
approached the formal challenge of his work. He begins with the preparations for this massive concert.
He shows arrivals coming by car, bus, bicycle, foot. He show the arrangements to feed them. He makes
the Port-O-San Man, serving the portable toilets, into a folk hero. He shows the crowd sleeping in tents
or in the rough, bathing in streams, even making love. He shows them drenched with shadows and
wading through mud. He shows medical problems. He shows the crowds gradually disappearing.

By contrast, Riefenstahl's camera is oblivious to one of the most fascinating aspects of the Nuremberg
rally, which is how it was organized. Yes, there are overhead shots of vast fields of tents, laid out with
mathematical precision. But how did the thousands eat, relieve themselves, prepare their uniforms and
weapons and mass up to begin their march through town? We see overhead shots of tens of thousands
of Nazis in rigid formation, not a single figure missing, not a single person walking to the sidelines. How
long did they have to stand before their moment in the sun? Where did they go and what did they do
after marching past Hitler? In a sense, Riefenstahl has told the least interesting part of the story.

Pernahkah Anda melihatnya baru-baru ini, atau sama sekali? Ia mencatat pertemuan bersama, pada
bulan September 1934 di Nuremberg, dari ratusan ribu anggota, pasukan dan pendukung Partai Nazi,
untuk "ditinjau" oleh Adolf Hitler. Ditinjau adalah kata kunci. Film yang sangat panjang hanya terdiri dari
formasi massa infanteri, kavaleri, kelompok artileri, dan bahkan pekerja dengan sekop mereka dipegang
seperti senapan. Mereka berbaris dalam formasi yang sempurna dan kaku melewati Hitler, memberinya
tangan kanan mereka yang terangkat sebagai penghormatan dan mengembalikannya. Bagian
pembukaan film menunjukkan Hitler berbicara di formasi luar ruangan, dan kesimpulannya melibatkan
pidatonya di aula yang luas pada penutupan kongres.

Coba bayangkan film lain di mana ratusan ribu orang berkumpul. Di mana semua fokus tertuju pada satu
atau beberapa sosok di panggung yang jauh. Dimana tokoh-tokoh itu menjadi objek sanjungan. Film
tersebut, tentu saja, adalah film dokumenter rock "Woodstock" (1970). Tetapi pertimbangkan bagaimana
Michael Wadleigh, sutradara film itu, mendekati tantangan formal karyanya. Dia mulai dengan persiapan
untuk konser besar-besaran ini. Dia menunjukkan kedatangan yang datang dengan mobil, bus, sepeda,
berjalan kaki. Dia menunjukkan pengaturan untuk memberi mereka makan. Dia membuat Port-O-San
Man, yang melayani toilet portabel, menjadi pahlawan rakyat. Dia menunjukkan kerumunan orang tidur
di tenda atau di alam kasar, mandi di sungai, bahkan bercinta. Dia menunjukkan mereka basah kuyup
dengan bayang-bayang dan mengarungi lumpur. Dia menunjukkan masalah medis. Dia menunjukkan
kerumunan secara bertahap menghilang.

Sebaliknya, kamera Riefenstahl mengabaikan salah satu aspek paling menarik dari rapat umum
Nuremberg, yaitu bagaimana hal itu diatur. Ya, ada bidikan di atas kepala dari bidang tenda yang luas,
yang ditata dengan presisi matematis. Tapi bagaimana ribuan orang makan, buang air besar, menyiapkan
seragam dan senjata mereka dan massa untuk memulai perjalanan mereka melalui kota? Kami melihat
tembakan dari atas puluhan ribu Nazi dalam formasi kaku, tidak ada satu sosok pun yang hilang, tidak
ada satu orang pun yang berjalan ke pinggir lapangan. Berapa lama mereka harus berdiri sebelum
momen mereka di bawah sinar matahari? Ke mana mereka pergi dan apa yang mereka lakukan setelah
berbaris melewati Hitler? Sedikit banyak, Riefenstahl telah menceritakan bagian cerita yang paling tidak
menarik.

