MovieChat Forums > Standard Operating Procedure (2008) Discussion > Defence of Sabrina

Defence of Sabrina

posted 16 years ago by SC-20
7 replies | jump to latest

I'm a little confused as to why Morris appears to believe that the motives behind Sabrina Harman's photographing of events was so different to that of the others.

His article for the New York Times (http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/sabrina-harman/) goes some way to explaining it, but the film itself falls short.

In fact, the film skirts around the key question of why the photographs were taken, which seems to me a crucial question, if not *the* crucial question.

Sabrina Harman opted to dress down for the film, and not wear - in contrast to the other women featured she actually looks less glamorous than she did in Abu Graib. This is clearly no accident. She may be smarter than the others but I don't think we can therefore take without at least a pince of salt her retrospective claim of documentation.

If Morris has reasons to believe that she is a hero rather than a villain then he should have put them in the film (he could have cut out some of the less obviously relevant stuff).

[–] conductor71-2 16 years ago

> I'm a little confused as to why Morris appears to believe that the motives behind Sabrina Harman's photographing of events was so different to that of the others.

How on earth did you get that impression? It is just that the logic she created for her own defense has a more interesting aspect than the others, since she uses the very fundamental function of photography as her excuse, while the film constantly questions the very validity of that fundamental function of photography.

> If Morris has reasons to believe that she is a hero rather than a villain

He obviously doesn't have such reason since he doesn't believe that at all. You would be completely mistaken about this film if you try to think whether they were "hero" or "villain." It can never be that simple.

Of course there is a huge perversive injustice in the whole thing--after all these guys were charged and accused basically for having taken these photographs. Like with the episode of the dead body, the real "bad guys" who actually have killed the guy were never accused nor prosecuted nor send to jail. So in a sense we are all part of that perverse crooked sense of "justice," or absence of it. Sabrina's presence makes things more complex since her letters show it was not that there were a total absence of morality in Abu Ghraib's personnel. Whether you take these letters as truth or cover-up self-excuse is up to you to decide.

watch also this video http://prod.takepart.com/social_network/action/sop/nubargallery.html. They also talk about that issue.

[–] SC-20 16 years ago

I got this impression mainly from hearing the director speak about the film, reading interviews with him and reading other articles by him such as the one I linked to.

I'm not sure how you can categorically state that 'he doesn't believe that at all', unless you are Morris posting under an alias.

[–] conductor71-2 16 years ago

> I got this impression mainly from hearing the director speak about the film, reading interviews with him and reading other articles by him such as the one I linked to.

I wonder how you can get that impression from for instance the video you linked (by the way it is very interesting) when he only says the exact contrary in that--she is an enigma, and he even asks the audience which they believe, the thumb and the smile in the photo, or the letter. He plainly says repeatedly that he cannot tell, that he doesn't know.

> I'm not sure how you can categorically state that 'he doesn't believe that at all',

Since I have seen every documentary he made, it is extremely obvious he as a fimmaker has never believed in such a simplistic moronic categorization.

Even in the video that you linked, he says what he hates most is "simplistic solution to evil." The episode he attach to that is about a Vanity Fair editor (of all people) commenting that the film showed a typical example of "banality of evil." And he goes on explaining how that Vanity Fair editor misunderstood completely Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem, which by the way you also should read.

Or the way he talks about McNamara and throwing the eggs, or about Saddam's egg in that video. You should be very if you still think someone like that would even believe in "hero" and "villain." Of course, anybody getting that impression by simply watching Mr. Death or The Fog of War or this film must be pretty blind, like that editor from Vanity Fair that he talks about.

"People talk about a regime change, and I cannot agree to that. I think what we need is a change of spices; Homo Sapiens? Baaaaad!"--Errol Morris, on The Fog of War

Also, pelase read here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0896866/board/thread/105462790?d=109853179 &p=1#109853179

[–] bobvious 16 years ago

She gave me the impression she didn't think about the apparent discrepancy between her poses and her explanations later.

It's almost as if she took the pictures, as she implied, to provide evidence of what was going on later. But it's almost as if her motivations were opportunistic as well - notoriety, naive believe in military praise, personal or social gain, etc. And, doubly foolish, she didn't think through what smiling with an upraised thumb would communicate later.

Right: we aren't talking about a genius here.

[–] LudwA 15 years ago

Sabrina was the most interesting person involved. I think bobvious said it all. It seemed while she was commiting these acts she was making up an excuse for herself "at least i'm photographing this so the world can see what the American army does" (while she was in fact one of the perpetrators, where she probably could've backed out)

[–] JaneSchmo 15 years ago

She COULDN'T back out. She had no choice whatsoever. You can't say "no" when you're in the army.

I'm inclined to believe that Sabrina was the one "good one" in the bunch. Her letters home to her wife certainly reflect her despair and guilt. I think that she really was taking those photos to document the abuse - maybe she subconsciously wanted to get caught and get stopped.

I never, ever thought a movie could make me sympathize with Lynndie England but Errol Morris stuns me again.

Turns out she might have been much more innocent in the whole affair than you would think from those pictures and the media coverage of her. Errol does a great thing by finally letting her speak for herself and tell her side of the story. He reveals her for anther woman being used as a puppet of men in charge, like Sabrina might have been.

Might- you always have to be skeptical when someone caught doing something bad gets to defend themselves.

stopjohnofgod.blogspot.com

stopsylvia.com

[–] Banana_Warrior 10 years ago

Oh, please. You can see the sadistic pleasure in her photos with tortured, dead, raped and severely injured men. Same for Lynndie, who was actually photographed doing the violence and torture. For you to say she was just another puppet of "men" in charge, i have a strong feeling you are a feminist. The type who will claim women can do no evil unless forced by a man.