Kino: Triumph of the Will

[spectre]

Petition to stop the Kino Blu of Triumph of the Will

My blood pressure was lowered somewhat by noticing that the petition only has 43 signatures. Hopefully that number stays in the "pay no mind" range.

[tenia]

I think it's telling that almost every single exemple provided here about watching such movies are within eductional moments. Taken as such, it'd tend to advocate such movies shouldn't be available widely, but only to, say, institutions.

While I'm overall for the access of movies (as someone who owns both the BFI and the Eureka BDs of Birth of a Nation), I also believe that wide access and renewed visibility to Nazi propaganda can just be... wide access and renewed visibility to Nazi propaganda. Which I believe we could legitimately do without.

In France, we can pinpoint the one moment that got Far-right votes to take off : the first prime time TV of its (then) main political representative. On the other hand, Wallonie has a tight sanitary cordon about inviting far-right politicians on the news, and these parties are pretty much kept below 5% there.

I know it shouldn't be this way, and that history needs to be studied and thus available, but sometimes, a mere contact with such content is already enough for some people. And providing a new news cycle through a new wide release to Triumph of the Will will provide this.

More over, it (unsurprisingly) doesn't particularly looks like Kino is treating the movie specifically, and the release looks editorially like any other Kino release.

[MichaelB]

In France, we can pinpoint the one moment that got Far-right votes to take off : the first prime time TV of its (then) main political representative.

Conversely, though, in Britain we can pinpoint the downfall of the exact British equivalent, the far-right, openly racist British National Party, from the moment that their leader Nick Griffin appeared on the BBC’s highest-profile political discussion programme Question Time.

The BBC had agonised about letting him on; their policy had long been to represent political parties proportionally to their share of the vote, and there came a time circa 2009 when this could no longer be ignored with regard to the BNP, as they got two MEPs elected alongside dozens of councillors. And I completely understand their qualms.

But in the event, Griffin was embarrassing—he’d had no real media experience outside far-right publications, no experience of handling polite but deeply hostile fellow panellists or audiences, and he just came across as massively out of his depth. And from that point on the BNP plunged in popularity; they failed to make an anticipated breakthrough in the 2010 general election, and over the next few years lost all their other elected representatives. The party still exists, but Wikipedia claims that it’s been “largely inactive since 2019”, and that chimes with my own impression.

Although the sobering punchline is that the voters went elsewhere, and Nigel Farage is a far more adept, media-savvy politician than Griffin ever was.

[Calvin]

It is also the case that Triumph of the Will is already widely available - I know the Synapse release had some issues but this isn't a title rescue, so I do question what the commercial value is in re-releasing this specific title with just better picture quality.

I think it's also remiss of Kino not to mention in their description of Tiefland that Sinti/Roma extras were taken from concentration camps and then dispatched to Auschwitz afterwards. I'm sure there's some mention in the included audio commentary but you might want to let potential buyers know beforehand.

[spectre]

I think it's telling that almost every single exemple provided here about watching such movies are within eductional moments. Taken as such, it'd tend to advocate such movies shouldn't be available widely, but only to, say, institutions.

While I'm overall for the access of movies (as someone who owns both the BFI and the Eureka BDs of Birth of a Nation), I also believe that wide access and renewed visibility to Nazi propaganda can just be... wide access and renewed visibility to Nazi propaganda. Which I believe we could legitimately do without.

In France, we can pinpoint the one moment that got Far-right votes to take off : the first prime time TV of its (then) main political representative. On the other hand, Wallonie has a tight sanitary cordon about inviting far-right politicians on the news, and these parties are pretty much kept below 5% there.

I know it shouldn't be this way, and that history needs to be studied and thus available, but sometimes, a mere contact with such content is already enough for some people. And providing a new news cycle through a new wide release to Triumph of the Will will provide this.

More over, it (unsurprisingly) doesn't particularly looks like Kino is treating the movie specifically, and the release looks editorially like any other Kino release.

My biggest points of scepticism about that are 1) whether this particular film even still "works" as propaganda for an impressionable audience (I figure you would have to be some way down the rabbit hole to even be interested in buying a Blu-ray of a near-100-year-old film that's easily available online anyway); and 2) whether suppressing the commercial release of the film would serve any of the stated goals.

