Week 3: Nazi Germany

 After reading Drake Stutesman's work, I questioned why he thought the cinematic strategies of the film made it viewed from the audience as something "brilliant," "interesting," and "attractive" (60). Stutesman found the editing and treatment of the film were curated so nicely by "cutting out all the boring and repetitive parts of the speeches" (60). Even though I never saw the raw version of these clips, I still believe that this isn't true from a viewer's standpoint. I thought it was incredibly boring and repetitive, and the editing did not serve the film's purpose to propagate German ideals into my head. Although I have a clear bias of disliking Nazi Germany, I did not find the contents of the film interesting enough to possibly be persuaded or amused by the political ideas or efforts. So now, I question if anyone else felt the same as I did, or if they agree with Stutesman. Does anyone think the editing and treatment was brilliant enough to find these ideas heroic? 

I am also interested in discussing how Riefenstahl (if she were still here) feels about the way in which her film was received as political propaganda, even though she viewed it as art. It would be interesting to talk about her biases that she had on the documentary through her editing and clipping of speeches.