In this post I would like to discuss the two films Man with a Movie Camera and Triumph of the Will. Both of these films are extremely documentary in nature, and both attempt to glorify the political system under which they were created. By viewing them, one can see the ways in which the reigning political systems in Germany and Russia at the time (Fascism and Communism) differ, as manifest in the techniques used to create the film.
For example, Triumph of the Will is a film that was created to glorify the fascist Nazi regime, and therefore focuses on glorifying Adolf Hitler, as he is the "fatherly" figure under which Germany is being united. The film employs clever editing and camera techniques to imply that Hitler is a warm, magnanimous figure that is uniting all of Germany under the ideal of national pride. Man with a Movie Camera, however, does not focus on or glorify one person at all, instead focusing on hundreds of different people, giving all of them comparable amounts of screen time. It does not attempt to give any more meaning to the people shown other than what is presented to the camera. It is in this respect that these two films show a key difference between the political ideologies under which they were created: Fascism's self-importance and the emphasis it places on the aesthetic value of politics versus Communism's emphasis on it's people: the everyday working class.
Next, these films both differ in the way they try to hide (or not hid) their means of production. In Triumph of the Will, all of the camera crews are outfitted in Nazi uniforms so as to blend into the crowds, while other cameras were cleverly hidden on flagpoles. The film tries very hard to never show a camera or production crew to the audience. This contrasts with Man with a Movie Camera, whose very title implies the means of production. Throughout the film we constantly see the man with the camera, a reminder that this film is the product of human ingenuity and effort. Here then, is another difference between Communism and Fascism. In a Fascist system, the end result is what's celebrated. The importance is placed on the final aesthetic value of the film. In a Communist system, the emphasis is placed on the people, the human machinery responsible for the production of the product.
Finally, the way in which people are depicted in each of the films is different. In Triumph of the Will we very rarely see anything other than huge masses of people, all dressed alike in uniform. This implies a sameness to the people, appropriate in a country whose political system stressed the dominance of the Aryan "master race" and ruthlessly weeded out anyone that didn't conform to this ideal. In Man with a Movie Camera we see shots of individual people, all usually working-class. The movie does not seek to imply a sameness in the people at all, but rather seems to focus on people because they stand out or are visually interesting. This then, is another way in which these films show the differences between Communism and Fascism.
While both of these movies are similar in cinematic style, they are each the product of a radically different political system, and by comparing them, one can examine the differences in the political systems under which they were created.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
These movies really are a perfectly paired contrast, aren't they?
ReplyDeleteI thought it was especially notable that Man With the Movie Camera doesn't just not hide its means of production, it goes out of its way to show it and emphasize it, especially when we're watching the film itself being edited, or when we see the women in the carriage intercut with the man filming the women in the carriage. It asks the viewer to think a lot more (and more critically) about what they are seeing and why. Perhaps it's another way of emphasizing the individual, since it wants the viewers to come up with their own thoughts? And then, in contrast, Triumph of the Will extends its demand for sameness of people to demand sameness of thought, by using highly manipulative editing processes.
Anyway, good job pointing out the biggest differences and how they connect to ideology! A great way to wrap up the semester, too. :)
Excellent rendering of the differences between these two films and their connections to politics! "Documentary" is indeed a tricky beast, especially in these cases where processes of production really manipulated the pro-filmic events at stake. What's useful here is to think about the ways that the construction of "the real" serves to imagine alternative futures -- do we assume that what we see is what there is (TW) or can we acknowledge that the new mechanization of society will bring about a new consciousness (MWMM)?
ReplyDeleteNice post!
ReplyDeleteYou do a great job of deciphering differences between the two films. Excellent job of keep your style clear and concise. I especially enjoyed your last point when you talk about the ways in which people are depicted in the film. This blog made me began to think more about the music of these films and how it even has political reflection to it. After the films and blogs, I now have more of an appreciation for the powers of documentaries.
You did a great job tying in what we have learned in class with what these films actually mean to the real world. The comparison between fascism and communism was very well done and using the films to point this out made a very interesting post to read.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the camera trying to be hidden in Triumph of the Will, I find it almost comical how easy it was to spot. I know this is probably because of the circumstances they were forced to film under (opposed to going out and making a film on your own schedule). I did really like your point about how Man with a Movie Camera almost shows off its means of production and makes it very clear that we are watching a film.
Overall great post and fantastic job this year.
I really enjoyed reading this post. When watching these two films I hadn't realized how each reflected their respective governmental influences. In fact, I had initially thought that the films were very similar but after reading your post I realize the great differences between the two. Overall I really liked how you emphasized the differences in the production techniques of the two films and then associated them with political ideologies. I think this was very helpful and we should remember to always analyze movies within their political and historical contexts. Great post.
ReplyDeleteAwesome final post! I never stopped to compare and contrast the different styles and approaches to the documentary genre that both of these films make, but your post really got me thinking. I thought your point about the films being a reflection of the political structures of the respective countries was very interesting and valid. Thinking about these two films in the context of our class and the discussions that we've been having is so interesting because as Laura said, they truly are a "perfectly paired contrast". Great work!
ReplyDeleteInteresting comparison of two very different films! I like your writing style: very clear and organized.
ReplyDeleteThis part really caught my eye:
"Next, these films both differ in the way they try to hide (or not hid) their means of production. In Triumph of the Will, all of the camera crews are outfitted in Nazi uniforms so as to blend into the crowds, while other cameras were cleverly hidden on flagpoles. The film tries very hard to never show a camera or production crew to the audience. This contrasts with Man with a Movie Camera, whose very title implies the means of production. Throughout the film we constantly see the man with the camera, a reminder that this film is the product of human ingenuity and effort."
Although we talked about the cameras in class, I never thought about it this way. The presence (or lack thereof) the camera has a big impact on how we perceive films.
Along the same line, an idea: in the recent film Paranormal Activity, we are constantly reminded of the camera as it is filmed in the handheld camera style. This fools the audience into thinking what they are seeing is true. The film therefore succeeds in spooking the audience with the smallest things (like creaking open of a door) that it does not normally consider scary in horror films.