Category Archives: HIST234-Archive

“Things to Come” and the Quest for “Progress”

Posted on by

Things to Come is a seminal science fiction film released in 1936 that depicts a future of apocalyptic warfare that causes a zombifying plague called “the Wandering Sickness,” ultimately reducing Europe to its primordial stages of civilizational development.  Throughout the film, science and “progress” in general are polarizing topics amongst all levels of society from the common people to the highest governmental officials.  Some view scientists as “the last trustees of civilization,” while other characters embody the apprehension towards scientific research has been represented in countless other films and writings of the interwar period such as Metropolis, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, and Russell’s “Icarus, or, the Future of Science.”  The film concludes in the year 2036 with a space launch, ultimately made to represent man’s incessant need to ascend to “conquest beyond conquest.”

The thing that I found most interesting about this film was also the factor that differentiates it from the works above that discuss a fear of science: Things to Come does not definitively extol or denounce scientific progress.  Rather, it documents the existence and relative validity of each side of this argument.  In the midst of the centuries of warfare that grip Europe, science is consistently viewed as both the cause of society’s woes and the only thing that can solve them.  The high-tech planes that allowed warring nations to drop mustard gas caused immense destruction, and yet the inhabitants of Everytown still believe that the only way to truly end the war is to repair those planes and finish obliterating their enemies.  In the film, new civilizations are created only by the destruction of their predecessors.  Because scientific “progress” is the only means of accomplishing this, Things to Come simultaneously depicts science as the best and worst tool for societal development.  However, war, plague, science, and every other major element in this development is a slave to the attitude of “manifest destiny” that is portrayed as intrinsic to the human psyche.

Do you think that the constant quest for petrol in Everytown is merely a plot device, or do you think that H.G. Wells was using this fixation to predict that oil would become the center of future armed conflicts?

The Triumph of Will

Posted on by

The movie Triumph of the Will depicts the congress of the Nazi in Nuremburg. It was published in 1935 and was created by Leni Riefenstahl.

One of the most important aspects of the films was the way Hitler was presented. The movie definitely manages to capture his charisma. As we have discussed in class, Hitler was, according to some historians as Ian Kershew, a charismatic leader and most of the people were ready to do everything for him. The movie creates the feeling that Hitler is the most powerful and influential man in Germany. He is presented almost as a god. This can be concluded from the reaction of the people from the public. They push each other in order to get to see him, and look at him with admiration. Also the other prominent Nazis like Rudolf Hess, and Joseph Goebbels, who also appear in the movie, treat him like he is the greatest man in the world. Another thing that struck me was the show of power during the whole movie. SS and SA men were marching showing the new military power of Germany. The discipline of the soldiers and the way in which they marched was also impressive, and for me shows a traditional part of the German culture- the discipline. Another thing on which the movie accentuates is the idea of unity in the scene with the 55 000 workers (32min). The workers are presented as equal, as part of the state. Few of them say the place where they come from which again shows that even though they come from different states of Germany they are part of one nation, they are equal and should contribute for the well-being of the state. The same can be concluded from Adolf Hitler’s speeches, in which he said that people must be ready to work, and even sacrifice themselves for the state.

With what feelings did the movie leave you?

Triumph of the Will, Failure of the Imagination

Posted on by

As I watched Triumph of the Will (1935) I quickly began to experience a sensation of excruciating boredom not unlike those you might expect to feel at an award ceremony dedicated to an obvious fraud and criminal (e.g Henry Kissinger receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in what our descendants will either remember as a moment of comedic brilliance on the part of the Nobel committee or as an intellectual crime against humanity). Their every word sounds contrived and derivative at best, pornographic at worst. The smiling guests strike you as pathetic and obsequious in their premeditated happiness, their every attempt at ingratiating themselves with the award’s recipient further reinforcing the event’s glumly parodic nature. By the forty-five minute mark you would give anything to see the whole affair go up in flames.

It appears that Triumph of the Will earns much praise for its “technical” brilliance. I suppose this means its skill in using film and sound to portray the Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg, regardless of its message. However, the film did not succeed in engaging my interest whatsoever. It contains no unexpected shots of Hitler or his officers. The camera films them from a low angle, exaggerating their height in comparison with the adoring masses shot at wide, sweeping angles. The filmmaker plays exactly the kind of music you would expect at the exact moments you would expect them. Worst of all, the film presents almost no information about the people attending the rally. I understand this serves the purpose of showing Nazi Germany as a collective body of true believers utterly devoted to Hitler, but I think a more talented filmmaker would attempt to show what makes an ordinary German fall in love with such a figure.  This would make for a truly powerful documentary about ordinary people touched by a charismatic individual, rather than what appears as an extravagant soap opera for sentimental brownshirts. For all those unrepentant YouTube Nazis looking for reactionary works of true brilliance, I suggest Wagner and Drieu La Rochelle.

