Talk:Triumph of the Will

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Triumph of the Will is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 3, 2006.
Article Milestones Date Process Result December 31, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. Top This article has been rated as top-Importance on the importance scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

	Germany Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 Preparation time for the film? 2 More discussion 3 Nietzsche 4 Revamp 5 Censorship 6 Inconsistency 7 Responsibility and or Credit 8 Copyright Status 9 Image gallery 10 Lord of the Rings 11 Vandalism 12 Complete movie on video.google 13 "greatness" dispute 3/3/06 14 Rammstein music video 15 See also 16 Our featured article of the day has legal problems 17 Soviet propaganda 18 unofficial executive producer 19 Nitpicking - Rocky Horror 20 Documentary 21 Image:ScarandHeynaarmy 22 "Ebert also disagrees" 23 Popular in Third Reich

[edit] Preparation time for the film?

The article gives some conflicting information. One section states that the director had only "a few days of preparation"; the following section says that the film was shot with a huge budget and "with extensive preparation". Eh? - TorbenFrost 13:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More discussion

I haven't seen it in years, but isn't there a pretty healthy debate about this film along the lines of "it's despicable propaganda" versus "but it's so well done"? I'm in the "even more despicable just because it's well done" camp, myself, but it's an interesting subject. Ortolan88

The film is now available on DVD in Region 1.

The article needs to include information about how influential the film was on non-propaganda films. For example, there is one sequence (I can't remember exactly what was happening - think it might have been Hitler laying a wreath at a memorial?) that was copied shot-for-shot in the medal ceremony scene in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. 16:20, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And there have even been comic references to the film - in The Rocky Horror Picture Show, when Dr. Furter shows his creation to his retainers, Magenta (a domestic) says in a fake German accent that Rocky is "a triumph of your vill". 209.149.235.241 16:26, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Nietzsche

Removed the sentence describing the title as a reference to Nietzsche's "will to power". Unless there's any direct evidence that this was intentional - and I couldn't find any via Google - then the presence of a single shared word does not a reference make.

[edit] Revamp

Apologies for not listing my changes, but I'm basically revamping the whole piece. Since its the imagery of the film that's been copied most, I tossed on a few pictures from other movies. I have a copy of it sitting on my shelf and am expanding the article, time permitting, to cover the plot summary, imagery and filmmaking techniques, as well as a bit on the controversy. Palm_Dogg 21:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I really want to axe the line "The film tries to show how the German people pledged their loyalty to the person of Hitler, but becomes somewhat disorienting when Hitler is praised as an "epitome of altruism" and later informs the assembled masses that he is on a God-given mission." since it seems to violate POV, but have gone out of my way to preserve the text already on this page when I started editing it. Thoughts? Palm_Dogg 15:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship

"thriumph of the will" isn't really censored in germany. there just are some legal restrictions because it's classified as nazi propaganda. it's not allowed to display it publically unless it's for educational purposes and together with a critical treatment of the whole subject.

Thanks for the explanation. Ellsworth 22:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Since the war, the film is banned in Germany under laws prohibiting Nazi propaganda." Does anyone have a citation for either of these? I don't want it up unless I can footnote it. Palm_Dogg 19:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

If you want, you can cite §86 of the StGB (german criminal law). It states that distribution of unconsititional propaganda in Germany is forbidden, except for educational purposes. -- Yoghurt 23:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency

The article says, in two consecutive sentences, that Der Sieg des Glaubens both had all copies destroyed and that one second-generation copy was found. Ken Arromdee 08:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

All KNOWN copies of Sieg were destroyed. The 'second-generation' was a copy of the original discovered in Great Britain in the 1980s or 1990s. However, I've tried to rework the sentence so that it's less awkward. Palm_Dogg 15:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Responsibility and or Credit

With the exception of a single reference to Reifenstahl in the first paragraph the whole preamble credits the film (an inanimate object incapable of action) for Riefenstahl's work.

The piece currently reads:

"The film's innovative techniques such as moving cameras, the use of telephoto lenses to create a distorted perspective, aerial photography, and revolutionary approach to the use of music and cinematography have earned it recognition as one of the greatest films in history, although it is also considered controversial for its glorification of the Nazi regime. Triumph won several awards and was popular in the Third Reich, and has continued to influence movies, documentaries, and commercials to this day, even as it raises the question over the dividing line between "art and morality."

