Melissa+O'Connor+2

Historical Inquiry
Question: Leni Riefenstahl: Nazi supporter or ambitious filmmaker?

I'm looking forward to learning more about Reifenstahl!- I would rephrase your question to support just one of these claims. By posing the question in this way, you would be making several inferences and it can go in all directions. I would focus on one and then in your corroborating section highlight how your primary sources provides contradictions.-Crystal

Question finalized: The question produced for query asks ‘Was Leni Riefenstahl really as politically naive as she claimed to be, or did she knowingly produce works of propaganda to further the Nazi cause and her own fame?' ** Leni Riefenstahl ** ||
 * ** "What have I ever done? I never intended harm to anyone. I do not know what I should apologise for. I cannot apologise, for example, for having made the film "Triumph of the Will" - it won the top prize. All my films won prizes." **

__Primary Sources__ Film: //Triumph of the Will// Goebbel's Diary entries: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/goebbels/sfeature/diary_02.html Photo of Leni witnesses deaths of German civilians

__Secondary Sources__ http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007410 http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/09/rief-s15.html http://schikelgruber.net/propag.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azDS_1DKOEQ http://www.bulldognews.net/hitlers_filmmaker.html http://www.germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_image.cfm?image_id=2338

Historical Context: Nazi Regime/ Adolf Hitler/ WWII

__ **Outline:** __

// Introduction // Controversy over Leni Riefenstahl’s intentions during filmmaking for Hitler: Introduce dancing role, coming to meet Fanck,meeting hitler (quote where he says he wants her to film for him), and filming for him Basically: Leni’s future as a dancer squashed.. seeing the sign for the mountain film; working with Fanck and then on her own first film;going to a hitler rally and requesting to meet with him; he signs her on and she creates films for the third reich Was she really politically naive or aware of propaganda she was creating?

// Historical Background // -Triumph of the Will is created in ’34 -Using Gypsies as extras in her “documentaries” -Konskie, Poland: “I did not see one dead person in Poland, not one soldier, not one civilian.” -Leni Riefenstahl, yet there is a photo depicted her horrified reaction at the execution of 30 civilians. Left Poland after incident, where she claims in memoir she tried to “defend” a Jew, but was threatened. THEN, returned to Poland for the victory parade in Warsaw!?! -Documentary: //The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl -// continues to claim her artistic independence was not compromised by the content, yet her films were fully sponsored and paid for by the Nazi Party -Jürgen Trimborn-Not only was Leni in connection with Hitler, but also with Jules Streicher, who formulated the Party’s anti-Semitic program.. tie this is with Goebbel’s

// Analysis // Lies that continually resurface and Leni not being a reliable source for her own defense. -conflicting quotes/comments -excerpt from Goebbel’s diary: “The essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never again escape from it.” Leni can never again escape “it”.

__**Final Draft:**__

=Paul Harvey=

__ Outline: __
Forward: Leni’s position defending herself

Break into the Story: Told from the point of view of someone in the Nazi Party A gossip, he-said-she-said, love affair

Relationship between Goebbel’s and Hitler -Goebbel’s marriage and Hitler’s disapproval of G.’s actions/request for permission to divorce -strained relationship, resulting in more work vs. friendly

Relationship between Leni and Hitler -many critics believe there was a romantic relationship -Leni’s initial ‘star-struck’ reaction to meeting him; talking about his physical attractiveness and attractiveness of power possessed. -comments in //Wonderful, Horrible Life// about suspected ‘love affair’

Mysterious relationship between Leni and Goebbel’s -Leni denies ever being friendly -Goebbel’s writes in his journal about going to the Opera together -Leni becomes outraged at the mention of this in the documentary, to the point that she demands the filming come to a halt

Result? Possible love triangle, never to be completely proved or disproved. Leni: once again proves to be an unreliable source in every aspect of her being, and discredited by the evidence of primary documents “methinks thou doth protest too much” .. Shakespeare, //Hamlet//

* attempt to write from the point of view of an office witness, describing the relationships and discrepancies.

__ Rough Draft: __
Forward: Since her affiliation with Hitler and the Nazi Party, as the Film Expert of the National Socialist Party, Leni Riefenstahl spent the rest of her life defending her work. Leni* emphasized repeatedly that she worked solely to further her career as an artist, and that the editing techniques she mastered were simply meant to artistically express the intent of the position she was appointed, opposed to the popular opinion that she was a Nazi propagandist and sympathizer. Whether Leni Riefenstahl was ever ready to admit her role in Nazi Germany or not, her //Triumph of the Will// documentary stands the test of time as one of the best propaganda films ever created.

