User Reviews

"Triumph of the Will," a documentary showing a Nazi Party rally in Nuremberg in 1935, is considered the best propaganda film of all time. Technically speaking, the movie was perfectly shot and edited and occasionally breathtaking, and if you neglect your historical knowledge and personal views and approach it naively and without prejudice, you will also see how incredibly compelling it is. Brainwashing this skillful is really rarely seen. However, from today's perspective, and knowing everything I know about the actors of this documentary, I cannot ignore the evil and madness rooted in its core, so I cannot force myself to give it more than a seven, though objectively it probably deserves a higher rating.

7/10

Yesterday I saw this documentary of the Sixth Nazi Party Congress in 1934 for the first time, and I was visually very impressed with the images. The grandiose and powerful scenarios where the Nazis parades and speeches happen are amazing. Everywhere the viewer looks are huge places, with the crowd worshiping Hitler, as if they were hypnotized. The quality of the images is also amazing for a 1934 shooting. The director Leni Riefenstahl was accused of making propaganda for the Nazis and I am not sure whether she was absolved or not of these accusations, but in IMDb biography I noted that she stayed from 1954 to 2002 without making any film. This movie is mostly recommended for students, since for a regular viewer it becomes boring after 114 minutes running time. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "O Triunfo da Vontade" ("The Triumph of the Will")

In 1934, the Nazi fortress was built on the election of Adolf Hitler as chancellor, the timely death of Hindenburg, and the infamous purge that caused the deaths of hundreds of SA members, the most emblematic one, being Rohm. Hitler's aura was then total but he needed to touch the German people in the broadest way. Only the big screen could fulfill the ambitious challenge of controlling the people at a distance by immortalizing the Nuremburg Rally of 1934.

Indeed, in the 30's, in a totalitarian system, a man with a camera could be more powerful than any soldier, but this wasn't a man who was assigned the task, but a woman, a promising talent named Leni Riefenstahl. And "Triumph of the Will" is a triumph on the field of film-making as it delivers some of the most spectacular and impressively creative shots for their time as if Riefenstahl was driven by the same desire to try new techniques, like Orson Welles when he made "Citizen Kane", six years later. But there's a reason why "Citizen Kane" is considered a masterpiece and not "Triumph of the Will", and the answer comes from Orson Welles himself.

Welles said that you could make a masterpiece in anything: even in pornography, if you intended to excite people and stimulate them sexually. However, you could never make a masterpiece that happens to be a pornographic film, because a libido is too low and too easily aroused in the first place. I paraphrased him in my review of "Lifeboat" to explain that propaganda, reprises the same role as pornography: it arouses easy emotions, in that case, instinct of superiority. In other words, you can make a masterpiece of propaganda, but not a masterpiece that happens to be a 'propaganda' film. So if I want to stick to my guns and follow my logic, I would say "Triumph of the Will" is a masterpiece of propaganda, but not a masterpiece.

Does this really matter? Well, inasmuch as Riefenstahl claimed that she made a documentary, capturing a significant chapter of Germany's history, I think it's important to set things straight, call a spade a spade and "Triumph of the Will" propaganda. It has an indubitable documentary value, but only from the perspective of a non-Nazi sympathizer, which doesn't only mean the majority of people born after the War, but even the majority of non-German people at the very time of the film's release. I'm not sure Riefenstahl wanted to address the German people with a simple 'documentary' movie, not one that 'objectively' exhilarates Hitler's success in making the eagle rise from the ashes of World War I and the infamous Treaty of Versailles.

And this constitutes the prologue of the film, depicting Germany's recovery's as a miracle only 19 months after Hitler's election, and the next shot sets the tone. While you expect to see a swastika or some marching soldiers taken in reverse shot, what do you get? Clouds. It's a heavenly sight taken from Hitler's private plane, featuring him like an Angel coming from the sky, to save Germany. This is a very clever trick that foresees the uses of religious undertones in each shot. Hitler is like a messianic figure acclaimed by crowds all reassembled to cheer and shout for him. Even the rallies at night, with the flags and torches carry a strange mysticism that Leni's eye never fails to catch.