Like headlines that read "Car Looses Control" wherein the car was never in control in the first place - (the driver was or should have been), this piece credits the "film's techniques" as if the film was capable of creating and employing techniques.

Also, the piece only mentions honors won in Germany. The fact of the matter is the film won worldwide aclaim ... honors from more than just the Nazi regime in Germany. For Example, the film won a gold medal at the Paris World's Fair in 1937. The film was not considered "propoganda" until the war broke out in 1939 with the invasion of Poland. Until the it was accepted as a documentary.

I'll try to put together a list of the awards to add to the article.

The article might better read:

Reifenstahl's innovative techniques such as moving cameras, the use of telephoto lenses to create a distorted perspective, aerial photography, and revolutionary approach to the use of music and cinematography have earned Triumph of the Will recognition as one of the greatest films in history, although the film is also considered controversial for its glorification of the Nazi regime. Reifenstahl won several awards for the film, not only in Germany but also in the United States, France, Sweden and in other countries. The film was popular in the Third Reich and elsewhere, and has continued to influence movies, documentaries, and commercials to this day.

Actually, with regard to the last sentence in the original, Triumph of the Will did not raise questions about the line between "art and morality" as suggested. Other films Reifenstahl made during the actual war years in which Reifenstahl was accused (though she was later exhonorated - demonstrating in court that the accusations were complete and total fabrications) of using Gypsies from concentration camps as extras raised that particular question.

I believe its very important to keep in mind that this film, Triumph of the Will, was made well before Hitler's ultimate intentions for war and genocide were known; before acts of war, before concentrations camps. It was made at a time when many people in the United States belonged to the German-American Bund that actively and openly supported Hitler (1). They openly marched in street parades replete with uniforms similar to those worn in Germany at the time. They openly saluted with the stiff arm salute. They collected money and they lobbied. Their leadership was rounded up after the outbreak of the war ... but there were pleanty of the rank and file who were not.

Joekoz451 18:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Woah... OK, point taken on the use of nouns (I was trying to break it up so that every sentence didn't say "Riefenstahl this..." or "Riefenstahl that..." However, I'd politely suggest you re-read the entry. The article does mention the Paris and Vienna Prizes (Feel free to add more, since those were all I could find) and your last point is discussed under Controversy, both about whether it is Nazi propaganda or a documentary and "Is there such a thing as pure art, or does all art make a political statement?" --Palm_Dogg 20:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think you did a great job outlining a challenging topic. My nits were only with the opening paragraphs - the paragraphs people read before driving on to other things.

Nit the First - After spending a lifetime swimming with sharks in corporate waters where "reports are written, presentations are given and actions are taken" without any apparent human intervention and no one taking or assigning actual responsibility, I've become perhaps oversensitive to inanimate objects exhibiting human skills and abilities. If push came to shove I suppose one might be hard pressed to say whether Leni won awards for the film or the film won awards for Leni. However, I believe Leni had the techniques and not the film.

Nit the Second - As for the awards for the film I believe many of them are contained in Leni's autobiography. ferriting them out will require wading through a ton of melodrama if I recall her writing style accurately. It'll take more than a few minutes but it'll be an interesting exercise.

Nit the Third - I still stubbornly hold onto my nit that is was not Triumph that lit the controversy over "art and morality". I believe it was her war time films in which she used Gypsies as extras - for which she was later accused of personally selecting them from concentration camps for the purpose, sending them back to their deaths when she was done with them which sparked that particular controversy. I also believe court proceedings demonstrated that a.) she did not visit concentration camps to select extras and b.) the people in question who participated as extras survived the war and bore her no ill will - in spite of the desire in some quarters to hold on to the more sensational story regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

As for the rest of the article ... you have my admiration.

Joekoz451 12:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Status

Note: This is taken verbatim from a conversation I had with the editor of Das Blaue Licht. Palm_Dogg 19:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Transit Filmvertrieb GmbH is the German Federation's administrator of the media assets of the Reich film industry (approx 1954). Court cases between Transit and Leni Riefenstahl persisted from the the early 1960's - the mid 1970's. In 1974. Transit Film GmbH is now the entity name. A contract was signed in 1974 between Transit and Leni Riefenstahl Produktion that defined the authorization, permission for use and distribution (between the state and LR) of box office / distribution rights. Little is known, except I am told that the death of Frau Riefenstahl forced most, if not all the exclusive rights to return to Transit and the German Federation (state). This applied both to Triumph des Willens and Olympia (parts i and ii).

