| Papers [1-11] of 11 | Search results on "LENI RIEFENSTAHL": |
|
|
Film: "The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl", 2008.
This paper describes and analyzes Ray Muller's documentary film "The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl", who is best known as a documentary filmmaker during the time of Hitler.
1,055 words (approx. 4.2 pages), 3 sources, APA, AU$ 54.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper explains that title of the documentary "The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl" captures the controversy, which Leni Riefenstahl arouses and summarizes the nature of her film work. The author points out that Riefenstahl is popularly acknowledge for having made two of the best documentary films ever produced but they have been denounced for their inherently horrible ideology of Nazism and central figure Hitler. The paper relates that, while this documentary is objective by presenting her admirable qualities, the film also exposes an infinitely less attractive dimension to Riefenstahl's personality, her self-defensive, over-brimming with self-justification and unwaveringly unapologetic stance about the services she rendered to Hitler and the Nazi party. The author discusses the use of voiceovers, flashbacks and contrasts in the production of the film.
From the Paper
""The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl" compels mixed reactions to its protagonist, evoking both admiration and aversion towards Riefenstahl. In one of the scenes, she is depicted as walking on a pier, carrying her own, undoubtedly heavy, scuba diving gear. Her much younger companions are walking ahead of her and neither offers to help her with her equipment and, indeed, her demeanor suggests that she would have rejected any offers of help. This scene would not have been remarkable were it not for the fact that Riefenstahl was over 90 at the time."
| |
|
Leni Riefenstahl, 2002.
A look at the works of Nazi film maker Leni Riefenstahl.
3,900 words (approx. 15.6 pages), 11 sources, AU$ 206.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This sixteen-page undergraduate paper discusses Leni Riefenstahl and the politics of propaganda. Using her two most widely known Nazi-era films, "Triumph of the Will", and "Olympia", the author evaluates her position within the Nazi propaganda machine, and concludes the paper with a personal response to whether these films should be discounted as simply sad reflections of a terroristic regime or as secular landmarks of film art.
| |
|
Leni Riefenstahl's Contribution to Hitler's Campaign, 2002.
This paper looks at the work and contribution to Hitler's campaign, of Leni Riefenstahl, German actress and filmmaker who directed "The Triumph of the Will" in 1934.
1,775 words (approx. 7.1 pages), 3 sources, MLA, AU$ 83.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The writer examines the film "Triumph of the Spirit" and more closely the filmmaker "Leni Riefenstahl". The paper attempts to analyze whether Leni's participation in the production of this movie assisted and promoted Hitler's ideas and actions, and by doing so, placed her in the role or war criminal, not just film maker. The writer uses direct quotes from the time as well as historical stories to explore her involvement in Hitler's campaign and her subsequent guilt or innocence.
From the Paper
"Consider first the nature of the film itself. The documentary Triumph of the Will, directed by Leni Riefenstahl, presents the Nazi era through a particular prism showing it as heroic, elevating, and inspiring. The film is actually less overt about the propaganda elements than one might expect, with Riefenstahl hiding them in elegiac and poetic images whose effect is to elevate the Nazi party and its leader. The occasion was the Nuremberg rally in 1935 at which Hitler made a rousing speech that solidified his political power over the people. The film is not objective at all, and while the subject matter may be considered frightening and horrible, the techniques used by Riefenstahl in shaping the footage remain among the prime examples of documentary film-making. As propaganda, the film is extremely effective."
| |
|
Film: Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will", 2005.
This paper critiques Susan Sontag in her article on the life and work of Leni Riefenstahl, especially her film "Triumph of the Will".
2,700 words (approx. 10.8 pages), 3 sources, AU$ 154.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Susan Sontag in her article "Fascinating Fascism" on the life and work of Leni Riefenstahl explores the complex mix of the larger themes of Nazi ideology with an artistic vision that simply claims to depict pure history. The author points out that Sontag's analysis of Riefenstahl's work and particularly of her most prominent film "Triumph of the Will" 1944 sheds light on the director's fascist aesthetics. The paper contends that historical analysis of Riefenstahl's film suggest that Sontag may herself have been a victim of Riefenstahl's propaganda to some degree.