And this is a fearsome sect-like atmosphere where each sentence shouted, sometimes eructed in that guttural German accent is followed by Pavlovian "Sieg Heil". It's not people shouting, it's one voice in unison and this is another aspect of the film: masses; and Riefenstahl knows how to handle them. In the Nazi conception of people, there's no individuality, there's no possible order when you consider each person's specificity, because by doing so, you accept the presence of "parasites" and we know where this judgment leads… No, each individual is like an atom linked to another one and assembling into one homogeneous form, a mass.

Look at these shots of workers carrying their shovels like rifles, at these young men during the roll call, or in their tents before Hitler's arrival, they all look the same, shirtless and smiling, either same uniform or same absence of uniform. There is a vertiginous shot at World War I memorial, perhaps the most beautiful of the film, where Hitler walks between rows of soldiers. The mass was so compact, that I thought it was a garden at first. This is a film made by a director who knows exactly the effects to create. Of course, she's right when she says that there's no anti-Semitic statement in the film, but that's beside the point. Such a movie touched German people and convinced the rest of skeptics that the salvation come from Hitler, so when the next rally of Nuremburg lead to the racial laws, the receptiveness of the people owed a little to this masterpiece of propaganda.

That said, I'm inclined to believe that Leni Riefenstahl, like a vast majority of Germans, believed, that salvation could only come from Hitler, and that she genuinely wanted to highlight this in her 'documentary'. Let's not just dismiss the film for what it is, and not get things mixed up. Its merit is not to be a documentary about a rally, it's too biased for that, but to provide hints of answers for the questions that come to mind after watching World War II or holocaust movies: how could that happen? Well, "Triumph of the Will" is almost meta-referential in the way the people's zeal is echoed by the filmmaker's stylistic approach. People wanted to believe in Hitler, they might have regretted it after, but they succumbed to his 'charisma' and in a way, his "will" as evil as it was, had triumphed.

It's only on the basis of this historical magnitude that the film can be considered great.

Utterly brilliant film that was unfortunately very difficult to find (along with some other great films by propaghandist directors like Sergei Einsten)until a dvd release recently . Just look at the long shots. Absolutely no cameras visible. Truly meticulous work. Astounding score. The opening sequence of Hitler's descent is brilliant artistry, with the director creating the implicit parallel of God's descent from heaven. Excellent film for anyone remotely interested in politics since all these techniques are routinely used in campaign ads. People often neglect to realize the inherent politicality of all art. Art's politics is at its most dangerous when we fail to realize this simple truth - art and politics are inextricably linked. Do you think there's not a reason why the American market will soon be glutted with war films as we prepare for one? gee, i wonder. Riefenstahl is an amazing director, one that should have done more films. When we censor great works for fear of "what they might do to the 'ignorant'", we're a lot closer to the fascists than their detractors.

This is the thinking person's horror film. Zombies? Ghosts? Lunatics with hockey masks and chainsaws generating gallons of fake blood? Not a tiny bit as scary as thousands upon thousands of people lined up in squares, gleefully losing their individual identities and glorifying in the group, willing to perform some of the most evil deeds imaginable for the perceived benefit of that whole.

If this film was done badly, it would be something to laugh at or study as a historical artifact, a relic of a past we left behind. However, its power, and why it can disturb to this very day, is the fact that it was done beautifully. Anyone who talks about equating "truth and beauty" should think about this film. It is certainly beautiful, but it is also in the service of a lie, and an evil one at that.

Sadly, I suspect that the types who make modern political propaganda and advertising get on their knees at night and pray for some of the inspiration that made this film. Stars? This film defies a star rating.

It's Sept 5, 1934. Adolf Hitler is flying into Nuremberg to head the Nazi Party Congress. It's an infamous propaganda film from Leni Riefenstahl. It contains speeches from many Nazi leaders. Of course as a piece of propaganda, it is pure evil. It solidifies the power of Hitler and makes him a demigod. Even though the speeches are mostly veiled in allusional hate disguised as self-empowerment, the militaristic context is in no doubt. This is a call to arms.