There is a lesson, to be sure, in the zombie-like obedience of the marching troops, so rigidly in formation
they deny their own physical feelings. One searches the ranks for a smile, a yawn. But all are stern and
serious, and so is Hitler, except once when he smiles as the horses are marching past. But what else does
the film contain, apart from the "march-pasts"? There is a long series of closeups near the beginning, of
Nazi party officials mouthing official platitudes. There are two speeches by Hitler, both surprisingly short,
both lacking all niceties, both stark in their language: The party must be "uncompromisingly the one and
only power in Germany."

One searches for human touches. Riefenstahl had no eye for human interest. Individuality is crushed by
the massed conformity. There are occasional cutaways to people smiling or nodding, but rarely ever
speaking to one another. There is no attempt to "humanize" Hitler. In his closing speech, sweat trickles
down his face, and we realize that there was no perspiration in earlier shots. Is it possible that he posed
for some of the perfectly framed shots of him reviewing troops? A 35mm camera and crew would have
been a distracting presence in the street next to his car; one filming him from a high pedestal would have
had to be crane-mounted, and shot out of synchronicity with the event.

"If you see this film again today, you ascertain that it doesn't contain a single reconstructed scene." So
says Riefenstahl in her film's defense in the Muller documentary. What does she mean by
"reconstructed"? Certainly we would not think the massed "march-bys" would be reconstructed. But
what of such scenes as the Workers' Brigade, where the men chant in unison, presumably to Hitler, that
they labor in the swamps, in the fields, etc., and then, in response to the barked question, "Where are
you from?" individuals answer with the names of their towns or districts. They could not have all heard
the question; each answer would have been a separate set-up.

Ada pelajaran, pastinya, dalam ketaatan seperti zombi dari pasukan yang berbaris, begitu kaku dalam
formasi sehingga mereka menyangkal perasaan fisik mereka sendiri. Seseorang mencari senyuman,
menguap. Tapi semuanya tegas dan serius, dan begitu pula Hitler, kecuali sekali ketika dia tersenyum saat
kuda-kuda berjalan lewat. Tapi apa lagi isi film itu, selain "masa lalu"? Ada serangkaian close-up yang
panjang di dekat bagian awal, dari pejabat partai Nazi yang mengucapkan kata-kata kosong resmi. Ada
dua pidato Hitler, keduanya sangat singkat, keduanya kurang sopan, keduanya tegas dalam bahasa
mereka: Partai harus "tanpa kompromi satu-satunya kekuatan di Jerman".

Seseorang mencari sentuhan manusia. Riefenstahl tidak tertarik pada kepentingan manusia.
Individualitas dihancurkan oleh konformitas massal. Kadang ada jalan pintas bagi orang-orang yang
tersenyum atau mengangguk, tetapi jarang berbicara satu sama lain. Tidak ada upaya untuk
"memanusiakan" Hitler. Dalam pidato penutupnya, keringat mengucur di wajahnya, dan kami menyadari
bahwa tidak ada keringat di jepretan sebelumnya. Mungkinkah dia berpose untuk beberapa bidikan yang
dibingkai sempurna tentang dirinya yang sedang meninjau pasukan? Kamera 35mm dan kru akan
mengganggu keberadaannya di jalan di samping mobilnya; salah satu yang merekamnya dari tiang yang
tinggi harus dipasang di derek, dan ditembakkan keluar dari sinkronisitas dengan kejadian tersebut.

"Jika Anda melihat film ini lagi hari ini, Anda memastikan bahwa film itu tidak berisi satu adegan pun
yang direkonstruksi." Demikian kata Riefenstahl dalam pembelaan filmnya di film dokumenter Muller.
Apa yang dia maksud dengan "direkonstruksi"? Tentu kita tidak akan mengira massa "mars-bys" akan
dibangun kembali. Tapi bagaimana dengan adegan-adegan seperti Brigade Buruh, di mana orang-orang
bernyanyi serempak, mungkin kepada Hitler, bahwa mereka bekerja di rawa-rawa, di ladang, dll., Dan
kemudian, sebagai jawaban atas pertanyaan yang menggonggong, "Di mana kamu dari?" individu
menjawab dengan nama kota atau distrik mereka. Mereka tidak mungkin mendengar semua pertanyaan
itu; setiap jawaban akan menjadi pengaturan terpisah.

