Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will and Some Stray Thoughts

Triumph of the Will, Leni Riefenstahl's film about the Nuremberg Rally of Nazi party is widely known for two reasons - the sheer artistic mastery and the propagandist intentions behind it. It was made in 1935 and with most modern technical skills, it tries to capture the "greatness" and "majesty" of the event and force behind it. The film starts with the aerial shots of clouds and then hovers over the city of Nuremberg, follows the Führer and the cheering crowd and the gallant speeches, all with a soaring musical score. For a viewer, its foremost importance is as a film document to show that how the effective use of film making techniques can makes one soar, even if there is nothing up there. The series of virile speeches look like the audition for the part of Hitler in some future film. The various shots of Hitler, larger-than-life messiah, are lofty as the zeal and number of the crowd cheering him and the men at his service. Its all about the promise of a nice near future, provided you be good. Its all about the smug hypothesis that we are better than others, and we have some mission in life. All is big and beautiful. All is about power and being powerful. In a way, its all what we usually like. But before turning into one of the following - Riefenstahl's apologists or Riefenstahl's detractors - we must think that in Führer-times, is anyone left with any choices other than his, can there be political innocents in such time, can there be any independent film making possible to make a purely historical film in such times and if it can, what cost and courage it required. And in addition to it, we must always have deep faith in the human soul which is by nature, essentially corruptible especially with the charm of power and the powerful.

While watching this film I began to think on some line which are not exactly related to the film but closely brush by (beware, incoherent rant follows!). And that is partly related to what Tarkovsky said about cinema, he said "Cinema is a sad art because it requires lot of money." In present times, where we say and hear all the time that we are free and we are not living under any dictatorship, how should we see studio films? Is it a freedom that we get as a resultant vector of artistic urge, commercialization, cultural conservatism, and current political ambiance or just a more wholesome form of dictatorship? How far a director has gained any freedom from the system, and more importantly, as an artist of his times, with the urge to create, is an artist justified in fulfilling his epic dreams. Imagine Michael Cimino making his epic Heaven's Gate with Nazi backing, as preposterous this thought may seem, but it looks that the artistic urge to create grandeur might let one suck money from any source and accept patronage from anybody. Is it justified to work like a court-artist (rather a corporate artist), even if one is able to save ones art (Leni’s work is almost flawless too, especially for her times), or in present times, is it the way to save art and give back some ideas to the society, as Altman confesses in the commentary track of The Player, “we all are just 'players' in this big game” and something at the end of documentary, The Corporation, also points to that. How far can an artist go? Does this artistic urge, can overpower ones morality, or obscure ones sense of judgment, as long as it fills the art-shaped-hole. Are these film makers not Little-Eichmanns? Is artist answerable to his/her art and nothing else? Is ambition of such pricey perfection, in films and its execution, equivalent to artistic Nazism, and does it come natural to an artist to achieve and communicate a particular thought or idea. Do we have to accept it as a demand of the medium? As you can see, such stray thoughts go no where, toggling between extremes, fading to acceptance. But these “art-sans-morality” and “big-ticket-art” thoughts do make us, as a viewer, realize that all artistic triumphs are not true and all art is not divine.

Tarkovsky on Art

Before defining art or any concept, we must answer for the broader question, what is the meaning of man's life on earth? May be we have to enhance ourselves spritually. If our life tends to be a spritual enrichment then art is a means to get there. This of course in accordance with my definition of life. Art should help man in this process. Some say art helps man to know the world like any other intellectual activity. I don't believe in the possibility of knowing. I am almost an agnostic. Knowledge distracts us from the main purpose of life. The more we know, the less we know. Getting deeper, our horizon becomes narrower. Art enriches man's own spiritual capacities and he can then raise above himself to use what we call "free-will".

Art and Emotions.

Before coming to the topic, lets ask ourselves a question on our emotional sensibility and its need to us. The obvious answer will be yes, it is very essential attribute of being human. One need to be emotional to be human, will be the most common response. The next question that follows this will be, should we express our emotions publicly to let others be effected/influenced by them. Most of us will say intentional display of emotions is usually bad. Now comes the bigger question that if any form of art effect you emotionally, is it doing as bad a job as a person doing to get some attachment and sympathy for his/her cause. Here the question becomes complex because our definitions of art and emotions may vary and our tolerance limit towards may vary too and also art manipulating our emotions can be seen as its only effect on us. Art effect us, but the question here is, what is the actual need of it and if it effects us emotionally, how should it be doing that. Does art need to be emotionally extravagant to be effective.