As a technical feat, it is an amazing coordination with a massive pageant undertaking. It starts off a little wonky. Hitler's arrival is sometimes out of focus. The speeches from the other Nazis get stale. There are scenes that try to soft peddle Nazism like the youth camp that seems amateurish. When night scenes started to be incorporated, the theatricality of the rally starts to elevate to another level. It's a massive rally in reality. This thing looks huge and the film captures it perfectly. Hitler is a natural orator and Riefenstahl gives him every bit of his powerful voice. She takes the mass rally and gives it a slick presentation.

Triumph Des Willens was a blockbuster film in a number of ways. It was meant to be a proper memorializing of an annual NSDAP Parteitag held in Nurenburg. A prior attempt, Sieg Des Glaubens, had proved to be a failure. Adolf Hitler gave director Leni Riefebstahl full rein to use all means to make this film the success which he wanted. First, many innovations in camera techniques, sound synchronization, storyboarding, staging, etc., made movie history. Second, it was an overt appeal to the emotions of both Germans and foreigners that suggested the excitement for and the apparent power of the new Third Reich. Third, the film was part of a multimedia campaign ahead of its time. Its success was confirmed for many years by the almost universal ban most countries placed on its showings. And sixty years later it is still effective in both thrills and chills. Highlights: the first 20 minutes or so resemble a media drama; the solemn military reviews demonstrate components of state power; speeches illustrate the personnel in power at the time. Quite a package!

Nazis have been the staple bad-guys for numerous modern entertainment pieces, so much as being cliched to the point of absurdity. So it's rather uneasy to watch "Triumph des Willens" nowadays. Gone are the humorous "absolute evil" movie-nazis - replaced with serious ones. DEADLY serious.

The cinematography is quite astounding. Executing complex visual movements and playing up the symbolisms of glory and comradeship like a rose in full bloom. We're well aware of the thorns it possesses unlike most of the folk back then, but it was probably too late by then: The political battle for Germany was over - Hitler was Germany and vice versa, like Rudolf Hess triumphantly proclaims in the closing of the political rally. Hitler chillingly speaks of the sweet, succumbing surrender of the populace to the will of the nationalsocialistic movement. And the men, women and children embrace it with blind devotion, never fully comprehending the consequences.

When one watches this one hour movie, one starts to understand what was in stake in WW2: The whole individualistic way of life - to be replaced by a totalitarian collective society not far apart from an Orwellian dystopia. We were lucky we survived that ordeal, but just. And for now.

This film can only be judged or analyzed in any meaningful way only by those who can envision Germany and its people with the hindsight of the decade following its defeat in WWI and the ensuing economic chaos of the 1920s. For those of us who can objectively remove ourselves from our time and revisit the year in which it was filmed, 1934, and then compare it only with all other films made during that early part of the 20th Century can we locate the single word describing it … astonishing.

We are called to objectivity when commenting on a book or film, a piece of art, or product. Only when that is accomplished does a comment have any enduring and meaningful value. Another thing I have found astonishing about this film and its creator is the seemingly unique inability of those commenting on it to be objective. It is seen in the overwhelming number of cases, not from the time in which it was made but with the hindsight of decades of history that had not yet taken place.

Despite its reputation, prospective viewers can be certain of one thing at least: the infamous "Triumph of the Will" isn't going to brainwash you into becoming a fervent Nazi, and even the lauded genius of Leni Riefensthal cannot make a sweat-dripping, toothbrush-moustached Hitler a surreptitiously alluring prospect. To be honest, aside from historical interest the film is more likely to set you yawning (I'm sure I wasn't the only person in the cinema last night surreptitiously pinching myself at times to stay awake...)

Leni Riefensthal does her best to create art and entertainment out of the unpromising material of a Party Congress -- compare, for example, the challenge of depicting the sycophantic speeches, party hacks and troop-rousing at Brighton or Bournemouth in the modern-day party conference season -- and initially at least succeeds, although some of the interest to the viewer nowadays is more ironic than iconic. Little did she know that in the shots from the Fuehrer's aeroplane she was preserving a roofscape of ancient Nuremburg that would be destroyed for ever by the war that followed the rule of this self-proclaimed 'man of peace'; or how many of the cheering boys would die in the snows of Stalingrad, and the country girls in their folk costumes starve on acorns and roots...