There are also questions of spontaneity. During one Hitler speech, he is interrupted bysieg heil!exactly
six times, as if there were an applause sign to prompt them when to begin and end, and we note that
throughout the film, there are no scatterings of individual voices at the start or finish ofsieg heil!Only a
single massed voice, in unison. I found myself peering intently to observe other moments of the film
revealing its mechanism. Although Riefenstahl used 30 cameras and a crew of 150, only one camera
appears to be visible on screen; during the outdoor rally before three gigantic hanging swastika flags, you
can see the camera on an elevator between the first and second, its shadow cast on the second. And in a
shot of a man who has climbed up a pole to get a better view of a parade, she cuts back to him giving the
right-arm salute; I reflected that he could not hold on without both hands, and realized that his left foot
is out of frame in both shots -- standing on a support, undoubtedly. Among minor details: Everyone on
screen seems to have a fresh haircut.

That "Triumph of the Will" is a great propaganda film, there is no doubt, and various surveys have named
it so. But I doubt that anyone not already a Nazi could be swayed by it. Being a Nazi, to this film, means
being a mindless pawn in thrall to the godlike Hitler. Yet it must have had a persuasive effect in Germany
at the time; although Hitler clearly spells out that the Nazis will be Germany's only party, and its leader
Germany's only leader for 1,000 years to come. At the end, there is a singing of the party anthem, the
Horst Wessel Song; under Nazi law, the right-arm salute had to be given during the first and fourth
verses. We see a lot of right-arm saluting in "Triumph of the Will," noticing how Hitler curls his fingers
back to his palm before withdrawing the salute each time, with a certain satisfaction. What a horrible
man. What insanity that so many Germans embraced him. A sobering thought: Most of the people on
the screen were dead within a few years.

Note:See also "The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl" and "Downfall" (2005), with a haunting
Bruno Ganz as Hitler during his last days.

There are also questions of spontaneity. During one Hitler speech, he is interrupted bysieg heil!exactly
six times, as if there were an applause sign to prompt them when to begin and end, and we note that
throughout the film, there are no scatterings of individual voices at the start or finish ofsieg heil!Only a
single massed voice, in unison. I found myself peering intently to observe other moments of the film
revealing its mechanism. Although Riefenstahl used 30 cameras and a crew of 150, only one camera
appears to be visible on screen; during the outdoor rally before three gigantic hanging swastika flags, you
can see the camera on an elevator between the first and second, its shadow cast on the second. And in a
shot of a man who has climbed up a pole to get a better view of a parade, she cuts back to him giving the
right-arm salute; I reflected that he could not hold on without both hands, and realized that his left foot
is out of frame in both shots -- standing on a support, undoubtedly. Among minor details: Everyone on
screen seems to have a fresh haircut.

That "Triumph of the Will" is a great propaganda film, there is no doubt, and various surveys have named
it so. But I doubt that anyone not already a Nazi could be swayed by it. Being a Nazi, to this film, means
being a mindless pawn in thrall to the godlike Hitler. Yet it must have had a persuasive effect in Germany
at the time; although Hitler clearly spells out that the Nazis will be Germany's only party, and its leader
Germany's only leader for 1,000 years to come. At the end, there is a singing of the party anthem, the
Horst Wessel Song; under Nazi law, the right-arm salute had to be given during the first and fourth
verses. We see a lot of right-arm saluting in "Triumph of the Will," noticing how Hitler curls his fingers
back to his palm before withdrawing the salute each time, with a certain satisfaction. What a horrible
man. What insanity that so many Germans embraced him. A sobering thought: Most of the people on
the screen were dead within a few years.

Note:See also "The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl" and "Downfall" (2005), with a haunting
Bruno Ganz as Hitler during his last days.

There are also questions of spontaneity. During one Hitler speech, he is interrupted bysieg heil!exactly
six times, as if there were an applause sign to prompt them when to begin and end, and we note that
throughout the film, there are no scatterings of individual voices at the start or finish ofsieg heil!Only a
single massed voice, in unison. I found myself peering intently to observe other moments of the film
revealing its mechanism. Although Riefenstahl used 30 cameras and a crew of 150, only one camera
appears to be visible on screen; during the outdoor rally before three gigantic hanging swastika flags, you
can see the camera on an elevator between the first and second, its shadow cast on the second. And in a
shot of a man who has climbed up a pole to get a better view of a parade, she cuts back to him giving the
right-arm salute; I reflected that he could not hold on without both hands, and realized that his left foot
is out of frame in both shots -- standing on a support, undoubtedly. Among minor details: Everyone on
screen seems to have a fresh haircut.