First of all we all need to come to some basic definition of art. For me art is something that brings me closer to the truth that too not by any sort of spoon-feeding, but by giving subtle pointers which may result in innumerous interpretations, all of them as strong as the others and this ambiguity giving a thinking space and for me its the beauty of art, where we can paint colors ourselves giving subjectivity to absolute truth. So art need to give me space and should never close or capture me. Yet another way to define art is to say that it brings realities forth. One more addition to this definition is to include that art also brings forth alternate realities or may be fantasies or images of imagination.

We here revert back to our question of art effecting us emotionally and if so, is it right and if it is not, what else it could do. Showing a starving child from a third world country to squeeze emotions out of you, doesn't qualify for being an art, although its moving and does bring some reality with it. It's not like that I hate children, or I am too rich to hate poverty. Its probably because these images generate pity and sympathy in the most direct and useless form. These images can distort my face but can't change my mind. Now moving on to the final question, should art be detached. Now what I mean to say is not that art should be emotionally-sterile but should art raise itself above emotions . Should art create a mood or leave us under trance. Should not a real art let us decide ourselves of itself, not just guide us through a decided road map. Otherwise, being in vicinity of art will like being hypnotized, where not only you can't think and act, but the effect is gone once trance is lifted. But if art doesn't effect us emotionally how should it effect us. For me showing emotions in the name of art is not bad, but that should not be all. Floods of emotions blind us to see beyond them. I want web of feeling in my head not a thick rod to cut it through. These cutting edge rods work more for heart, and so all this emotional extravaganza will deeply effect you but you can't gain anything over and above it.

One more thing that comes up here is the questions of real or fake. To make it clear, I am not talking of any fake emotions. They don't deserve to be talked about. It is because it is not the emotions that are real or fake, it is the way they are used. A mother caring for his son, or a boy in love with a girl or even a girl bitching about the other, are all real emotions, but the cheap, easy and abundant way they are used, may cause all the embarrassment and hate towards them.

People have come up with several ways to deal with emotions. The first and the most commonly use way is to use them with restrain. The best example is Ritwik Ghatak's Meghe Dhaka Tara. It is a emotionally draining film where Ghatak rations emotions. Another way out is not to use them or to use them for name-sake. One of the example in this case is Fassbinder's Effi Briest. People call Effi Briest emotionally-restraint, but for me it went to a level of emotional-dryness, it do have a brief breakdown scene towards the end, after so much anguish and pain is faced by young Effi. Yet another way is to show emotions as usual but to show their fakeness side by side, the best example for this is Fassbinber's The Bitter Tears of Petra Von Kant. Bitter Tears is a story of a fashion designer, where Fassbinder breaks apart all noble emotions apart, giving Petra no respite till the mildly-hopeful end. Yet another way to deal with emotions is satire and comedy, one of a few movies that keep their intellectual ability intact and yet work as comedies include Bergman's Smiles of the Summer Night. It is a story of love and betrayal set in Swedish Summer. Yet another way to deal with emotions is detachment. One of the example for this is Jean-Luc Godard's Contempt. Its a highly intellectual movie, where you are detached as soon as you tend to attach with the film. A better example is Abbas Kiarostami's A Taste of Cherry, where in the end the lead character and director are shown talking to detach the viewer from the film and think above it.

Sometimes I think it could have relieved me immensely if Ozu had shown the Noriko on sets, chatting and laughing, or Fellini could have shown Cabiria smiling without tears on the set of the film. But on a second thought it looks like I enjoyed being mesmerized by them. But again, art is not all about enjoying it, its also about understanding it.

Ghatak on Art

Ritwik Ghatak on Art in an essay, Film and I

The word 'art' in films is much abused, both by its friends and its foes... whatever is pretentiously dull or breathtakingly spectacular is not necessarily art. Art does not consist merely of ambitious subjects or outlandish propositions or extensive use of a newly available extreme wide-angle lens. It does not consist of montage and manipulation of filmic time and de-dramatization solely. Rather, it consists of bursts of fancy. Whatever the genre, art brings with it the feeling of being in the presence of living truth, always coupled with enjoyment.

