Within in the documentary, there was a scene of a mother who was burying her son. As family members were preventing her from falling to the ground, James was literally inches from her face taking pictures. I kind of disagreed with this series of events. Yes, he has a job to do but at what point is he crossing the line? He later expressed that he forms a relationship with his subjects, and that they want him to be there, but I feel that if I was this mourning mother I would not want a camera flashing before face in one of my weakest moments.
I think he takes on a unique niche in war photography as he is not only dealing with Americans. I feel like in todays war-torn world, most American media is focused on America, and how the war is effecting our troops. I think more work similar to his needs to be more forefront in our society, compared to the propaganda that litters our news today. Additionally, I thought it was crucial of him to explain that he was shooting people after help had arrived. With out his explanation, one could easily assume (as I did) that he is photographing helpless, dying people, instead of providing them help and food (specifically regarding famine victims.) I think that his work is unique also due to the artistic nature of the filming and developing process. The documentary shows that he is not merely documenting what he sees, but spends a painstaking amount of time getting the perfect shot, and the perfect exposure.
All in all, I thought the documentary was very informative and opened my eyes to the life of a war photographer, as well as the lives of war victims. I'm actually planning to use some of his images for inspiration in my Drawing Studio class.
No comments:
Post a Comment