The Party Gossip! Hitler’s relationship with the Socialist Party’s Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, began to deteriorate due to Goebbels’ personal life. Joseph Goebbels repeatedly participated in extramarital affairs, which Hitler saw as threatening to the motives of the Nazi Party. When Goebbels finally decided he wanted a divorce, he went to Hitler, seeking permission. Hitler denied this request, saying that it would reflect very poorly on the entire party, and would highlight contradictions made by party members. Due to this misalignment of ethics, Hitler detached himself from Goebbels, and reestablished their relationship as purely professional.

At the same time, the Nazi Party’s leading lady, Leni Riefenstahl, had won much of Hitler’s attention. He saw her as indispensable, and the perfect means of furthering the Nazi cause. Leni, too, was a great admirer of Hitler, and clearly voices this admiration in her own memoir and the documentary //The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl.// She found him to be charismatic, and was enthralled by the attractiveness of his assertion of power. Originally, she alleged, she had no interest in filming for Hitler, but the unlimited resources he would provide her to film, teamed with his charismatic personality, made him an offer too impossible to resist. While she maintained that their relationship was completely platonic and professional, Leni regularly met with Hitler outside of the ‘office’, and dined together. In addition, she was often seen at his side during political campaigns, such as in Konskie, Poland. Maintaining that their relationship was purely professional was key to Leni’s defense after the war; if she was admittedly romantic with Hitler, then it would be apparent that she was a Nazi sympathizer, and not at all the innocent documentarian that she claimed. >"To me Hitler is the greatest man who ever lived. he is really faultless, so simple and yet so filled with manly power. He wants nothing, nothing for himself. he is really beautiful, he is wise. Radiance streams from him. all the great men of Germany - Friedrich, Nietsche, Bismark - have all had faults. Hitler's followers are not spotless. Only he is pure"( Infielder 58)<

Through her associations with Hitler, Leni became very well acquainted with Joseph Goebbels, the Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany. Their relationship seemed to be very rocky and unclear. According to Leni, Goebbels hated her for being so close to Hitler. She claimed he was jealous of her relationship with Hitler. She even said that during disagreements, between herself and Goebbels, she would bring Hitler as a third, but not so neutral, party. When Hitler consistently agreed with Leni, Goebbels’ jealousy grew. Leni claimed to have always been ‘at war’, sought of speak, with Geobbels, whereas his private diary entries prove otherwise. in his diaries, Goebbels wrote about his growing relationship with Leni, and how well she and his wife, Magda, got along. During an interview for the documentary //The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl//, however, she became so enraged by the entries that she demanded the filming come to a stop. She claimed to have no recollection of going to the Opera House with Goebbels and Magda, and that he wrote it to spite her. His hatred and jealous of her relationship with Hitler was fueled by two things, she claimed. First, Goebbels was extremely jealous of the funding Hitler allotted to Leni for her documentary productions. He saw her as a threat to his own title as Minister of Propaganda, and feared that she might replace him. Secondly, Leni claims that Goebbels was seeking revenge on her because she denied him romantically.

Whereas her political affiliations with the Nazi Party become very clear to anyone who does a bit of research into her life and work, Leni’s private life is harder to decipher. Unfortunately for Leni, the naive-and-innocent-woman act that she put on (mind you she was thirty one years old when she began working with Hitler), did not work for her in denying association with the Nazi Party. Her attempts to cover up her personal relationships with both Hitler and Goebbels further add to the lies, or ‘stretched truths’ may you have it, only aid in revealing herself as unreliable. Her spin of lies constantly contradicted one another, as she attempted to take on more faces than she could handle. While the truths of this twisted love triangle may never unravel themselves, one thing remains uncertain: Leni Riefenstahl cannot be taken for her word. It seems as though Shakespeare wrote Leni into being well before her time, in his lines: “methinks thou doth protest too much”.

//*Due to the fact that she is a completely unreliable source, and that Leni has continually discredited herself through spins of lies and created a clear mistrust of character, I do not feel it is appropriate to give her the respect of referring to her by last name.//


 * __ Final Draft: __**



=Digital Video=

media type="youtube" key="oOdwCr3WIb0" width="560" height="315"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOdwCr3WIb0&feature=youtu.be

=Application= While I enjoyed the outcome of the project, I would make several changes to the assignment if I decided to use it in my middle school classroom. I do think that something like this is a great idea to use with my students. It definitely reaches those higher levels of thinking, and requires students to understand the research they are doing.Since my dream classroom would be sixth grade language arts, I will use it as a model for how I would redesign the project for use with my own students.