From the Paper
"Susan Sontag, in her article on the life and work of Leni Riefenstahl "Fascinating Fascism," explores the complex mix of "the larger themes of Nazi ideology" with an artistic vision that simply claims to depict "pure history" (Sontag, 42). However, while Sontag's analysis of Riefenstahl's work - and particularly of her most prominent film Triumph of the Will (1944) - sheds light on the director's fascist aesthetics, historical analysis of Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will suggest that Sontag may herself have been a victim of Riefenstahl's "propaganda" to some degree."
| |
|
Leni Riefenstahl, 2002.
A discussion of Leni Riefenstahl, her unethical art and the catastrophic consequences.
1,912 words (approx. 7.6 pages), 9 sources, MLA, AU$ 88.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper presents an examination of Leni Riefenstah,l a film actor/director during Hitler's reign of Nazi Germany. It examines how
Leni worshipped many of Hitler's beliefs and used her art ability and clout in unethical manners to promote him as a humanistic in the form of Nazi propaganda. In her movies she portrayed Hitler as a brilliant political strategist who would only improve the world as the world bought into his ideas and beliefs. It attempts to understand how Leni's films helped to shape the war and the horror that many suffered from and how, had she not used her art in unethical ways then history may have been altered to have an outcome which did not include the horror that six million Jews suffered.
From the Paper
"Understanding the ways that Leni?s films influenced the world is important so that history does not repeat itself. There are several things that can be done to insure this does not repeat. One of the most important things the viewers need to remember is that the media presents a biased view regardless of how hard it tries not to. Each piece is put together by human beings and it is approved by other human beings and if they believe it to be a good piece it is generally because the piece dovetails with their interests and beliefs."
| |
|
"Olympia" a Film by Leni Riefenstahl, 2002.
The paper analyzes the film ?Olympia?, directed by Leni Riefenstahl. According to the writer, the film presents a realistic and powerful fusion between sports and politics.
12,594 words (approx. 50.4 pages), 0 sources, MLA, AU$ 348.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper summarizes the controversial life of the most famous film-maker in Nazi Germany. In detail, the paper examines the making of the movie "Olympia", a documentary film about the Olympics that served the Nazi Government in Germany in 1936. The writer asserts that this film is the first sports film.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Riefenstahl before ?Olympia?
Production and Funding
The Preparations
Track and Field
Festival of Beauty
Conclusion
From the Paper
"The National-Socialist Party was elected to the German Government in 1933 and brought with it large social changes. The Reich was supposed to control all the aspects of life, including the arts. Probably, at the begging, the arts, and specially the visual arts, were not a goal of the Nazi ideology, but de factum it became a tool in order to promote the Nazi desires. One could think the Nazi Government obligated the artist community to follow a certain ?Nazi style?. However, this is not the case; it was impossible to create a ?Nazi artistic model? in a period of time that was too short. Gradually, all the different art movements were expulsed, they were told to be ?degenerative? and were blamed to be influenced by the international community, the Jews and the Bolsheviks. This situation triggered the growth of irrelevant artists and dormant artistic movements that were accepted by the Nazis. These artists and movements were those that created the core of the Nazi Art during twelve years of Nazi Regime? They had a pro-Nazi tendency and the Nazi ideology is recognized in their works. The Cinema was an integral part of this process and existed as an important part of the Propaganda Machine; becoming an instrument by which the esthetics and the ideas of the Nazi were presented. About 1200 movies were made during the twelve years of the Reich; most of them were argumental but, in all of tem (including comedies, romantic drama, films for children, etc.), we identify the National-Socialist Doctrine and the Nationalist-Totalitarian approach. Leni Riefensthal?s movie, ?Olympia?, from 1936, is in fact the documentation of the Olympic Games and it was filmed formally for the Olympic Games Organization Committee, under the direction of its General Secretary Carl Dime. In those days Riefensthal was in her professional zenith, she became a movie star in some of the successful ?Mountain Films? of Arnold Panck and showed to everyone her talent as director and