Connections

I was watching Oscars and there is one moment which sent me to a though process. The guy who took Oscar for best sound editing/design ( I don't remember exactly) said it is not Science but it is Art. The whole crowd (presumably artists) clapped. The thought that it generated was 'does art still rule over science' and the basic questions, 'what is art' and 'what is science' and 'how they are related' and 'what becomes what when'?

I have almost no answers to it as always but that doesn't check me from writing about it as always. Science is rules of objectivity and Art is the beauty of subjectivism. Science is decision making based on those rules and art is decision making based on beauty that one define oneself. Me writing this post can be a work of science or art. It becomes science when a theory can explain it to totality, which is a difficult job. It becomes art when I refuse to follow any logic other than what I feel is 'true' and I don't consider necessary to give any reasons/logic to it. These arguments can trigger two different allegations for science and art. Allegation for science is it is a constraining thing, but it is not. Nobody stops you from touching the unearthed mysteries provided you have a logical explanation for the same. The allegation for art may be, its escapism and mysticism, since it either defers the answer or complexifies the question itself. It is also not the case because art is not made to explain, it is not made to give easy, logically-verificable, for-all answers, it is here to stimulate you, its here to stir you emotionally not logically, not to say it is illogical, but at times logic falls short, very short, although as a 'thinking man' we try hard to find an explanation, thus a work of art of can result in as many different explanations as the people experiencing it, and its beauty of Art.

As of me, I feel attached to both of them, use them selfishly, self indulgently, sometimes shamelessly too, just to protect my own standpoint. I try to be logical as far as I can get but turn from it whenever I feel insecure of it, void of any objective explanation. I remember one of my friend saying if world is governed by logic only, it will not be same, it will be hellish. I concur to him ! I dread of seeing any logically one dimensional art.

Art and science are typically connected as the later providing a helping hand to former. But Science is more than that, it has its own full beauty. I am not able to pin point any example but I have felt the same spiritual upswing after reading some of the scientific works as I have felt after reading/watching a piece of art. The point here is about the art in science or are they 'that' different ?

Vithikaa...

I went to lots of places in Hyderabad this month. It included Salarjung Museum where I saw some of most beautiful pieces of art.

I was interested in calligraphy in my teens and just thought good handwriting is calligraphy, later I learnt that its much more than that and tried some styles (in devnagari) but was not able to gather much interest. It resurfaced that day when I saw some of the excellent Persian, Urdu and Arabic Calligraphy work at Salarjung. I was not able to read anything but those handwritten manuscripts are real work of art. Then there were one of my favorite forms of art, miniature paintings, in Mughal, Rajasthani, Pahari and Deccani styles. Also, there were very delicate works on wood, ivory and jades. But something that mesmerized me was a sculpture by Italian sculptor G.H Benzoni, named 'Veiled Rebecca'. It was truly remarkable sculpture with Rebecca's marvelous face clearly visible through a flimsy/translucent marble veil. Even after seeing her 2-3 times it looked that milk is poured on her and it has frozen and it is not marble. What a beauty...

I have recently seen (about two months ago) a film by French Director Nicolas Philibert named Louvre City (La Ville Louvre). It showed people hanging paintings, reorganizing rooms, and moving work around at Louvre Gallery in Paris, its more like a documentary. Little by little characters (workers at Louvre) appear and weave together the thread of a narrative. From studios to stacks and reserves containing thousands of picture, sculptures, works of art... this is the discovery of a city with a city. I remember an interesting discussion between two of the workers about a sculpture that whether it is by Michelangelo or someone else as the identity tag was missing, they were discussing about its beard style to figure it out. There were scenes how every thing was put perfectly on walls like a mural. Its showed how biggest of the paintings and the smallest of the artifacts are taken care of. It has a 10 min uncut scene (movie time is about 80-90 min) of how a broken pot (of the size of an small apple) is treated, marked, bought from basement labs to the top floor through a labyrinth of stairs and lifts very carefully. The broken pot was wrapped in a white cloth like a small delicate creature and was placed on the top floor with thousands of its counterparts.

I am not drawing any comparison between Salarjung and Louvre. Louvre is much bigger in content and space, and boosts to be house of paintings like 'Monalisa' and 'The Last Supper', but the love for art and preserving it is the same.

One more thing, I got the hindi (actually Sanskrit) word for 'Gallery' there (I was not knowing it before), and hence the title of this blog.