The style of the film's opening is largely that of the silent era: events are introduced and participants characterised without dialogue, as -- in scenes reminiscent of a Royal Wedding or Jubilee procession -- Hitler arrives at a Nuremburg decked for the occasion, and the waiting crowds burst into a fervour of excitement as they catch sight of the main attraction, in a swell of cheers and waves that break out ahead of his car and ebb away behind. (Empathising with my own experience, I couldn't help wondering just how long they had been waiting under the sun for those brief glimpses in return for their day out!) By the time we reach the hotel tastefully decked out with lightbulbs spelling 'HEIL Hitler', the adulation has been thoroughly established. After a torchlight mass serenade, the most interesting part of the film starts.

Here we get a backstage insight, as it were, into the human organisation required to assemble those faceless marching masses: the vast soup-kettles, the volume of wood that has to be hauled, the tents and troughs and links of sausages, the shoulder-jousting and tomfoolery of the young men -- not just 'evil' Nazis, but cheerful, fallible individuals living for the moment and enjoying the novelty of their camp under canvas. The proceedings of the congress itself are represented by clips from many speakers (one could feel a collective stir across the cinema when Goebbels was captioned, as I suspect he was the only 1934 Party official most of us had heard of...) which have an oddly inward-looking air: one gets the feeling of eavesdropping on private party policy.

This is the Nazi Party looking out at Germany rather than preaching to her directly -- which makes me curious as to the intended purpose of this film. It feels to me like a production intended for 'inside' viewing rather than for national distribution, an impression that with hindsight I think partly derives from the way that the speeches deal openly with how the Party should manipulate and lead the German people, and partly from the determination to show absolutely everything in the subsequent parade -- frankly it reminds me of official videos of school plays, where the photographer has to make certain that every single parent will get at least one close-up of their own child. I have an irreverent mental image of the SS, the SA, the cavalry, the 'Arbeit-Soldaten', and every other unit in that interminable march, all sitting through the entire film just waiting for their own individual moment of glory...

The famous massed movement sequences, I'm afraid, leave me cold. They remind me of nothing so much as experimental abstract film, a curiosity as an art-form for five minutes or so but with nothing really to hold the interest for long periods: an idea of this section of the Congress could have been given via a few illustrative sequences in very much less of the time. And the march-past, as mentioned above, becomes simply tedious: did people -- other than those involved -- really sit and watch this stuff in adoration? It's one thing to line the streets in anticipation of spectacle and cheer when something actually turns up to amuse you, but TV highlights are always edited; and for good reason.

The shots of Hitler orating are interesting not for themselves, or their content -- you realise at the end of each utterance that what he has actually *said* is fairly vacuous -- but as an attempt to understand why he was said to be such a powerful speaker. I have to say that I just don't get it. This doesn't seem a man who can whip crowds to hysteria, or indeed -- even with all Riefensthal's efforts -- hold our attention. The crowds hail him because of what he represents rather than who he is, but how did he ever get there?

As a film, I didn't find this the work of mesmerising yet horrible genius I had been led to expect. Sections of it are artistic, sections intentionally entertaining, others unintentionally so. It is basically a silent documentary with interpolated speeches (we never hear any dialogue save the scripted exchanges -- all the 'spontaneous' glimpses are visual only), and the soundtrack, while inoffensive, is all on one brassy note and becomes fairly monotonous. If this is, as advertised, "widely regarded as the greatest propaganda film of all time", it doesn't actually seem to me terribly persuasive; and it could have been a lot more tightly edited. It's a record of self-congratulation by the Nazi Party in their years of ripe ascendancy, and of interest mainly as such.

This film was well made, but....speeches, marching, speeches, marching, speeches....I didn't know if I should either fall asleep during the film or to stand rigidly straight and utter a few "Seig Heils." While it is absolutely amazing to see just how enthralled the German people were with Hitler and the Nazi Party ideals, the point was made about 15 minutes into the film. I found this film to be dreadfully LONG.