As for the rest of us, we should wonder why such a dull, unimaginative film continues to earn praise for its cinematography. Might it have something to do with a human penchant for totalitarianism and fascism? Do we gain such satisfaction from images of harmony, social and otherwise, that we can momentarily suspend our disbelief with the simple aid of overwrought music and shots of marching crowds? Do we love the notion of absolute power so much that we continue to find images of evil, no matter how petty and base their origin, fascinating and worthy of our leering, falsely offended scrutiny? For those interested in a film that proposes an honest depiction of fascism, I recommend Piero Pasolini’s Salò, or The 120 Days of Sodom.

The Role of Power and Youth in Triumph of the Will

Posted on by

Leni Riefensthal film, Triumph of the Will, depicts the rise of the Nazi party in 1934. The film portrays different excepts of speeches by various Nazi leaders to promote the goals and objectives of Nazism. The film was intended as propaganda to the German public.

Hitler, along with other Nazi leaders, have power over all the other party members. They use words of threat, but also powerful words and goals to make both the adults and youths be a part of the Nazi party and join the “working force”. There was a huge amount of supporters at each speech Hitler made. The youths in particular were a very interesting group that Hitler addressed. Hitler knew that the youths were the future of Germany. He knew exactly what to say and educate them to train them to be the best Nazi’s. Hitler stressed that he did not want class divisions, instead wanted them to come together as one. The youths had to be selfless, loyal to Germany, and strong in order to survive. Hitler told the youths exactly how to act, so that his dream would live on.

After the film came out was there greater support for the Nazi party? Did Hitler’s power on the youths work so that they came together as one?

The Triumph of the Will

Posted on by

The Triumph of the Will, directed by Leni Riefenstahl in 1935, is a Nazi propaganda film chronicling the 1934 Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg. Riefenstahl shows hundreds of thousands of children and adults saluting and cheering as they see Hitler. The film shows small portions of many Nazi leaders speeches at the Congress. It is very apparent the film is attempting to depict that Germany has once again risen to be a great power, all thanks to the glorious leader Adolf Hitler.

There are many things I found intriguing about this film, however a scene that caught my attention was at the very beginning. As Hitler is being driven down the street in a motorcade, the cars slow down so that a mother and daughter can shake Hitler’s hand and give him flowers. It is obvious that these people were specifically selected for this event, due to the fact that there were so many people lining the streets watching the motorcade and none were able to approach except for this duo. I began to think why they were selected and what is the significance of this? Well, for one it depicts the perfect Nazi-German mother-daughter role. The woman’s husband is not with them, and I would assume he is either in the army fighting the war or fulfilling his Nazi duties elsewhere. The mother steps up to raise her child on her own, and in a sense Hitler fills the now empty father role for the child. He is the male figure the daughter now looks up to, which is depicted through the young childs’ salute.  This act is met with loud cheers from the crowd. I believe they were selected based on their appearance. The daughter is a perfect example of an Aryan. Although it was hard to see her eyes, it is obvious she has light skin and blonde hair.

Although this scene depicted the role a Nazi party woman should have- taking care of her children and praising Hitler- there is a serious contradiction to that party thought regarding the film. Leni Riefenstahl, the director, is a woman. My question is, why would Hitler chose her to produce and direct his propaganda film? Doesn’t that go against his traditional party beliefs regarding women?

 

Cinematography and Youth in Triumph des Willens

Posted on by

Triump des Willens (1935) succeeds in convincing the viewer that Adolf Hitler’s rise—and the rise of the Nazi party, was an enthusiastic national movement that served as the core of Germany’s ascension to dominance. The camera work is marvelous. The cameras spend the majority of time with their lenses pointed upwards at Hitler’s face or the structure upon which he stands, a subtle yet effective tactic to generate a larger than life feel. The long shots used in Trimph des Willens are the longest I have seen done in a film so aged, and are strategically placed to absorb as much of the parade or rally as possible. The music accompanying the shots in between the cuts of Hitler’s speeches are very upbeat, which exudes a type of happiness—almost eagerness that the Nazi’s are feeling at the opportunity to participate (although, many of them seem quite austere).

At the forty-five minute mark, Hitler addresses the young men of Germany, who are known as the Hitler Youth or Hitlerjugend. Males and females between the ages of 10-18 were indoctrinated into this program, which began in 1922 and ceased activity in 1945. The Hitler Youth were seen as the future of German purity, and had Nazi ideologies instilled on them at an early age, as well as physical training, military training, and academia. The Nazi Party also used them as spies in order to gain control over the Church to gain ground in the power struggle between the Church and state. Similarities can be drawn between the activities the Hitler Youth were involved in and American Boy Scouts, as they were trained in basic skills that could be very useful in dire situations. The Hitler Youth were groomed to be the next generation of the Schutzstaffel or SS, meaning protection squadron.

