ET 9: What Is Fascism?

What is Fascism? Well, some dictionaries define ‘fascism’ as a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. Some others just simplify it to be a country that is under oppressive, dictatorial control. Fascism was founded by Benito Mussoloni, the leader of the Italian National Syndycalists, during World War I. It opposed the ideologies of ‘conservatism’, ‘liberalism’, ‘social democracy’ and ‘communism’. (World Civilizations Volume II: Since 1500) Italy, Germany and Japan are some of the very famous Fascist countires with Germany, being the most successful of them all.

Germany turned Fascist under the totalitarian rule of Adolf Hitler. Nazi Germany, as it was now called, began to flourish in all ways under Hitler’s rule. Just like all other industries, the film (propaganda) industry began to prosper as well. It was during this period when one of the greatest propaganda films of all time was produced. ‘Triumph of The Will’ by Leni Riefenstahl, to me, showed the whole world the true meaning of Fascism. When comparing certain shots in the movie with some points in ‘The Fourteen Defining Characteristscs of Fascism’ by Dr. Lawrence Britt, we are able to understand not only the construction of Riefenstahl’s film but also in a way, the idealistic construction of Nazi Germany under Hitler.

Britt stated that ” Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs…… Flags are everywhere and flag symbols are persent on clothing….” (The Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism) In this propaganda film, this is evidently seen. Thousands of men, including Hitler, are seen to be sporting uniforms with the Nazi ‘swastika’ symbol sewn on them. Once we get to the rally, flags bearing the Nazi symbol and the Nazi Germany flag are out for display EVERYWHERE! If you clearly notice, even the title of this film is in away Fascist as it is sort of a patriotic slogan. Another point to note is that Fascist nations have clear identifications of their enimies. (The Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism) For the Nazis, they were the Jews and the communists. (World Civilizations Volume II: Since 1500) How is this potrayed in the film you ask? Easy!!! They are not there! You can see no person of Jewish ethnicity present at all in the film. Every single person in this movie was a true blooded Aryan. “Rampant Sexism” as quoted by Britt is all a Fascist quality that can be seen in the film. All the commanding officers and people of power were all men and the women were protrayed in a ‘damsel in distress’ kind of way. In fact the only ‘powerful’ woman associated to this film was Leni Riefenstahl herself as she was the director of this film! But out of all these points, the most important point that was perfectly picturised in this movie was “The supremacy of the military” (The Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism) This can be seen at many scenes in the movie. For instance, the military review, where Hitler walked around to see all those promising soilders showed military importance and also just the fact that one of the shots in that scene showed soilders EVERYWHERE! Where ever your eyes went, you saw soilders, an ocean of soilders.

This film painted a very ‘pretty’ picture of Nazi Germany. It showed all the good in a very exaggerated way with Riefenstahl’s usage of expressionist techniques, such as the fire lit shadowy shots during the first night’s celebrations. It also gives as an alarmingly different perspective of Hitler and the Nazis, compared to the perspective ‘Night and Fog’ gave us. The one and ONLY thought that was going through my head when watching ‘Triumph of the Will’ was that all this happiness and prosperity that Hitler was giving to the millions of  Germans in this film was occuring at the cost of the millions of lives that were being brutally taken away by Hilter from the Jews, communists and non-Aryans in ‘Night and Fog’. I felt that what Hitler did was cannibalistc in a sense as he was preying on the lives of his enemies to fuel the lives of his people. It was an action of an extremist Fascist. But to Hitler, it was the duty of a true Aryan…….
References:-

Britt, Dr. Lawrence. The Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism. n.d. Document. 23 July 2012

Philip J. Adler, Randall L. Pouwels. World Civilizations Volume II: Since 1500. Cengage Learning, n.d. Print

ET 4: Charlie and Buster

Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton were two brilliant actors who revolutionized the art of comedy and till today, they both lie in our minds as two of the most fantastic comedians the world has ever seen. Both of them, though similar as they both performed both gesturial and physical comedy, had two vastly different styles in the way they performed it and in the way they embodied their roles to make people laugh.

Chaplin, was not just an actor. To me, I would say, he was more like a brand. With his mustache, that hat and his signature ‘clown walk’, he was a seperate genre of his own. Chaplin, who is quite an interesting looking man, has a face that makes us look. Those twinkling eyes that sort of indicate that he’s always up to something and his mischevious smile is what animates his face. His persona can be attributed to that of a clown. He always wore a coat that was too tight, a pair of pants that were very baggy and loose, clown shoes that highlighted the way he walked and the hat that pulled the whole look together. I believe that we can only thoroughly enjoy Chaplin’s comedy, which many a times overlaps with farce, when we are able to view his entire body language, i.e from head to toe. This can be explained when looking specifically at Chaplin in “The Cure”. Most of the shots are full body shots, showing Chaplin’s entire body. This is a crucial point to note as most of what Chaplin does is physical comedy. Take the shot at the revolving door as an example. The way Chaplin and the spa keepers go round and round is one of the most amusing scenes in the film and what makes it so funny is the body language! Not only Chaplin’s body language but the other actor’s reactions to him.

In “The Cure”, Chaplin deals with all the difficult situations in a very witty way. It is almost effortless the way he infuriates the big man with the broken leg and his ‘great escape’ from the clutches of the massuse is probably one of the most epic scenes of all!!! The interesting thing to notice with Chaplin is that he didn’t really have to try hard to win the heart of the girl. It was almost an instant attraction! I guess it was all about the charm…

Keaton on the other hand had a very different appleal to me. Before watching the movie “The General”, I had never really seen a Buster Keaton movie. So to me, when I saw him on screen for the first time, the persona that came through to me was that of a little boy. One particular scene that made me realize that was the scene where he was followed by two little boys into his lover’s house. This particular scene to me showed how these kids could relate to him, thus potraying him also as a kid. Unlike Chaplin, Keaton’s face doesn’t spark an instant comical reaction to the audience but he too has a face that makes us look. The most animated part of Keaton’s face has to be his eyes. Throughout the first part of the movie, watching the various expressions the glimmered in his eyes really made me laugh. And as through the second half of the movie, we can see a increase in maturity in his expressions just by focusing on his eyes. Keaton in “The General” also does physical comedy and I must say it looked absolutely effortless. Now when comparing his physical comedy to that of Chaplin, Chaplin’s one looked very dance like while Keaton looked like rubber, i.e. super flexible when he performed his stunts.

Throughout “The General”, Keaton’s character faces alot of difficult situations and he managed to deal with them so effortlessly. But unlike Chaplin’s character who used wit to deal with the situations, Keaton’s character did what came to mind. In fact the ‘blurrness’ had he had when solving most of the problems was what made it so funny to watch. One of the best examples would be towards the end of the film when he messes around with the cannon and he kills one of the opposing men with the blade of his sword. It was such an epic scene. Also, Keaton had to go through ALOT of trouble to get the girl. But then again, he did it with such flare. It was brilliant.

I preferred Buster Keaton in “The General” more to Charlie Chaplin in “The Cure” as everything Keaton did was so impressive and his ‘guy next door’ appeal was more than enough to make me laugh. He was something unique and I truly enjoyed watching his performance in “The General”. It was a experience like no other…. ^_^