Triumpf of the Will - why is it considered cinematic masterpiece?!
Question: Why is Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" considered such an iconic masterpiece of cinema? What makes it so special?
Are there some innovative cinema techniques? Some special esthetic? Or what exactly?
Answers: Why is Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" considered such an iconic masterpiece of cinema? What makes it so special?
Are there some innovative cinema techniques? Some special esthetic? Or what exactly?
Hard to say which one is better, it's really an apples and oranges comparison. Triumph is a documentary, Potemkin is a historical drama. It's true, both were propaganda films, but while Triumph is great (and frightening) for the reasons stated above, Potemkin is more subtle and, in a way, more revolutionary in its technique. Eisenstein's use of montage -- his quick edits, his abrupt juxtapositions of seemingly unrelated images -- requires a lot more thoughtfulness on the part of the viewer and is a lot more impressionistic than what Riefenstahl does. Eisenstein is also probably more influential. His technique gets copied all the time (usually badly), even today, and Potemkin's "Odessa steps" sequence has been copied a lot, too, most notably, by Brian De Palma in "The Untouchables."
Well considering it was made in the 1930s, it supposedly had outstanding camera work and a very good score.
Although, I have only seen bits and pieces of it.
Triumph of the Will was released in 1934 and rapidly became one of the better-known examples of propaganda in film history. Riefenstahl's techniques, such as moving cameras, continuity editing, the use of telephoto lenses to create a distorted perspective, aerial photography, and revolutionary approach to the use of music and cinematography, have earned Triumph recognition as one of the greatest films in history. It has continued to influence movies, documentaries, and commercials to this day, even as it raises the question over the dividing line between art and morality.