The Role of the Youth in Triumph of the Will

Posted on by

The 1935 documentary, Triumph of the Will, by Leni Riefenstahl, portrays powerful propaganda images of the Nazi regime. It focuses in on speeches made by both high-ranking Nazi officers and Hitler himself. In between every scene change are minutes of marching and rejoicing in the German nation. The film encompasses many facets of Nazi ideology.

In one scene in particular, we see the mobilization of the children in the Nazi youth. There is a seemingly endless sea of kids, both boys and girls, in uniform listening to the Fuhrer speak. What Hitler was preaching was national unity, and the youth were the “vessels” for this: “We want to be a united nation, and you, my youth, are to become this nation. In the future, we do not wish to see classes and cliques, and you must not allow them to develop among you. One day, we want to see one nation” (Hitler). Hitler, in essence, was influencing the youth to make Germany the nation he wanted it to be, and to make sure the most important thing to them was the nation itself.

With this, were these youth told by their parents to attend these rallies, or were they drawn to them because of the the “power” Hitler was instilling in them?

Norris and the Role of Luxury in Communism

Posted on by

When readers are first introduced to the character of Arthur Norris, he is offered a cigarette by William Bradshaw, a luxury reserved more or less “for the common folk”. As we see his character develop, the amount of wealth he flaunts becomes greater and greater, bragging about having a bedroom in Paris that he customized himself and worth a small fortune. Later he goes on to show this wealth with the amount of servants and the quality of decoration his house has to Bradshaw, which in turn helps characterize him for the reader.

These characterizations are important because than Isherwood goes against the stereotypes of communism. By making this rich socialite a communist, Isherwood was not only showing the rapidly changing politics of German society, but was showing the hypocrisy that the rich intellectuals were living in the Wiemar Republic. These folks truly were disconnected with the realities of Germany at the time. Even though people such as Norris were attempting to solve reform and improve living conditions, they failed to realize that this radical reform would never occur and ultimately, their attempts at change were actually hampering the working classes cries for help. While Norris thinks he is helping workers like those oppressed in China, in reality he is part of the problem, delaying any chance of democratic reform and allowing the Nazis to eventually rise to power.

Communism, Nazism, and the Berlin Stories

Posted on by

In The Berlin Stories, author Christopher Isherwood characterizes the social and political climates in Germany during the rise of Nazism through a series of vignettes centered around William Bradshaw, “a young bourgeois intellectual,” and Arthur Arnold, an older Englishman with subversive Communist sympathies. (Isherwood, 64)  The first one hundred pages of the novel recount the pair’s activities and correspondence centered around the city of Berlin.  Each chapter puts forth several small fragments of interwar Germany with regard to everything from its nightlife (“‘Oh, you mean those whores on the corner there'”) to its foreign policy (“‘The workers demand assistance for the hundreds of thousands of Chinese peasants now rendered homeless'”), ultimately creating an anecdotal portrait of this dynamic period in European history. (Isherwood, 34, 47)

I found the narrative prose style in Isherwood’s work both refreshing and compelling.  It is, in my opinion, always more interesting to absorb history through stories (even those of realistic fiction) and case studies than to simply comb through facts and data.  However, this style can sometimes allow the reader to develop sympathies for particular characters and/or demographics that may not have arisen in more formal historical writing.  Do you feel that the narrative style of Isherwood and other authors like him (e.g. Silone, Solzhenitsyn) can be problematic for readers for this and/or other reasons?

Mr. Norris and Communism

Posted on by

Christopher Isherwood’s The Berlin Stories consists of two novellas set in Berlin right before and during the rise of the Nazi party in the 1930s, the first of which is The Last of Mr. Norris.  This stories chronicles the friendship between William Bradshaw and Arthur Norris.  Mr. Norris proves to be a mysterious and interesting character, as he is a communist during a time which it is dangerous to be so in Germany.

While Norris holds onto his communist beliefs despite the political dangers they cause him, there are some aspects of his personality that do not completely fit with the communist ideology.  Norris holds a few somewhat aristocratic tendencies as a result of his upbringing, despite his poverty at the time which the novel is set.  Bradshaw states that Norris’ “…spirits always sufficiently indicated the state of his finances,” and when he is better off financially, he is more cheerful (41-42).  He also believes that he is at his best when he is surrounded by the material objects which he desires and revels.  Even though Norris holds aristocratic values to more importance than his communist comrades, he is shown to believe steadfastly that the wealthy should use their resources to help the poor.  This characterization portrays Norris as more of a moderate who resonates with more and joins a radical group than a pure communist.