Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/12/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Alexey, Ted, B.D., Buzz, Eric and other LUGers,
Of course, Saigon 1968, during the Tet offensive.
Eddie Adams' photograph is certainly powerful and captures the
intensity of the moment, with the Viet Cong's squinting into a
grimace, and the tension in General Loan's stretched arm.
The film footage however shows more: Ted mentioned the
gushing blood. I'd like to mention another, more subtle detail:
you can see that the General walked away from the prisoner
at first, and then suddenly turned around and swiftly shot the man.
In that turnabout, lies the complexity of the situation and of the
war: The General had just found out that the entire
family of someone very close him, including a baby, was
wiped out that morning by a VC terrorist group operating in
the vicinity where the prisoner was captured. In that split of
a second, destiny took over and the General couldn't let go,
couldn't just walk away.
The still photograph intensifies by leaving out details, like a
telephoto lens; the movie footage shows more details, which in this
case, allow for a richer interpretation. As a footnote, I
understand that Eddie Adams has expressed regret that the
photograph became such an icon of the war, as what it
represents to the public is not what he himself feels about the war
and about General Loan.
By the way, both in this case and in general, I much prefer the still
photograph. That's why I try to make photographs, instead of
playing with a video camera. But I don't think either medium is
intrinsically better or more powerful, or make more impact. It
all depends on the story you want to tell, the audience, and the
visual language you and your audience are most comfortable
with. Like novel vs. short stories, prose vs. poetry, 24mm vs
135mm lens, M vs. R Leicas, B&W vs. color photography,
Scotch vs. Bourbon, etc. vs. etc.
- - Phong