“He was wounded 4 or 5 times, suffered terrible diseases, and terrible physical trauma to his life.” “He has given everything for that job.” These words are said in the documentary by Christian Frei about James Nachtwey, who is considered one of the greatest war photographers ever lived.
In many aspects this film enhanced, or even reshaped my understanding of photojournalism. It demonstrated the difficult life of the war photographer, self-sacrifice, commitment to a high purpose. In a fascinating way it shows how photography can be more than simply a job.
His photographs are perfectly composed and balanced. The tonal curve is dense and dramatic. At work he is almost mystically integrated into the scene, he moves synchronously with his subjects, his eyes are stuck to the camera he literally sees the world through it. Nothing distracts or scares him. This all looks almost supernatural.
I was shocked when I saw how close he gets to his subjects, how emerged Nachtwey is into the scene. I wondered, what supplies this focus and push? For me getting closer to the people I photograph was always extremely difficult. During the work on Assignment 2 of the Photography 1: Expressing your vision I was reflecting on what is the fear of crowd, and through what it could have been overcome in my case. Still I am very afraid of the people I photograph, and almost all my street photographs are shot from the long distance. With Nachtwey it is completely different. He is not afraid of stepping in, being right next to his subjects in the situations of extreme stress and grief. I was quite confused when only started watching the documentary, but as the narration went on, a very strong explanation was given by Nachtwey himself.
“In a war the normal codes of civilized behavior suspended. It would be unthinkable in the so-called normal life to go to someone’s home where the family is grieving over the death of a loved one, and spend long moments photographing them. It simply would not be done. Those pictures would not have been made if I wouldn’t be accepted by the people I am photographing – it is simply impossible to photograph moments such as those without the complicity of the people I am photographing, without the fact that they welcome me, that they accepted me, that they wanted me to be there. They understand that a stranger who has come there with a camera to show the rest of the world what is happening to them gives them a voice in the outside world that they otherwise wouldn’t have. They realize that they are victims of some kind injustice, some kind of unnecessary violence. And by allowing me there to photograph, they are making their own appeal to the outside world and to everyone’s sense of right and wrong. I try my best to approach people with respect. I want them to see that I have respect for them and the situation they are in. I don’t like to move too fast, I don’t want to speak too loudly. I want to be very open in approach, I want to feel very open in my heart and let them be aware of that. And people do sense it with very few words, sometimes with no words at all.”
This point explains the choice of the epigraph to the film:
“If your pictures aren’t good enough, you aren’t close enough.” -Robert Capa.
This approach was also some kind of revelation to me. The people are the most important. I want to wholeheartedly join to the words of Nachtwey: “Over the years the real sense of purpose became stronger. The people I photographed were much more important than myself.”
I started thinking immediately how can I implement this in my own practice. Maybe next time when I go to the field, I could start with simply showing interest to the people, asking how the things are going on. I recalled the words of Immanuel Kant my father cited for me once: “Other people should never be means of our activities, but should always be a purpose.”
A camera operator, friend of James Nachtwey was sharing with what he thought of the profession of a journalist. He said that many were becoming brutal “dramatic image” hunters. While eagerly looking for the most violent and bloody scenes, they are “staying out of it”, shooting from the distance, being just cold observers. James was not like that.
He told a story when a crazy mob chased and killed a man in Indonesia during the riots in 1998. James Nachtwey was following them all the way. He was among these people. He was not an indifferent observer. He fell on his knees and begged the angry mob not to kill that man, he was trying to persuade them that they did not have any reason to kill him. They killed him anyway. Thinking of the whole situation I just could not comprehend the fantasticality of the situation. Why the mob was even standing Nachtwey? They were angry, ruthless thugs, why did not they beat him up, maim, break his camera? I have a strong feeling that they felt him as an integral part of what was happening. They probably subconsciously knew that his place was there.
Nachtwey gave idea of photography as service to humanity. His friend tells about him: “I think he thinks that good will triumph eventually over evil. I think that what keeps him straight about what he is doing. I think it is his optimism that keeps from being cynical finally.”
To the question “How do you control your emotions in from such situations?” Nachtwey answers: “I have to. Because for me to go to those places and cave in would be useless. What I do I channel my emotions into my work. Any anger, frustration, disbelief, grief that I may feel I try to channel into my pictures.”
He shares with what he feels about his works: “There is always so much more to do. I never feel complete, I never feel satisfied. I wouldn’t say I could use the word happy about it because it always involved other people’s tragedies, other people’s misfortunes. At best there is grim satisfaction I brought people’s attention to this problems.”
At some point Nachtwey refers to his audience. This was always an important thing for me to understand. With fear I realized that I myself do that – I turn my eyes away from “difficult” pictures. In confusion I sometimes asked myself, why making photographs of such miserable situations? With Nachtwey’s explanation I think I understand now: “It is more difficult to get publications to focus on issues that are more critical, that do not provide people an escape from reality, but attempt to get them deeper in that reality. To be concerned about much greater than themselves. And people are concerned. I think publishers do not give their audience enough credit for that. We are required to do what we can about it. If we don’t who will?”
I could not help taking direct notes of what Nachtwey said about the role of Photography in documenting conflicts and other misfortunes of the world:
“Why photograph war? Is it possible to put an end to human behavior, which is existent throughout history, by means of photography? The proportions of that notions seem ridiculously of balance, yet that very idea has motivated me. For me the strength of photography lies in its ability to evoke a sense of humanity. If war is attempting to gate humanity, then photography can be perceived as the opposite of war. And if used well, it can be a powerful ingredient in the antidote to war. I a way, if an individual assumes the risk of placing himself in the middle of the war in order to communicate to the rest of the world what is happening, he is trying to negotiate for peace. Perhaps that is the reason why those in charge of perpetuating the war don’t like to have photographers around. In the field, what you experience is extremely immediate. What you see is not an image on the page of magazine in 10,000 miles away, with an advertisement of the Rolex watches on the next page. What you see is pain, injustice and misery. It occurred to me that if everyone could be there just once, to see for themselves what white phosphor does to the face of a child, for what an unspeakable pain causes an impact of the single bullet, for how a jagged piece of shrapnel rips someone legs off. If everyone could be there to see and feel the fear and grief just one time, then they would understand that nothing worth letting things to the point when that happens even to one person, let alone thousands. But everyone cannot be there. And that is why photographers go there. To show them, to reach out and grab them, to make them stop what they are doing and pay attention what is going on. To create pictures powerful enough to overcome the deluding effects of the mass media and shake people out of their indifference. To protest, and by the strength of that protest to make others protest.”
Very important happened to be to me the reflection of Nachtwey on the ethical side of photojournalism. Some ethical ambiguity is always presented in it. There are always questions regarding objectivity of the story, as well as regarding the true motives of the journalist. Is he just striving for fame or becoming successful? Or it is truth that interests him? This issue was very well covered in the part 1 of the present course. And I think the dilemma and its resolution was very well showed and explained in this documentary. Nachtwey says: “The worst thing is to feel that as a photographer I am benefiting from another’s tragedy. This idea haunts me. It is something I have to reckon with every day. Because I know that if I ever allow genuine compassion to be overtaken by personal ambition, I will have sold my soul”.
The film concludes with the following statement by Nachtwey: “The only way I could justify my role, is to have respect for other persons predicament. The extent to which I do it, is the extent to which I become accepted by the other, and to that extent I can accept myself.” I believe that this film demonstrates exceptionally that one can prove his genuine motives in photojournalism only by the way of life one is living, the level of honesty with oneself, and the power of one’s own convictions.
OCA Learning Blog 