I think that's always the first problem with taking on a pro-censorship (or pro-quasi-censorship) position: not just that it goes against principles we might hold dear like freedom of information or freedom of artistic expression and consumption, but whether it even does the job it's supposed to do in the first place, i.e. of reducing the power of bigotry or making society a more empathetic and tolerant place.

If it's not adequately clear that it succeeds on those metrics, then all we have left are vague moral arguments about Blu-ray companies "profiting from propaganda", which is little more than puritanism dressed up as ethics. Most of us aren't actually anti-censorship in all cases, but we do well to demand a high bar of justification for it. I feel that's pretty clearly not present here. And yes, I understand there's a difference between a total ban and the concept of only making the film available in sterile environments, but I'd argue that the thinking process is still the same: that exposure to this film is dangerous for the "general public" (including cinephiles who don't have academic credentials or a university swipe pass, I guess) and that they must be protected from exposure to it.

[tenia]

My biggest points of scepticism about that are 1) whether this particular film even still "works" as propaganda for an impressionable audience (I figure you would have to be some way down the rabbit hole to even be interested in buying a Blu-ray of a near-100-year-old film that's easily available online anyway); and 2) whether suppressing the commercial release of the film would serve any of the stated goals.

I understand that, especially point 2. I think it's however less about suppressing a commercial release than about accepting how such a release might serve for newly renewed visibility to such content to people who won't make a good use of it. It can be released, and I guess it should be released, but I cannot help wondering if not having nazi content widely available altogether wouldn't just be better (which I know - I'm downvoted to death on Reddit because of this - isn't the US point of view about freedom of speech).

That's not so much a pro-censorship position (though it creates the same effect) but more about looking in hindsight at how these things go, and how freedom of speech can, has been, and will be abused by bigots to increase their reach, and that we could argue our societies aren't particularly getting that more empathetic and tolerant right now, and that it might have to do with hateful speech (whether current or historical) reaching further than 10-20 years ago.

It's obviously not something I want to be caricatural about (and I hope I don't read as such). I just wonder how much good it does in practice, looking at the rise of very much far-right speeches and politics in many countries, despite all those historical elements being (probably more than ever) available.

but I'd argue that the thinking process is still the same: that exposure to this film is dangerous for the "general public" (including cinephiles who don't have academic credentials or a university swipe pass, I guess) and that they must be protected from exposure to it.

I unfortunately believe that might be the case (just like the US tends to make a case about how maybe stuff like guns shouldn't be available freely because obviously, some people shouldn't have access to it and thus should be prevented from accessing it - which isn't much different of having to get your licence to drive a car).

[Peacock]

Kino will also be releasing Leni’s final film - Underwater Impressions. As well as her newly edited film Longing for Innocence.

Triumph features her two documentary shorts whereas the Synapse includes only one - and without subtitles. And of course the Synapse has a modern copyright stamp overlaid in the corner of Triumph, plus typo-ridden newly added lower third titles for the different speakers. So this is a major release!

And once the underwater doc and Africa doc are out that’ll be all of Riefenstahl’s directing work available on Blu from Kino (apart from Olympia obviously).

[andyli]

(apart from Olympia obviously).

Speaking of which I'm still waiting for Criterion's stand-alone release. They've done Tokyo Olympiad and Visions of Eight pretty swiftly but not so for the Riefenstahl.

[Peacock]

Ditto… that’s the biggie.

And seeing as Tokyo Olympiad has all new extras compared to the boxset I hope that Olympia would include the English cut (?) / dub of the film/s as an option plus a wealth of extras on such an important film.

But are they keeping it hostage to encourage people to shell out on that massive set? Would it court too much controversy for Criterion to give it a standalone 4K? A boy can dream.

[Lowry_Sam]

I was expecting that if Triumph Of The Will were going to be re-issued, that it would have been in a box set of Riefenstahl's work that included a heavy dose of extras for historical context of the films themselves, contribution to cinema itself and biographical info on her (including her attempt to rehabilitate her reputation at the end of her career). I am a bit surprised that Kino is releasing these individually. On the other hand, it's already been mentioned with other releases that Kino is the label to get things out quickly and not the one you would anticipate such a carefully curated & academically-oriented box set, perhaps a UK label could do better?

As for the contents being dangerous to furthering the current fascist movements, I see that possibility as very limited. The audience for b&w films is very limited, and nonfiction/propaganda films would have an even smaller audience. I find the content of current games and online forums to be much more "dangerous", and yet our attention is on films over 70 years old with limited economic impact by comparison. As far is the argument around increasing the distribution of the images/ideas behind the films goes...that's already out there and in the public domain, so a proper historical/analytical presentation of them can only serve to improve understanding of how & when fascism thrives.