Whatever ones beliefs this is amazing. Leni Riefenstahl was a great director with amazing vision.Not alone is there all the marching and saluting which one would expect from a documentary filmed in Nazi Germany but Riefenstahl also gives snap shots of the people who are in the crowd at the various events.The looks of amazement and zeal on the faces of many who are watching is testimony, in my opinion ,to how mesmerizing an event this was.Riefenstahl captures the atmosphere and the excitement of this event.The last seen where Hitler is giving a fiery speech shows Riefenstahls genius at work.The camera angles are amazing and give a feeling of being there.I would highly recommend this not only to historians but also to students of film.

This is a unique film, it is worthy of note due to Leni Riefenstahl's powerful ability to use imagery to make a documentary / propaganda film. Interesting in terms of how a director uses the imagery to portray the values and feeling of the time.

I have heard the film likened to a party political broadcast. However such broadcasts usually endeavour to set out the parties ideology and plans. In 'Triumph des Willens', despite its two hour length, there is very little of either. What Leni Riefenstahl portrays is the beginning of the personality cult. Frequent cut away's, Hitler always has the last word, the greatest applause. Aspects such as continuity are given little attention as the focus in on the imagery.

Many techniques used by Leni Riefenstahl in this film became the standard for other later dictators in their propaganda films and are still used today.

The film documents the party rally the NSDAP (Nazi party) held in Nuremberg in 1934, having been in power for one year. It is also shortly after the 'night of the long knives' in which Hitler's henchmen consolidated their power by murdering opposition within their own ranks. It is therefore as much a bit of breast beating as propaganda, hence the title 'Triumph des Willens'.

If, in watching the film, you feel 'I've seen that before' then you probably have. A great many 'clips' have been taken from this film and used in other documentaries covering the period, giving testimony to the quality of Leni Riefenstahl's work.

A last note: Leni Riefenstahl's requests for royalties for public viewing of the film have always been refused, so she has earned little from it, despite it's infamy. The film is held by the Imperial War Museum and is considered War Booty.

The quality of this film for its time is fantastic and for those reasons alone it is worth a watch. However, it can never be separated from the fact that it is a propaganda movie for arguably the most murderous regime the world has ever seen. The people who made this move, whilst technically talented, were Nazis and supporters of Hitler and his genocidal crimes. It is a piece of history and can not be destroyed. But it should never be watched or admired without it clearly being in the mind of the viewer that those who made and appeared in it were responsible for the deaths of twenty three million people. The movie deserves the lowest possible rating, not for its technical quality, but rather the purpose for which it was made.

....although, in this case, once may be more than enough for some people. It's technically innovative, with several amazing camera shots, but the content is hollow and repetitive; if you make it through the endless parade footage, Hitler's final speech is the most inflammatory - and revealing. One thing that is made clear, however, is how hypocritical it is to retroactively condemn director Leni Riefenstahl for being seduced by the Nazi ideology at that point in time, when millions of Germans (and others around the world) were far more vocal in their support of the Fuhrer. *** out of 4.

There is scarcely a review which doesn't focus on the meaning or message contained within this film.

I don't mean to suggest that those elements don't exist; I merely want to suggest that there is much more in this powerful film.

Like Olympia, this is a masterfully crafted work of art.

In light of the terrible events that would follow over the next decade, Leni Riefenstahl's propagandistic masterpiece becomes almost impossible to analyse in a completely objective way. We all know what is to follow, we all know that most of the smiling youth on display here would be dead within ten years, that the madman they hail as a saviour would lead them down a path of destruction, and that their collective madness would become a generation's shame. So watching this film is like watching someone fitting a noose around their neck in preparation of kicking away the stool on which they stand: you don't really want to watch but you are compelled to by an awful fascination with the events unfolding in front of you.