editor in ?Triumph of the Will?, also a documentary film, about the Nazi Congress of 1934, that provided her with a good quote of publicity. She was the brilliant filmmaker that became the favorite of the Fuhrer. Although she did not want to be involved in any other documentary movie, she accepted the project and tried to transform it in a revolutionary piece of art. Indeed, ?Olympia? was filmed with modern technology and sophisticated techniques: rapid cameras, sub-aquatics cameras, cameras on the top of towers, in planes, balloons, and boats. Holes were excavated in the stadium in order to film the athletes from a special angle and slow-replay clips were introduced (a very modern technique in those days). The professional team, numbering dozens, was directed by Riefensthal and worked intensively during the Olympic Games days. The accurate production and edition took months, and the result was a two-parts brilliant film. We cannot approach the analysis of ?Olympia? without looking at the context of the cinema industry under Nazi Government. The central question is whether Riefensthal was independent or not in relation to the Nazi Party, and specially in relation to the Propaganda Minister of the Reich, Joseph Goebbels. We might notice that her relations with the Party and the Government influenced the making of the movie, as well as its goals and its impartiality. Many questions arise while watching ?Olympia?: Are we discussing about Nazi Propaganda or about the documentation of the Olympic Games (maybe the best one ever done)? Is this movie trying to improve the Classic or the Nazi esthetics standards? Is this a movie about sports or about politics? Maybe, the answer is that ?Olympia? is all of them together. The film that documents the 1936 Olympic Games of Berlin included the spirit of the consentaneous Nazi Art. Many aspects of the National-Socialist esthetics are found in ?Olympia?. The film was used for the profit of the new Government and it became a part the general propaganda system that glorified the power of the strong Germany, its noble roots, its citizens, and their loyalty to their country and leader. The so reduced Nazi iconography found its place also here: the idealization of the human body, the virgin nature as a primitive element, the German ?vital space?, and the rustic panorama. The same esthetics elements appeared in every visual art (posters, newspapers, post-cards, etc.) and it was part, as we said, of ?Olympia? too."
| |
|
Olympic Games Documentary Films, 2005.
This paper contrasts the 1936 Olympic Games documentary film by Leni Riefenstahl and the 1964 Olympic Games documentary film by Ton Ichikawa.
1,375 words (approx. 5.5 pages), 0 sources, AU$ 65.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that that Leni Riefenstahl's film of the 1936 Olympic documentary is propaganda, focusing more on German and German-sympathetic athletes and the ambiance of the Berlin stadium, seen in its new Nazi grandeur; whereas, in the most stunning photography, Ton Ichikawa's film of the 1964 Tokyo Olympiad is a salute of the exertion of the athletes regardless of race, nationality or ethnic background. The author points out that "Tokyo Olympiad 1964" is not a "sports documentary" in the traditional sense of showing races, winners and celebrating crowds but rather a technically and emotionally gripping documentary about the effort of preparation and the Olympic spirit. The paper concludes that, in a sense, this film is just as much a propaganda piece about Japan's new maturity as was Olympia 1936 but in a way that the glorification politics do not interfere with the presentation of the athletics.
From the Paper
"There is no real story line easy to follow, even though this nearly three-hour film opens with buildings being demolished to make way for the Olympic stadiums and arenas, and training areas as well as housing. As we see this, there is a voice-over which gives the other previous Olympic locations and dates. One of the next scenes is the obligatory Olympic documentary one of the torch reaching Japan, and the following thew various runners in the countryside, running to bring the torch to Tokyo and its new Olympic stadium. For Americans, the win of the Native American, Billy Mills, in the 10,000 meter race is a highlight. But, interestingly enough, the camera stays at the finish line until every racer has finished. There is also a somewhat poignant story line about the single athlete from Chad, who shares no common language with any other athlete, and trains alone. When he loses in the semi-final heat, Ahmed Isa is ignored by the crowd, but not Ichikawa. Here is loneliness amid the shouts of tens of thousands."
| |
|
?Triumph of the Will? and ?Un Chien Andalou?., 2002.
This paper discusses the films in Leni Riefenstahl's ?Triumph of the Will? directed by in Luis Bunuel's ?Un Chien Andalou?.