That "Triumph of the Will" is a great propaganda film, there is no doubt, and various surveys have named
it so. But I doubt that anyone not already a Nazi could be swayed by it. Being a Nazi, to this film, means
being a mindless pawn in thrall to the godlike Hitler. Yet it must have had a persuasive effect in Germany
at the time; although Hitler clearly spells out that the Nazis will be Germany's only party, and its leader
Germany's only leader for 1,000 years to come. At the end, there is a singing of the party anthem, the
Horst Wessel Song; under Nazi law, the right-arm salute had to be given during the first and fourth
verses. We see a lot of right-arm saluting in "Triumph of the Will," noticing how Hitler curls his fingers
back to his palm before withdrawing the salute each time, with a certain satisfaction. What a horrible
man. What insanity that so many Germans embraced him. A sobering thought: Most of the people on
the screen were dead within a few years.

Note:See also "The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl" and "Downfall" (2005), with a haunting
Bruno Ganz as Hitler during his last days.

Ada juga pertanyaan tentang spontanitas. Dalam salah satu pidato Hitler, dia disela oleh sieg heil! Tepat
enam kali, seolah-olah ada tanda tepuk tangan untuk memberi tahu mereka kapan harus memulai dan
mengakhiri, dan kami mencatat bahwa di sepanjang film, tidak ada suara individu yang berserakan di
awal atau di awal. selesai ofsieg heil! Hanya satu suara massal, serempak. Saya mendapati diri saya
mengintip dengan saksama untuk mengamati momen-momen lain dari film tersebut yang
mengungkapkan mekanismenya. Meskipun Riefenstahl menggunakan 30 kamera dan 150 kru, hanya
satu kamera yang terlihat di layar; selama demonstrasi di luar ruangan di depan tiga bendera swastika
gantung raksasa, Anda dapat melihat kamera di lift antara yang pertama dan kedua, bayangannya
muncul pada yang kedua. Dan dalam foto seorang pria yang telah memanjat tiang untuk melihat parade
dengan lebih baik, dia memotong kembali ke pria itu memberi hormat dengan tangan kanan; Saya
merefleksikan bahwa dia tidak dapat bertahan tanpa kedua tangan, dan menyadari bahwa kaki kirinya
berada di luar bingkai pada kedua tembakan - tidak diragukan lagi berdiri di atas penyangga. Di antara
detail kecil: Semua orang di layar tampaknya memiliki potongan rambut baru.

Tidak ada keraguan bahwa "Triumph of the Will" adalah film propaganda yang hebat, dan berbagai
survei menamakannya demikian. Tapi saya ragu siapa pun yang belum menjadi Nazi bisa terpengaruh
olehnya. Menjadi seorang Nazi, bagi film ini, berarti menjadi pion tanpa pikiran yang menjadi budak
Hitler yang seperti dewa. Namun itu pasti memiliki efek persuasif di Jerman pada saat itu; meskipun
Hitler dengan jelas menyatakan bahwa Nazi akan menjadi satu-satunya partai Jerman, dan pemimpinnya
satu-satunya pemimpin Jerman selama 1.000 tahun yang akan datang. Di akhir, ada nyanyian lagu pesta,
Lagu Horst Wessel; di bawah hukum Nazi, salam lengan kanan harus diberikan pada ayat pertama dan
keempat. Kita melihat banyak tangan kanan memberi hormat dalam "Triumph of the Will,"
memperhatikan bagaimana Hitler melengkungkan jari-jarinya kembali ke telapak tangannya sebelum
menarik salam setiap kali, dengan kepuasan tertentu. Benar-benar pria yang mengerikan. Kegilaan yang
begitu banyak orang Jerman memeluknya. Pikiran yang serius: Sebagian besar orang di layar mati dalam
beberapa tahun.

Catatan: Lihat juga "The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl" dan "Downfall" (2005), dengan
Bruno Ganz menghantui sebagai Hitler selama hari-hari terakhirnya.