RE: [Leica] Still and motion pictures

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

> Greetings, Phong!
>
> 	You wrote,
>
> >      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.
> >
> 		However, I don't think that even the film clip would have
> told the story you just related.  I will agree that both still and moving
> images can be powerful, however- as you demonstrate- words may be the most
> powerful medium of all.  I have been profoundly affected by words and all
> manner of visual impressions.  However, at the end of the day, I
> think that
> single, still images stay with me more than moving images.  As I noted in
> another post, perhaps it is the ease with which we can linger
> over the still
> image and with which we may return to it again and again.  These are
> certainly characteristics of still images which often make them icons of
> complex, dynamic events.
>
> >     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.
> >
> 	I must respectfully disagree.  Neither still nor moving images have
> ever been a medium to record all details with accuracy.  It is true that
> movies show diachronic details which still images cannot portray, but I
> don't think that allows for "richer interpretation."  I believe that
> interpretation is all about what the viewer brings to an image,
> be it still
> or moving.
>
> 	     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.
> >
> 	I hope that I didn't imply that one medium is better than the other;
> certainly they both have their roles and individual power.
>
> 		Buzz

A few more thoughts about this issue...

First, as Buzz notes, both media have their individual roles and individual
power. Where I disagree with Buzz and Phong is that I do think one medium -
still photography - is "better" than film/video at conveying individual
moments of emotional power.

Yes, there are some gut wrenching film documentaries and newsreels. But when
all is said and done, what stays with us is the still image. The Eddie Adams
photo. The little girl running down the road naked. Ruby shooting Oswald.
Mayor Richard Daley screaming at Abe Ribbecoff. Bobby Kennedy sprawled on
the hotel kitchen floor. Richard Nixon on the helicopter step. The POW and
his daughter frozen in mid run toward each other. The crying Frenchman
watching the Nazis enter Paris. The Hindenberg in flames. The bathing mother
and child of Minimatta. John Dean standing before the Sen. Watergate
Committee with hand raised.

There is film of most of these events, but the film isn't what we remember.
We remember the single images, perhaps because we see them over and over
again, perhaps because we can pause over them and truly absorb them in all
their detail. It may be that the CBS film of the Saigon shooting has less
long-term impact because, while it shows Loan start to walk away and then
spin back to shoot the prisoner, and while it shows blood spurting, the real
impact lies in the prisoner's and the general's expressions at the Decisive
Moment - and that is lost in moving images. It may be that what gives the
still image more emotional impact is that it does provide visual editing for
us. It does isolate the decisive moment. It does allow us to concentrate on
what matters in a larger ongoing scene.

My interest in all of this, and I believe my original comments, center
around what I believe is a dying appreciation and understanding of still
images, a major perceptual shift caused by the fact that the current
generation of young adults have been raised on moving, rather than still,
images. Starting with Sesame Street and moving on to MTV, HBO and video
games, they virtually never visually "sit still." As an example of this
perceptual ADD I would point to the use, even in places like Time and
Newsweek, of flash photos taken "below sync" to create an illusion of motion
in still photos.

What does all of this mean for the future of still photography? My guess is
that it means that within another generation still photo journalism and
documentary photography will have become as exotic as music videos were in
1980. I hope I'm wrong, but I believe all the signs are pointing in this
direction.

B. D.