[MichaelB]

If you want to see the film, it's freely available online (I just put this to the test and found a streaming version in seconds), so I can't for the life of me see why a Blu-ray release is a particularly big deal.

[tenia]

If you want to see the film, it's freely available online (I just put this to the test and found a streaming version in seconds), so I can't for the life of me see why a Blu-ray release is a particularly big deal.

newly renewed visibility

Even if it is already available, this release generates its own news cycle (like spontaneously here), giving the movie a new reach, just like you can pinpoint exactly on a sales graph when a new release of an existing title happened.
If it was that pointless, that little a deal, why bothering at all with a new BD release anyway ?

I find the content of current games and online forums to be much more "dangerous", and yet our attention is on films over 70 years old with limited economic impact by comparison.

Both (of both) can be simultaneously true.

a proper historical/analytical presentation

I don't think that's what this release will really accomplish.

[onedimension]

Ideally, films like Birth of A Nation and Triumph of the Will (Even, gasp, Song of the South) would be presented with really masterfully crafted "supplements" - maybe on a primary disc menu, with the film itself in a sub-menu, or tacked onto the beginning of the film itself.

Too often, we just open films with a tense and shallow disclaimer or statement of principle on a title card. "This film contains offensive depictions of black people."

Actually, Criterion's release of "Show Boat" did an exemplary job, but that's a much easier case to make than one for Triumph of the Will.

[Noiretirc]

I mean, not to get too political, but the timing could not be better! Kino clearly knows exactly what they are doing here.

Where did this Nazi Propaganda lead to? What did we learn from it? What parallels exist in 2026?

Bravo Kino.

[Noiretirc]

And, I think Kino's description is sensitive:

https://kinolorber.com/product/triumph-of-the-will-1

[Peacock]

Tenia and onedimensional -

I mean there’s two on-disc extras which contextualise the film and an anti-Nazi short.

I’m not sure what more is required. Should Kino have put a warning sticker on the front? Should there have been an introduction that plays before the film warning people that Nazis are bad?

As others have said who is really going to purchase this outside of some film nerds, students and educators? Are young right wingers going to include it in their Secret Santa gifts this year? Or will it cause a revival of the Nazi movement in the US?

As Michael says, if someone wants to watch this very dry film for the shock value the chances are they will just view it online for free.

There are far more dangerous things to worry about online and on tv right now.

[Tyler Michael]

The description is curious as well: "This Kino Classics release is part of an ambitious reevaluation of the filmmaker’s career..." What is the re-evaluation here?

There was a documentary released in the past couple of years challenging Riefenstahl’s postwar PR attempts to downplay her knowledge of and support for the regime’s greatest crimes, and I’m assuming that’s the angle they’re citing here.

I'm even more amused by the implied existence of *subtle* Nazi propaganda.

Depending on where you spend time online, this could be defined as “referring to Twitter as X” or “having a subscription to the Wall Street Journal.”

Counterpoint, their new cover does strike me as weirdly confrontational in a Motorhead kind of "pushing buttons" way. Sort of doubling down on the aesthetic and making it look edgy. Perhaps this is what our young friend is reacting to?

On the other hand, Kino Studio Classics does tend to incorporate elements of the original posters for films (if not just reproducing them directly), and while Google results are now biased due to the upcoming release, I’m fairly certain I’ve seen this exact image (plus swastika, which has been brushed out by Kino) as one of three commonly seen posters for the film, and I imagine use of either of the other two (both featuring idealized images of S.S. officers) would be seen as much more tasteless.

[tenia]

Tenia and onedimensional -

I mean there’s two on-disc extras which contextualise the film and an anti-Nazi short.

I’m not sure what more is required.

I don't think a lot of people are listening to audio commentary, and have no idea what it'll talk about.
An essay seems a bit short.
That leaves the satirical short, which will be along 2 propaganda shorts in the extras.

More generally, I'd argue that if this is all it needs, then what were teachers doing when using the movie when this might have been enough ? If I go back to the idea that maybe it'd be best for such content to be limited to institutions, I'd say an audio com', a short and an essay might be a tad light compared to what teachers and academics supposedly bring.

