MovieChat Forums > War Photographer Discussion > I'm Just Too Cynical

I'm Just Too Cynical

posted 16 years ago by groggo
6 replies | jump to latest

I have tremendous admiration for James Nachtwey's courage, skill and artistry, but his soft-spoken pleas for human understanding in this splendid documentary left me wondering how he could go on believing in the innate 'goodness' of the human species.

It's an odd, even bizarre, twist that this man, who has seen more carnage than 50 thousand men in 50 thousand battles, comes away here as a quiet voice of reason. How can that be? Over the past 70 years (including Spain, WWII, Korea and Vietnam), we have been exposed to millions of images of human suffering, and this doesn't include the millions of other fictional images in movies and video games. We're at the point where I think people have become immune to them. It doesn't really matter any more what war photographers show us: we've already seen it, and the vast majority of people in the so-called Free World remain unmoved. This is the terrible result of relentless exploitation, for big profit, of photographs and films depicting unimaginable suffering.

I recently saw the documentary 'Ghosts of Rwanda,' which shook me to my shoetops. How is it possible, as Nachtwey says himself, that humans can inflict such unspeakable barbarism upon others, and do it so casually, so systematically? But they do, and they continue doing it. See Darfur today, and other regions of the world that we don't even know about, thanks to our very 'selective' media.

War photography, like everything else in this pop-cultured, dumbed-down, bubbleheaded, lowest-common-denominator, non-thinking society of ours, where Paris Hilton is more important than genocide, has become just another source of entertainment, a highly profitable commodity. This over-exposure to violence has neutralized us; it no longer has the power to motivate and exhort people to demand action.

The U.N., the Clinton administration, and a score of Western countries (including my country of Canada) had almost instant access to the unspeakable mass murders of perhaps a million people (in three months!!) in Rwanda, but did nothing about it. Five or six years later they sadly proclaimed they were witnessing genocide, but, gosh and gee whiz, they just didn't know about it at the time.

Sorry, but this amounts to rich nourishment for rank cynicism, to which I plead guilty.

If war photography caused masses of people to demand radical political action and change, it would disappear from sight.

[–] Freedomcay 16 years ago

While you may have a point, I think Nachtwey's outlook on photography comes out of the need to rationalize subjecting himself to tragedy and suffering over and over again, and even more importantly to avoid spiraling into depression and keep himself sane. It would be hard for me to keep doing what James does without knowing that it mattered to someone, and had the power to influence someone. And If anyone's images have that power they're Nachtwey's. If it effects one person enough for them to choose a path of non-violence, then Nachtwey has done his job, and accomplished what he set out to do.

On top of this, If he wasn't out there documenting these people's tragedies, who would? It's people like James Nachtwey who are there to capture what happens to the people of a country when governments don't take action. He is there to humanize the conflict for those of us who can't be there. A body count is just a body count until it has a face and I think he has done an excellent job of giving the victims of the conflicts he has covered in his career a face. While He might not change the world but I applaud Mr. Nachtwey for having the courage to try.

[–] o_coulter 16 years ago

Its refreshing to see a civil, well thought out discussion take place on imdb. I'm awaiting a tide of emocicons & LOL any minute now....

[–] jthartnett 15 years ago

Very well said, but I disagree with you. I think it a tad self righteous for one to justify actions based on the "..if I could just influence one person.." concept. Observing is not action. Please remember where these photographs are going. Stern Magazine is in the shock business and trying to turn a profit based off the exploitation of horrendous situations.
Just because Nachtwey looks and speaks like Mr Rogers, doesn't make him a kind, loving individual. He is anything but that. I think he knows he is a creep and needs to justify his actions multiple times a day.
His skill is 2nd to none. The pictures are artful. I am happy to have seen this film. Not because I needed to see more human misery. Unfortunately that is part of life. But because it truly showed me the dementia of the people that only exist to serve themselves off the suffering of others.
By the way, who would document these tragedies if he did not? I honestly can not answer that question. I'll just respond with my own question. In a free world, where does one draw the line between art and exploitation?

[–] tyboulder 12 years ago

You came away from this movie thinking James Nachtwey was a "creep"? Did we watch the same documentary? The movie ends with Nactwey posing the question "am I taking advantage of others' misfortune"? He then answers this by saying something like, "to the extent that my subject can accept me, I can accept myself". He also said that the idea that he was profiting off human misery haunts him constantly. So, assuming that you don't want to live in a society that hides from the horrors going on in this world, it will always be someone's job to document them. If most journalists considered the ethical dilemmas inherent in their profession half as seriously as Nactwey, I think the world would be a better place.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Red_Barn 12 years ago

I am a photographer myself, but many leagues below him. If i had seen what he has seen, in the flesh, I would love to be able to be so "soft-spoken" about it. He has every right to be as mad as hell.