First, I would start off by introducing primary documents to my students. We would work together with primary documents both inside the classroom, and as homework assignments. I really like the idea Sarah and I used for our mini-lesson in Crystal’s class, and would probably use an in-class activity such that one to build comprehension skills.

I would also model the SCIM-C method for my students, and practice using it with them. Following this method, and writing out each step, will be much more important and beneficial to a sixth grade classroom. After they had worked on annotating primary documents a few times I would introduce SCIM-C, and have them begin to record their findings.

For a long-term project I would be very concise of the timeline I provided my students with. I would make sure that I did not overwhelm them by introducing the various components all at once, and would instead break the project up into multiple mini-projects/assessments. For the Historical Inquiry paper, I would allow my students to explore ideas on their own, and provide feedback/assistance. I would also have a variety of topics already prepared that they could choose from. I think it is important that they come up with the question on their own, since this is what really guides the entire paper. Although they would create the question independently, I would help to provide sources based on the topic they chose. I would also be conscious of the fact that many students will feel overwhelmed, so would meet with various students individually throughout the class period.

Part of the time-line I would provide includes dates for work due before the actual paper would be submitted. An example of this would be that students should have their topic picked out within one week. Once the topics have all been decided upon, students would have another week to create a list of sources. Various other mini-due dates would include an annotated bibliography, question posed for inquiry, rough draft of introduction, rough draft of body paragraphs, and a final rough draft of the entire paper. We would have in-class workshops for students to peer edit each other’s papers, and for them to seek assistance from me.

I feel that the concept of a Paul Harvey paper might be difficult for students to grasp. I would have them do something similar, but have it more focused on creative writing. Students would still have to choose an ironic twist to their paper topic, but would be able to write the second part as a completely fictional piece. For example, they could create diary entries, a short story, folk lore, poem, etc. They would have the option to choose from any type of literature we had covered up until that point to choose as the mode of their second part of the project. This part of the project aligns perfectly with the common core, since students will be reaching those high levels of thinking and creating something new based on their research. It is also differentiated, and gives students the option to choose.

Instead of having students record their project, I would have them do mini-presentations within the class. The small groups that the students worked on peer editing with, would be the groups that they presented to. They would present their fictional piece, and have some sort of visual to represent their piece. The visual representation is another way of reaching different types of learners. I believe that this third part really builds upon the positive classroom environment, and further creates a safe space for learning to take place. I would have to be very careful when choosing partners for these groups.

Overall, I really enjoyed completing Historical Inquiry Project, and think that it would wok nicely in my own classroom!

=Self-Evaluation= Dear Dr. Young, Crystal, and Clarice,

When we first discussed the idea of doing a historical inquiry project I was confused, and thought ‘why don’t they just say research paper?’. I did not realize the effort that would go into it, and how it is in fact very different from a research paper. It was not until we participated in the plantation letter activity with Dr. Lee (at Stagville) that I recognized how much fun this ‘project’ was going to be.

At first, I struggled with a topic. I wanted to work with a topic that I knew I would be able to personally connect with, and initially thought I would do something on September 11. This topic wound up being way too close to my heart for me to discuss, though. I then decided to look back at a unit plan I had submitted for ECI 307. The unit plan I wrote for that course was about Emanuel Ringleblum and his role in recording the Warsaw Ghetto Uprise. I learned about him while I was at the Holocaust Museum in D.C., and began to think about how many important people there were from the Holocaust whom I’ve never even heard about. When I began looking into this I rediscovered Leni Riefenstahl (I had briefly studied her in a high school course), and became fascinated. From that moment, I knew I would be writing my paper on the most famous propagandist of all time.

Just because I was fascinated by my subject matter, does not mean that I found this project easy to complete. In fact, writing about Leni Riefenstahl proved to be a much more difficult task than I had anticipated. Initially, I took the stand that Leni was innocent; that she had simply fallen victim to Hitler’s power and was mesmerized by the promise he offered her as an up and coming filmmaker. As I began to delve deeper into her story, however, I found this opinion to be difficult to stand by. It was definitely a struggle to reveal the truth about a woman who could not resist twisting her story continuously. It was her unreliability that caused my shift in opinion, and ultimately led to my judgement of her character and role in Nazi Germany.