"Now from what I gathered from discussing both with Riefenstahl and with producer at Synapse Films (they released Triumph of the Will on DVD in the early 2000's) copyright status can and has been avoided in various "versions" of the film (on DVD or VHS or in screening rights). These are versions that may have been held, like the one in the Library of Congress that Synapse utilized as 'public domain' or may have been edited slightly to avoid (is that the right word ?) infringement on Transit (or Riefenstahl for that matter). I have no idea how accurate these claims are but it may help explain why you have so many differing opinions on this matter of who, if anyone, holds the film rights. You might want to check with either the Library of Congress or Synapse on what their perspective is on the film version they hold/used for that DVD. I know that Synapse was unhappy that Riefenstahl's response (reportedly) showed only a primary interest in acquiring her rights for it's distribution."

This website has additional information on the copyright status and I will try to add a paragraph to the article about it. Palm_Dogg 22:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The one point that seems to be ignored is that the film was released in 1935. The 70 years of copyright protection expired after Dec. 31, 2005. Simple arithmetic! Eclecticology 00:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image gallery

Copyrighted images should be used sparingly and including an image gallery of copyrighted material violates Wikipedia:Fair use. I suggest removing it. MechBrowman 22:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I strenuously object to featuring this on the main page because of this. If they are in the public domain, as has been claimed, then upload them to Commons and remove the fair use tags. If they aren't, they have no business making up a gallery. See my comment on WT:RFAR about fair use images. Johnleemk | Talk 15:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I'd say strip the gallery now and reduce the number of images on the page to a defensible number (3-5 would make sense). Wikipedia can make a very reasonable claim to the educational / historical value of a handful of images, but it gets much shakier when you're using the article as a gallery. Even worse, when you explicitly call part of the page a gallery. That this was not resolved before the page became a featured article seems a bit odd. That it made it to the front page is rather shocking! -Harmil 02:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lord of the Rings

There is a very, very weak case to be made for a Lord of the Rings tie-in. Are we to label every "leader on a balcony" scene as inspired by Triumph?! That seems rather odd. Also, I'm not really certain what geometrical formations are being referred to in the caption of the image, but I recall thinking that most of Mordor looked as if it was fashioned on a combination of European feudalism and Superman the movie. I don't think that that deserves a note in Wikipedia, however. Unless we have some external, notable source that makes this claim, it smells strongly like O.R. to me.... -Harmil 03:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

What is "O.R."? Folding Chair 01:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

See the image description page. For convenience, the link is http://www.west-of-the-moon.net/bradhour.htm and the actor playing Grima Wormtongue says: "So I think the idea was that this was somebody who fell into a dark hole and kind of wakes up in the middle looking at the “Triumph of the Will”. Which is really what he goes out and really looks at what Hitler saw when they did “Triumph of the Will”. This incredibly awesome horde that was about to be unleashed. Have you ever seen “Triumph of the Will”? For those of you who didn’t.. you guys should see this… this is a movie of Adolph Hitler’s Nazi Party, that did this festival every year in Nuremburg. This movie is a documentary, but it really gives you the power of this whole nation being consumed by this weird strength in each other’s numbers that was to unleash in this horrible war, and you can feel it in this movie. And the arrangement of the troops in “The Two Towers” was a purposeful rip off of this... because it was a defining moment just before WWII. And the documentary is called “Triumph of the Will” because it is the triumph of Adolph Hitler’s will." Palm_Dogg 03:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Adding that link to the caption would be a good thing. -Harmil 04:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. The troop arrangement looks more like roman legions rather than the long columns of people listening to speeches at the Nürnberg conference. Also, Brad Dourif's explanation for the title of the Triumph is a bit simplistic, hinting that it may just be his own view and not a deliberate reference. --Swift 18:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the section on the Lord of the Rings. Seriously, if troops in geometric formation are a reference to the Triumph of the Will, then the Roman legions must have seen it. Also, if talking on a balcony is a Riefenstahl reference, then Shakespeare was more of a movie fan than I realized.

