Assignment 8: Due Mon. April
20 by 5pm via bSpace
Watch the segments from Frank Capra's "Why We Fight" films and Leni
Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" linked to on the syllabus page
(note that the Riefenstahl has a new url as of Thurs. 4/9). Would you
describe both of these as "propaganda"? Which do you think would have
been more effective at mobilizing popular support for the government
and its policies? Justify your answers.
Some exemplary responses:
BOTH
The two videos take different approaches at drumming up support for
government policies. In “Why We Fight”, the video depicts apparent
German atrocities against the neutral countries in order to justify
entering the war on the grounds of protecting the innocent and
destroying the treacherous. In “Triumph of the Will”, they depict
directly the popular support for the Nazi government in the form of
political rallies, intended to show the government policies that has a
direct benefit on the people. Both of the videos can be considered to
be propaganda. They are both advertising for a specific purpose, both
hyperbolizing the subject, and neither presenting the whole story. In
“Why We Fight”, the Germans are compared as treacherous gangsters who
have thrown away all their morals for sake of efficiency, while in
“Triumph” the government is portrayed as having tremendous support of
the people and is tremendously supporting of the people and their
nationality. The actual effectiveness of the videos depends on the
culture and background of the intended audience. Americans, living in
the supposed free and democratic nation, should be affected by a video
showing the injustices and divestment of freedom by the Germans.
Meanwhile, the Germans, who have only recently recovered from the
defeat in WWI, and are trying to assert their national identity, would
be affected by the video, which tries to exploit that to its fullest. -
Yiding
After watching segments from both Frank Capra's "Why We Fight," and
Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will," I feel that it is obvious
that both of these pieces can be considered war time propaganda. I also
feel that both of the films are equally comparable in their
effectiveness to mobilizing popular support for their respective
government policies. The reason they can be both effective despite
different styles in presentation, is the fact that the national
audiences of America and Germany are quite different. “Why we Fight,”
does a good job mobilizing American support because it creates common
enemy for Americans to rally against. Since America is such a large and
diverse country I feel that our propaganda was less focused on creating
national unity through our similarities and instead tried to unite
Americans under the banner of a common enemy. “Triumph of Will” builds
support for an opposite reason. It emphasizes the power and potential
of the German people, uniting them with concepts of Germany as a
historical power ready to rise up again to its rightful place among
nations. The less diverse nature of their population made this form of
propaganda more effective in this country. - Nicholaus Q.
Propaganda is defined as “information, esp. of a biased or misleading
nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or
point of view.” Therefore, both clips are considered to be propaganda.
Divide and Conquer showed how Hitler using mass media manipulated other
countries, especially his cunning promises/speech on October 6, 1939 to
Denmark, Germany, Holland and Belgium while his generals were picking
out their first victims. His theory of the “big lie” was one that truly
helped him expand his power over other countries. Hitler saw two tasks
of propaganda; first “is winning people for the organization” – for the
propaganda, and the second “is to destroy existing conditions to
achieve acceptance of the new doctrine.” I believe that the first
method is more effective at mobilizing support; the Triumph des Willens
clip is a perfect example of this first task. Visually viewers see
thousands of people hailing Hitler while he drives through a town,
there’s music and visual representations that allows viewers to assume
that Hitler is a great man; there’s no text to anchor these images. The
use of kids images and Hitler shaking a woman’s hand illustrates how he
appealed to the masses. -Jooyoun
CAPRA
Both of these films are examples of propaganda. They both operate from
the viewpoint of the country or countries they support without
acknowledging different sides of an issue. Capra’s film, made during
wartime, portrayed Nazis as power hungry and brutal while the Allies
were always fighting for the just cause of “freedom”. Capra was hired
specially to make this film because of his ability to reflect the
“average American’s” point of view. Assuming that there exists an
average American, he was used for his skill of making people feel a
certain way or believe a certain idea. The “Triumph of the Will”
depicts Hitler as a larger-than-life servant of the people of Germany.
The Capra film is more effective to me personally than the “Triumph of
the Will”. I think that this is a result of being an American and
having twelve years of American History behind me in all levels of my
education. Capra’s film is more successful in portraying the enemy as
evil, power-hungry, and backstabbing while the German film only makes
Hitler into a hero loved by the people and does not specify an enemy. -
Sarah W.
I can clearly say that both of those movies can fall under the category
of propaganda. The answer is simple, because both of them on one way or
another try to get the influence over the people in their countries:
Why we fight (in United States and England) and Triumph of the will (in
Germany and their allies countries). Why we fight, is the documentary
whose purpose is clear: to expose Germany as a country who started the
war as a main aggressor and being guilty for the war damages and
deaths. In his movie Frank Capra wants to explain why US should enter
the war and provide help to countries that need it, with the title “Why
we fight” I think it is more than clear what the whole purpose of the
movie is, and what kind of reaction from public Frank Capra wanted to
have. On the other side, in the film Triumph of the will, first couple
shots are very important, and if you pay close attention to the text,
Leni Riefenstah definitely wants to present Germany through this
patriotic movie as a country who suffered through the time between
World war I and 1939; not only that Germany suffered, but Riefenstah
want to present Germany as the country who was pulled into the War.
With very patriotic pictures, with the presentation of the Furer and
happy crowd who is more than honored to see Hitler, as I already said
Riefenstah plays on the “patriotic trick” presenting the Germany as
society who is very happy and honored and proud with what they
have.
In terms of which movie is in my opinion more effective at mobilizing
popular support, I believe that both of the documentaries are very
effective, but they have different tactics. Why we fight” is more
straight forward, very strict in presenting the Germany as the
aggressor, while “Triumph of the will is more patriotic. Having to
chose one of them, “Why we fight” is probably a little bit more
effective, only because it is more powerful and it leaves stronger
impression on the audience. - Nikola K.