650 words (approx. 2.6 pages), 2 sources, AU$ 38.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explores the themes of inter-war consciousness and cultural voids as expressed in Luis Bunuel's ?Un Chien Andalou? and Leni Riefenstahl's ?Triumph of the Will?.
| |
|
Fascist Art, 2001.
Discusses Susan Sontag's use of films and photographs of Leni Riefenstahl to apply her aesthetic principles. Mythic imagery in "Triumph of the Will."
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 2 sources, AU$ 45.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Susan Sontag uses the artistry of film director and later photographer Leni Riefenstahl as an example to analyze the idea of fascist art. Sontag finds that many works of art from the fascist era try to impart a certain idea of beauty that is itself a propagandistic and ideological political statement. Sontag offers an extensive description of fascist art, but in some ways her generalizations can be applied to nearly all works in some fashion and so raises the issue of whether she has actually identified a different style or done so in a way that is sufficiently differentiating.
"Sontag begins by referring to Leni Riefenstahl's book of photographs, The Last of the Nuba. Sontag finds a number of outright lies in what Riefenstahl claims about her life and her work on the cover and traces these lies to show how Riefenstahl..."
| |
|
Film: Paul Leni's "Waxworks", 2008.
Explores the portrayal of evil in Paul Leni's film "Waxworks".
795 words (approx. 3.2 pages), 2 sources, MLA, AU$ 41.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that, in Paul Leni's film "Waxworks", the sub-stories become darker, more violent and more psychological as the film goes on. The author points out that, starting with a bad-intentioned but ultimately harmless sultan and ending with a dreamed encounter with the translucent Spring-Heeled Jack/ Jack the Ripper, the theme of evil becomes more dangerous while simultaneously becoming less incarnate, thus distorting its origin. The paper reveals that, by having the triumph of evil happen in the dream, the film is suggesting that evil exists fully within the psychological.
From the Paper
"In the second vignette, the villain is able to inflict much more pain than the preceding despot. Ivan the Terrible's actual connection to his bad intention however, is much more fluid. By not killing or torturing his victims himself, but instead ordering others to, Ivan's role presents evil as an entity that can be passed along from person to person. Again the villain replaces the love interest's role, this time much more forcibly. While torturing her would-be husband, Ivan abducts and forces himself on the would-be wife. However, Ivan is unable to accomplish his goal."
| |
|
Propaganda vs. Art, 2004.
Addresses the questions in the debate about propaganda vs. art of whether the artist can be separated from the art he or she produces and to what extent the artist is complicit in the use of their artwork for propaganda purposes.
2,458 words (approx. 9.8 pages), 19 sources, MLA, AU$ 107.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper argues that, while separating the art from the artist in an analysis of his work is generally a healthy practice, we should question to what extent we should make this separation and why some artists are allowed more leeway than others. The paper also attempts to answer the question, concerning propaganda versus art, about how much we can hold the artist responsible for the use and application of his art for other, possibly nefarious, purposes. The author of the paper argues that the answer lies in intentionality through an understanding of the intent of the artist in the production of the work of art. The paper uses artist Leni Riefenstahl and her work to illustrate the complexity and importance of addressing these questions.
From the Paper
"In debating the difference between art and propaganda one may enter into a minefield of contentious terms and complex ethical issues. The central concern that will be the focus of this paper is the intentionality of art in determining whether it is propaganda or art. If an artist is aware of and complicit in the manufacture and production of art for a specific political agenda, especially one that has been universally condemned, then he or she may be seen to be a propagandist rather than an artist. It is this qualitative and intrinsic difference in the artist and not in the use made of the art that is the central concern. Therefore, the criteria that will be used to ascertain the difference between art and propaganda is the underlying intention of the artist."
|
|
|
If you can't find your topic here, try another search
or try our affordable, unique custom paper alternative
Custom Research Services include:
- Papers written from scratch, according to your specifications.
Every paper is UNIQUE - Guaranteed
- Professional, top-notch writers
- All topics covered
- Any deadline
- Your satisfaction guaranteed
Place a Custom Research order now
Find out more about Custom Research
|
|
|