C'mon. If you want to refer to a statement of someone's where they say the Lord of the Rings resembles the Triumph of the Will, then quote it. The section as it is now is totally absurd. Elrith 19:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The actor who was in the scene said it was a rip of TOTW (See above) and it's also mentioned in The Internet Movie Database. Say what you will, it is NOT original research. I have rewritten it, though, based on your objections. Palm_Dogg 02:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not one bit convinced by this whole thing. Really, troops in geometric formation predate the Triumph of the Will by centuries, and if that's all the evidence the actor in question has, it's not at all convincing. Nevertheless, I have no objection to how the section is now. Well done! Elrith 07:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

People have no problem vandalizing this article, but as for Mao, Che, and Lenin...no, they have t-shirts for them. The wonders of public school brainwashing. Haizum 04:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, I've seen my share of Nazi t-shirts, bumper-stickers, etc. I only see a qualitative, not quantitative difference in the modern merchandizing efforts. -Harmil 04:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I guarantee there are more Che, Mao, and Lenin shirts worn and produced than anything related to National Socialism (in the United States, Italy is another thing). My comment was mainly directed toward the vandals (probable Che shirt owners). Haizum 05:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complete movie on video.google

here is a link to the entire movie on video.google.com

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9076835539195533187&q=triunfo+duration%3Along

would be good to put this link on the article

Mateus Zica 04:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I second this suggestion. Great find! Haizum 06:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could, but it might cause some problems because the film is copyrighted in the United States and Germany, but Public Domain in the UK. Nice find, though. Palm_Dogg 18:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "greatness" dispute 3/3/06

i take issue, especially with the proclamation that this is the greatest propoganda film ever. there is by no means a lasting consensus about the quality of this film. it is in my opinion, and some film scholars' opinion, an unspectacular film, notable mostly for the novelty of its subject matter and as a historic artifact. the films of sergei eisenstein, on the other hand, are almost all propaganda films and almost all regarded as masterpieces as well as groundbreaking and influential, both on filmmakers contemporary to eisenstein, and on film form as we know it. in particular the memorable odessa steps sequence from the battleship potemkin is a monument of early cinema. there is no such memorable scene or innovation in any of the films of leni reifenschtahl.

-jddellnger@aol

Please read WP:TPG before posting. It also helps to have actual citations or supporting opinions when broaching a particular issue you may have. Thanks. Haizum 06:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

A similar issue came up at Films that have been considered the greatest ever. At the time, I did a check on citations for being the "greatest film" vs. being the "greatest propaganda film". There are many citations for it being the greatest or one of the greatest propagand film ever made. There are very few citations that say it is the "greatest film" ever. I have changed the language to reflect this. Also, Potemkin is arguably as well known or better well known, so I softened the language about it being the best known propaganda film as well. -- Samuel Wantman 09:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rammstein music video

I believe the German metal band Rammstein has faced some controversy because they used footage of this film (and/or inspired by it) in the music video for their Depeche Mode cover "Stripped". However I can't find a source for this quickly enough and my english is not great so I don't feel like editing the article myself. 85.28.65.75 07:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Quote:Scenes from Olympia were used by the German rock band Rammstein in their video for the song Stripped. From Olympia (film). But there is also no source given!Stone 09:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes. Wrong movie then. I did a quick search and found this :[[1]] but it's not a great source I guess. I suppose a search in German would be more efficient. 85.28.65.75 10:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See also

Every link in the current "See also" section is redundant with links in the body, to varying degrees of obviousness. Would anyone object if the section were just deleted? Melchoir 09:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'll just do it. Melchoir 21:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Our featured article of the day has legal problems

Triumph of the Will has a gallery of fair use pictures. There was a notice at the bottom of the article before it was featured on the main page asking readers to view Image talk:1936NurembergRally.jpg and the article talk for a discussion of the various images' copyrights, which appeared to imply the article's images are PD -- a rather poor excuse for not just tagging them as such and uploading them to Commons, which is for galleries (Wikipedia is not for galleries of images). However, the article talk only stated:

Now from what I gathered from discussing both with Riefenstahl and with producer at Synapse Films (they released Triumph of the Will on DVD in the early 2000's) copyright status can and has been avoided in various "versions" of the film (on DVD or VHS or in screening rights). These are versions that may have been held, like the one in the Library of Congress that Synapse utilized as 'public domain' or may have been edited slightly to avoid (is that the right word ?) infringement on Transit (or Riefenstahl for that matter). I have no idea how accurate these claims are but it may help explain why you have so many differing opinions on this matter of who, if anyone, holds the film rights.