Both of these films are "propaganda": they are not impartial; they were
manufactured to influence perceptions. Leni Riefenstahl's
propaganda
seems slightly more subtle and therefore possibly more effective, but I
preferred Capra's propaganda as it was less boring, entertaining
even.
Riefenstahl's film matches the article's explanation of propaganda
best. The film uses few words and relies heavily on
visuals. There
are no claims to argue against. The crowd shots display
impressive
power and inspire national pride. It suggests lots by saying
little.
And above all it is repetitive. Oh god it is repetitive.
Capra's film
doesn't suggest, it states: Nazis are deceitful, treacherous, and
evil! But then he explains "here's how". Which leaves room
for
argument and debate. However, I was more persuaded by Capra's 10
minutes. Capra's seemed more modern, more similar to the format
of
current news networks. -David B.
RIEFENSTAHL
Each film is propaganda--there's no doubt about that. Capra's
documentarian style attempts to build a case against Nazi Germany by
mixing elements of journalism and moral judgment to rationalize going
to war with them, but "Why We Fight" essentially boils down to playing
on emotional themes such as the desecration of the innocent. While
Capra's use of evidence presentation of facts attempts to blur the line
between journalism and propaganda, the selective inclusion of details
like pictures of the first killed American solider and the general
theme of Nazis betrayal makes the film as one-sided as it tries not to
be. Hitler descending from the clouds into Nuremberg's Romanesque pomp
is so incredibly celebratory of Nazi Germany's "rebirth" that there is
little denying the power of Riefenstahl's work. Despite having grown up
taught to despise everything that Nazi Germany was, I cannot help but
sympathize with the intense emotional response that Germans had to the
romanticism and grandeur of the Nazi rally. In that way I feel that
Riefenstahl is more successful; where Capra builds a complicated
argument against Nazi Germany, Riefenstahl focuses on simpler ideas
that don’t take thought to appreciate: the power of crowds, past glory
(as Hitler passes a statue of Bismarck in old Nuremberg), and the
"triumph of the will." - William B.
Before answering the underlying question of “Which was more effective
[propaganda]?”, it is only fitting to define the term
propaganda—information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to
help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc. With
this definition in place, it is obvious that both Frank Capra's Why We
Fight series and Leni Riefenstahl's movie Triumph des Willens are
without any doubt, propaganda—aimed to influence the opinions and
behaviors of its audience with choice imagery and compelling diction.
Capra's film series was a response to the decreasing effectiveness of
traditional speech-based propaganda at the time, and backed by the U.S.
Government, sought to justify and motivate American involvement in
WWII. Riefenstahl's piece, created seven years prior to Capra's,
chronicles the 1934 Nazi Congress in Nuremberg. Riefenstahl's
movie, from my perspective, seems like it would have been very
effective at generating widespread popular support for the Nazi
Party—more effective than Capra's piece in the States. She captures the
political furor (no pun intended) of the Nazi leadership very well and
highlights key, motivating passages from the speeches of Hitler and his
cabinet. Combined with the images of unrelenting public support,
Riefenstahl's editing reinforces the overriding themes of power and
unity—spearheaded by Adolf Hitler. However, there are some elements of
Capra's film series, namely his personal narration over the video, that
are very powerful in conveying the “Us versus them” and “Good (Allies)
versus evil (Axis)” messages. -Ray B.
Even though the word "propaganda" has a negative connotation of being
manipulative and dishonest, anything that tries to convince the
audience towards a particular cause could be considered propaganda. In
such sense, both the videos could be considered propaganda. The first
part of Divide and Conquer mostly deals with how the Nazis betrayed the
Norwegians and went to war against them. There were a lot of subtle
things that indicates that the Nazis were the "bad guys." On the maps,
they were colored black. The narrator repeats the words like "betrayed"
"innocent" and "terrorized" many times to describe the Norwegians. He
also mentions how the German soldiers were helped by the Norwegians
just twenty years ago when they were kids. There are clips of buildings
being bombed. The Norwegians were "enslaved." Triumph of Will, on the
other hand, starts out by referencing how the Germans struggled after
the World War. It hints that Hitler was going to lead the "rebirth" of
Germany. When Hitler's picture is shown, it is followed by images of
the crowd cheering him. I feel like the Triumph of Will probably got
more people to join its cause because it shows crowds adoring Hitler.
It is also talking to its audience about their own country (the German
people about Germany) unlike Divide and Conquer (talking to Americans
about mistreatment of Norway). People are shown to be cheering and
believing in Hitler, which probably mobilized more popular support. -
Praneeth
I would classify both of these films as propaganda. The film “Divide
and Conquer” clearly is propaganda against Germany and it’s actions in
WWII. The film’s tone and general word choice clearly paints Germany as
an evil, violent country bent on conquering the world. It uses words
such as “terror” to describe Germany and words such as “kind” to
describe Norway, one of the first countries conquered by Germany. I can
see how this film would be extremely effective in garnering support for
its agenda. The other film “Triump des Willens” also is clearly
propaganda for gathering support for Germany’s soon to be war. This
film is effective in the way it evokes the emotions of its people. In
the beginning of the film, it talks of the 16-year suffering that the
Germans have been facing up to that point. It’s very patriotic in its
imagery, showing aerial views of Germany as well as a grand entrance
from Hitler in an airplane and large crowds smiling attentively. The
music is triumphant and extravagant. This film does a better job of
evoking an emotional response from the people and possibly gathering
their support because of these details. This film touches the people in
a much more personal level then the other, therefore making it more
effective. -Katrina