I hope that I am not being overly generous by rating my final draft as a 3. I truly became invested in this assignment, and remain completely intrigued by Leni Riefenstahl. I spent a large amount of time sifting through sources and watching multiple documentaries. I was fortunate enough to be able to watch ‘documentaries’ created by Riefenstahl, and documentaries about her. I found her to be a very conflicted person, and due to her need to protect herself from the media it was difficult to actually evolve an opinion. The incident in Konskie, Poland is what ultimately pushed me to change my view on her.

Once I was able to decide on which direction I was going to take my paper, I was able to begin drafting some ideas on how to support my claim. To do this, I pulled from a variety of sources. These sources included photographs, documentaries, Leni’s memoir, Goebbels’ diary, and various websites. My drafts for the inquiry paper went through many changes. It seemed that as soon as I was decided on something, I found a new piece of incriminating evidence that had to take the previous ones place. I really struggled with keeping this paper within the page count, due to the connection I felt with the subject. As I mentioned earlier, the most extreme of changes that my draft underwent was the stance I took on Leni’s career. Ultimately, the Konskie incident and the fact that imprisoned gypsies were used as extras, pushed me over the limit and took my paper in a whole new direction.

I worked hard on this project and like to think that there are various examples of good writing throughout both the inquiry paper and the Paul Harvey version. One of my big achievements in writing the inquiry paper was actually coming up with the question. It started off very vague, and looked something like: ‘Leni Riefenstahl: Nazi propagandist or ambitious filmmaker?’. It wasn’t until I had fully decided upon which side I was taking that I was able to draft a real question. When I finally came up with: ‘Was Leni Riefenstahl really as politically naive as she claimed to be, or did she knowingly produce works of propaganda to further the Nazi cause and her own fame?’, I was proud. This question is loaded with information. The fact that it sounds pretty sarcastic was not only a reflection of my opinion, but intentionally created to mock her claims of innocence. Being that this is a controversial topic, I felt that my question had to be strong enough to represent my claims, and I feel that I was able to pull that off.

I had a more difficult time composing the Paul Harvey version of this paper. I have never had the ability to add a bit of fiction to a research paper, and because of that, this version was very tricky. There are several pieces in this paper, though, that I do find to be good writing. One part, is the footnote that I added about referring to Leni by first name. I know that it is completely inappropriate to refer to a person by first name in a formal paper, but due to the ‘artistic’ ability we were granted and my feelings about Leni, I thought my footnote was quite humorous. In addition, I enjoyed my last line: ‘While the truths of this twisted love triangle may never unravel themselves, one thing remains certain: Leni Riefenstahl cannot be taken for her word; and it seems as though Shakespeare wrote Leni into being well before her time, in his lines: “methinks thou doth protest too much”.’ I thought that was very witty of me.

My research for this project was very in depth. I relied on a variety of sources and had to narrow down my list of sources significantly to gain the affects I truly desired. An example of what I consider to be good research, is the photograph I was able to find of Leni in Poland. There was mention of this photograph in nearly every article I read, however it was nearly impossible to find. It took me three days of relentlessly searching for it, to finally find it. Additionally, I studied the film techniques employed by Leni during the filming of //Triumph of the Will.// This required that I watch the entire documentary, which is in German. The two part documentary, //The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl,// was also a very important part of my research. For the Paul Harvey portion of the project, I was able to recover some of Goebbels’ diary entries, which were very interesting to read! The fact that I was able to pull in a variety of primary sources, in various mediums, makes my research worthwhile and credible.

I would like to work on making my writing more concise. I find that I often have a lot to say, but do not accomplish the task effectively. Learning how to get my point across directly and without stretching it out is something I am continuously working on. I addition, I think I will revisit the Paul Harvey portion on this assignment at some time in the future. Due to the time constraints, I was unable to come up with a way to accomplish my real goal in writing the paper, which was to take on the fictional role of an office personnel, who observed interactions between Leni, Goebbels, and Hitler.

Once I sat down to actually write this paper, I found it to be really enjoyable. I do wish that we would have discussed the project sooner, and this may be because my subject was so complex. I feel like the topic I chose has helped me to be more critical of history, and the insertion of biases inserted into the topics I have discussed in many classes.

Sincerely, Melissa

=Project Rubric=