Re: [Leica] Still and motion pictures

[Peterson_Art@hq.navsea.navy.mil]

     Phong,
     
     Much thanks for your very perceptive observations!  You point out that 
     whereas the still photo is "powerful" and "intensifies by leaving out 
     details," the motion picture "shows more" and "allow[s] for a richer 
     interpretation;" and I'd add, possibly a more accurate interpretation. 
     Also, you conclude that "[n]either medium is intrinsically better or 
     more powerful."  But the reality of any given moment (still photo) is 
     a function of its context (the moments that led to it and the moments 
     that resulted from it), and so the more we understand of that context, 
     the better we understand the specific moment.  A still photo therefore 
     may lend itself more easily to an artist's use of a situation to make 
     a statement of his or her choosing, whereas a motion picture (apart 
     from an artificial creation, like a commercial movie) may facilitate a 
     deeper, fuller, or more accurately understood reportage of an event.
     
     Just a thought! :)
     
     Art Peterson
     Alexandria, VA
     

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: [Leica] Still and motion pictures
Author:  leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us at Internet
Date:    12/10/98 4:26 PM


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