The image talk page however, had the input of someone from the German Wikipedia, who stated:

In deWP we tag PD only images older than 100 years. The reason is the fact that nearly all pictures are to be evaluated as photo work and so a protection of 70 years pma is given.

Template talk:PD-Germany, which was cited by the discussion as evidence that the image was PD, has a notice at the bottom stating that the template was TfDed due to terribly inappropriate wording, and this was only rectified by altering the template's text. Furthermore, Image:1936NurembergRally.jpg is not even used in Triumph of the Will. From this, I believe we should assume the images are not PD, as there are very stringent laws pertaining to public domain images, especially in Germany. (There was a discussion on IRC earlier about whether the images are PD -- a British statute was cited, which stated that all German works imported into Britain between 1939 and 1951 were in the public domain, but the film was first released in Germany in 1935. Furthermore, as Wikipedia is hosted in the United States and the Wikimedia Foundation is based in Florida, I believe only United States law applies to it.)

Surprisingly, this troubling issue of fair use/weak claims of public domain, was not addressed by the FAC which passed this article. When it was first suggested for the main page, I brought this issue up. The article was nevertheless slated for the main page. Indignant, I complained in more detail on the TFA talk, and on the article talk. Now today, lo and behold, the article is on the main page, with my complaint having been totally ignored! Since apparently people think this can be just brushed aside nonchalantly because, y'know, them Nazis ain't ever gonna' sue nobody for using their pictures, I've made this excruciatingly detailed and long comment, and I will cross-post it to wherever I feel relevant. See also Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#Images. Yes, I know, some will scream m:Avoid copyright paranoia. However, we have insisted on removing fair use images from people's talk pages, even though there is a zero chance of being sued for their use (really, will the US Democratic Party sue us for using their logo in a userbox?), so why should we brush this off when an article supposed to be our best work and appearing on our gateway to the world so blatantly violates the provisions of fair use and/or the definition of a public domain image? Johnleemk | Talk 15:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet propaganda

This article doesn't discuss parllelizm to Soviet propaganda movies nor Soviet critics of the Nazi propaganda. See:

 Film Propaganda: Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany (Cinema & Society S.)  

Richard Taylor

http://www.rosenoire.org/essays/triumph-october.php

http://www.stanford.edu/~oksana/Fall2002/FilmAndPropaganda/FilmAndProganda.pdf Xx236 15:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unofficial executive producer

"unofficial executive producer; his name appears in the opening credits" if his name is in the credits then why is it unofficial?

Because it just says "Comissioned by the Fuhrer". In actuality, he was a lot more involved, giving Riefenstahl unprecedented access to the rally and protecting her from the Propaganda Ministry, which felt that Riefenstahl was on their turf. Palm_Dogg 02:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nitpicking - Rocky Horror

"...when Dr. Frank N. Furter shows his creation to his retainers, his maid exclaims in a fake German accent..."

Replaced "fake" with "strong" since the actress (Patricia Quinn) has commented that she was given no information on how her character should talk, so she used her best German/Transylvanian accent.

Yes, technically it was a fake German accent (99% of them in English-language cinema presumably are, since most actors aren't native Germans) but in the context of the film itself, that's the way she talks all the way through.Kayman1uk 13:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Documentary

Why is it this film can't be referred to as a documentary, but Farenheit 9/11 (for instance) can? Ken Arromdee 20:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ScarandHeynaarmy

Image:ScarandHeynaarmy should stay at this page. Simbafan34 20:15, 3 July,2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Ebert also disagrees"

What is Ebert disagreeing with? Is he disagreeing with the filmmaker Riefenstahl or disagreeing with Frumkes by calling it a documentary? --Gbleem 13:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popular in Third Reich

Key authors and reviews of the film disagree about the popularity of it in Nazi Germany. Richard Taylor (1998) notes that it wasn't widely shown in cinemas in Germany.