This being written, I understand your point : it's not a bare-bones release.

[MichaelB]

This has been one of the most discussed and analysed films in cinema history pretty much since it first saw the light of a projector bulb.

So if you want context, surely there are a gazillion places to go already?

[tenia]

It's not about me/viewers wanting context, but the release providing context.

Just because the movie already being available elsewhere won't cancel this release bringing a new news cycle to the movie, I don't think context already be available prevents the label to provide some too on its own release.

[Mr Sausage]

I made this point earlier, but to reiterate: what gives a word power? Banning it. Nothing quite brings out hushed tones and solemnity than what shouldn't be spoken--and what shouldn't be spoken attracts curiosity and fascination. It's the power of taboo. If you restrict Triumph of the Will to institutions, you grant this niche historical document an influx of power. Now it's an object of curiosity and fascination; now people who normally wouldn't give a shit get to wonder at the thing's mystique. It's so dangerous it needs to be hidden away, and dangerous things are darkly thrilling. You've now granted it everything we've worked hard to take from it: potency, aura, thrill. And now that there's a sudden audience curious to see it, suppliers will follow, and there's nothing to control for their motives. You are helping bring about the very thing you hoped to avoid.

But: widely disseminate it on home video like any other movie and you've taken away that mystique. Now do the responsible thing and add contextual material and you've side-stepped investing nazi propaganda with any added power.

And I think we're overstating how much contextualization the movie requires. The third reich isn't some obscure, esoteric moment out of history that needs heavy explaining to be comprehensible to the average westerner. The message that Hitler = evil has thoroughly saturated culture by this point. Seeing a whole ton of swastikas, soldiers, and shots of Hitler is going to conjure images of terror and evil and oppression in most people, including those on the right who kinda have authoritarian sympathies without knowing it. Releasing this ancient propaganda film made using technology old enough to alienate the majority of modern viewers isn't going to even slightly shift the sympathies of the general public, let alone send it plunging into fascist politics. Media is bad at changing behaviour, and that goes doubly for something modern viewers are likely to find boring and dated.

[Peacock]

And as Tyler said above, Kino recently released the new Riefenstahl documentary, of which it appears is the cause of these films all getting a release through the label. I doubt Kino wants to repeat in a brief way through even more on disc extras what the documentary deep dives into.

[MichaelB]

When the BBFC agonised about whether to pass the 1990 Pakistani film International Guerrillas on the grounds that its depiction of Salman Rushdie as a Bond-style villain who was also the head of the international Jewish conspiracy to wipe out Islam might well have crossed the line into potential criminal libel, Rushdie's response was to urge them to pass it—because he of all people knew that once you try to ban something or threaten its creator(s) in some way, the thing under the threat of a ban automatically becomes a far more potent object regardless of any intrinsic merit that it might possess.

Rushdie had seen the film, thought that it was utterly worthless, and believed that if it was simply released without any attendant controversy, it would be forgotten in a matter of days. Which turned out to be the case; the film only gets namechecked today in connection with the brief kerfuffle surrounding its UK release. And of course because Rushdie affirmed in writing that he wouldn't sue, there was no danger of the distributor being sued for libel (since Rushdie was the only person with the relevant standing), and therefore no reason to refuse it a BBFC certificate.

Obviously, Triumph of the Will is a vastly more important and historically significant film than International Guerrillas, but it seems to me that there are far more similarities than differences in terms of the potential cachet granted by turning it into something tantalising and forbidden—it's a classic instance of the Streisand Effect.

As for the context, entire books have been written about this one film—and good ones, too. I've read Brian Winston's BFI monograph on the film myself.

[tenia]

But: widely disseminate it on home video like any other movie and you've taken away that mystique.

I think that's where we disagree. It doesn't mean I don't understand what you mean here, forbidden = thrilling = titillating curiosities, just like I know very much how the Streisand effect can work. I just don't believe that's actually how our world currently works, and that mystique taken away or not, in the end, there's just very plainly one situation where something is harder to reach, and another one where it's easier.

[MichaelB]

After I wrote my last post, I popped over to YouTube to see if they had International Guerrillas, and they had!

I'm not at all sure I'm ever going to set aside the two-and-three-quarter hours needed to watch the whole thing, but the last ten minutes are an absolute riot, as the international guerrillas invade Salman Rushdie's compound and machine-gun his henchmen while Rushdie himself is killed by a flying Koran.