Listen to the article
Roger Ebert’s Conflicted Analysis of Nazi Propaganda Film Resurfaces
Roger Ebert, one of America’s most influential film critics, found himself in an unusual critical predicament when he revisited Leni Riefenstahl’s notorious 1935 Nazi propaganda film “The Triumph of the Will” in 2008. His analysis, which has recently gained renewed attention, reveals the complex moral and artistic dilemmas faced when evaluating controversial historical works.
Ebert hadn’t viewed the film since his undergraduate days when he decided to reexamine it decades later. The timing of his decision remains curious, but his resulting review stands as one of his most thought-provoking critical examinations, balancing professional film analysis with moral awareness.
The legendary critic found himself caught between two opposing forces. As a professional film reviewer, he needed to evaluate the documentary’s technical and artistic merits. Yet he simultaneously confronted the uncomfortable reality that the film served as propaganda for one of history’s most horrific regimes.
“We would all have been reflecting the received opinion that the film is great but evil,” Ebert acknowledged in his review, directly addressing the central question: “whether great art can be in service of evil.”
What makes Ebert’s analysis particularly fascinating is its apparent contradictions. Despite awarding the film four stars – his highest rating – he simultaneously described it as “a terrible film, paralyzingly dull, simpleminded, overlong, and not even manipulative, because it is too clumsy to manipulate anyone but a true believer.” Such criticism seems at odds with a top-tier rating.
Ebert clarified this discrepancy by explaining that the film’s greatness stemmed not from its content but from “the reputation it has and the shadow it casts.” He distinguished between artistic greatness and historical significance, acknowledging the film’s place in cinema history while refusing to endorse its message.
From a purely technical standpoint, “The Triumph of the Will” was groundbreaking in its time. The documentary pioneered innovative filmmaking techniques – including moving cameras, aerial shots, and distinctive perspectives – that would influence generations of filmmakers to follow. These technical achievements exist in stark contrast to the film’s abhorrent ideological framework.
“That ‘Triumph of the Will’ is a great propaganda film, there is no doubt, and various surveys have named it so,” Ebert wrote. However, he expressed skepticism about its effectiveness: “I doubt that anyone not already a Nazi could be swayed by it. Being a Nazi, to this film, means being a mindless pawn in thrall to the godlike Hitler.”
The two-hour documentary, which chronicles the 1934 Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg, stands as a visual glorification of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi movement. Riefenstahl’s work has long been subject to scholarly debate regarding the boundaries between art, propaganda, and historical documentation.
Film historians continue to study the documentary as a case study in propagandistic filmmaking techniques. Many educational institutions show portions of the film in controlled academic environments to examine how visual rhetoric can be weaponized for political purposes.
Ebert’s willingness to revisit such a controversial work speaks to his commitment to film criticism as a serious intellectual pursuit. His review demonstrates the challenges critics face when evaluating works whose artistic achievements are inseparable from their morally reprehensible contexts.
The uncomfortable intersection of technical brilliance and ethical depravity presented in “The Triumph of the Will” continues to challenge film scholars, historians, and viewers. Ebert’s nuanced analysis reminds us that critical engagement with problematic works remains essential for understanding both cinema history and the power of propaganda.
As one critic noted following Ebert’s review, “His ability to acknowledge the film’s technical innovations while never losing sight of its fundamental moral bankruptcy shows why he remained America’s most trusted film critic for decades.”
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
Ebert’s review highlights the complexities involved in evaluating art with deeply troubling political and historical contexts. His willingness to confront these issues directly is admirable.
The timing of Ebert’s reexamination of this film is intriguing. I wonder what prompted him to revisit it after so many years and how his perspective had shifted.
Fascinating to see Ebert’s complex take on this deeply troubling Nazi propaganda film. The artistic merit seems undeniable, but the moral dilemma of elevating such hateful ideology is profoundly unsettling.
I appreciate Ebert’s nuanced approach in recognizing the film’s technical qualities while grappling with its dark historical context and message. It’s a difficult balance to strike.
This is a poignant example of the challenges faced by critics in assessing works that are both artistically accomplished and ideologically abhorrent. Ebert’s nuanced approach is commendable.
It will be interesting to see how future critics and scholars continue to grapple with the legacy of this film and others like it. The moral dilemmas remain highly relevant.
Ebert’s review demonstrates the need to thoughtfully consider the broader sociopolitical context when evaluating works of art, even those with undeniable technical mastery. The moral implications cannot be ignored.
I’m curious to learn more about the timing of Ebert’s decision to revisit this film. His perspective seems to have evolved significantly from his initial undergraduate viewing.
This is a challenging case study in the role of art and criticism. While the film may have technical brilliance, its propagation of Nazi ideology is abhorrent. Ebert’s review highlights the complexities involved.
It’s commendable that Ebert sought to reexamine this work decades later with moral awareness, rather than simply judging it on artistic merits alone.