The film opens with shots of clouds, followed by Hitler's plane descending like a chariot of the Gods over Nuremburg. Make no mistake about it, despite Riefenstahl's insistence that she wasn't making a propaganda piece, this film is as much about the deification of Hitler in the eyes of the German people as it is about the admirable economic progress of the nation. When he is not seen surrounded by admiring hordes he is filmed from a low angle so that he dominates the screen, or is seen looking down upon his thuggish cohorts. The very things Riefenstahl captured to signify the advancement of the German race now serve as a chilling indictment of all that was wrong with the country – which was so devastated by the aftermath of the last war that it was desperate for a strong leader to give them back some national pride and hope. Small children raise their right arms in salute to the Fuhrer; young men gaze in plain and simple awe of the man; crowds cheer and wave and crane their necks for a glimpse of him as he passes. The regimented ranks that receive his keynote speech make a terrifyingly awesome spectacle, as does the huge mass of Swastika flags that fill the screen as another battalion of acolytes make their way along the central thoroughfare. The Swastika is everywhere while the German flag is barely glimpsed at all.

Oddly enough, many of the speeches delivered by various ministers are no different from the self-serving declarations of successes and ambitions touted by modern-day politicians at party conferences – they are just delivered in that strident fanatical manner exclusive to the executive of the Third Reich. Only when the odious Julius Streicher appears on stage to rant about the need for the racial purity of their nation does the comparison fall apart – and his speech serves as an indication of the dark undercurrents at work beneath the successful rebuilding of a defeated nation.

Triumph of the Will is a brilliantly filmed - and staged - film that serves as a warning from the past now, where once it stood as a celebration of the future and tribute to a man a nation mistakenly believed to be their saviour. It works much better as the former than it ever could have as the latter, and should be required viewing for all history classes.

A historical film capturing the1934 Nazi party rally in picturesque Nazi hotbed of Nuremberg, Filmed over a number of days it contains all the leading lights of National Socialism in pre-war Germany making speeches to the faithful. It also shows the various clips of the different organizations within National Socialism ie.The Hitler Youth in all their Arian glory excited and in gleeful expectation of seeing their Fuhrer,The goosestepping standard bearers of the S.A. and the S.S. paying homage to their glorious leader. Triumph of the Will captures the state of the German nation and the Nazi mindset perfectly ,and I felt a sense of foreboding with the bluntness of some of the speeches. The film is full of very striking German Expressionism Cinema techniques,never more so than in the night shots, full of torch bearing storm troopers and the Nazi faithful hailing their glorious leader..Goebbels vision was put brilliantly to film by Riefenstahl who had over thirty cameras to film every incident of the event.This is truly a masterclass in Propaganda but it is also one in Cinema,Triumph of the Will truly is a triumph of Cinema and despite its content should be seen as one. Riefenstahl for her part was imprisoned for four years after the war and never was able to reinvent her career as a top Director,a real and tragic loss to Cinema

A legendary propaganda/documentary of the Third Reich's 1934 Nuremberg Party Rally.

Featuring a cast of thousands as well as, of course, Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, Hess, Goering and other top party officials.

Legendary? Yes. Masterpiece? Not so much.

The film-making is nothing extraordinary for the time and frankly what we really have here is largely a silent movie for a third of it that is over dubbed with military band type music.

The reviews for this film are clearly over blown. After 12 minutes you will be bored to hell. As I watch this movie, I'm not even sure what the plot is. It's a montage of Hitler et.al with no purpose and scenes of food and beer! Finally, close to a half hour into this movie Hitler gets roasted. It's not any different than an obama propaganda rally. Let's be honest. But because Hitler was so evil, we put a heightened significance to it. Silly. Boring is boring.

More silent footage and band music and fireworks. It makes me want to run from the Nazi party, not join it!

There are a couple of interesting parts however -- watching Hitler speak to the crowd. I guess times have changed cuz I'm left wondering why people thought he was charismatic. He comes across as a kook. The other interesting thing is just looking at the scenes and the way German was way back when -- the scale of this craziness. It can remind you of clips from the rallies in North Korea today!

But it doesn't hold your attention. In the end, you'll be very bored.

PS What's with the Nazi salute? It's the gayest thing on the planet.