Photographing War

K Borowski · February 4, 2007

During the first Gulf War, there were many freelance camera people sent out there by the major news gatherers. All of them found that the daily insurance premiums demanded were greater than the daily rate they were being paid. So, they didn't bother with insurance....

It's not just dangerous for you, it's dangerous for your dependents. too.

Stuart, I appreciate the practical bit of thought, but I don't have any dependents. I want to in the future, but at this time, I'm not putting any of my loved ones in financial risk should something happen to me. I don't even know what to think about insurance, as getting it would almost be an attempt to allow my family to profit from my death. If I had a wife and children, I would, but if I die at this point in my life, the world is no worse off without me really.

As I mentioned earlier I have been to Iraq recently and have covered a lot of confilcts in the past. this one is totally different. Usually you have a choice of working independantly or with the military, and yes, I think embedding is a bad deal for us and a good deal for them, but thats the only way to speak with US or UK troops.
Now in Iraq, if you get out of the car to film in a market you will be shot in the head by the first person with a gun who happens by, I would say your life expectancy is about two minutes right now in Baghdad. In fact, the reason I was sent there was to replace a camera crew (Doug and Sean) who were killed last Memorial Day, while filming a checkpoint 1/2 mile from the Green zone, with the US military.

I am not going to post the details of our current security arrangments, but trust me, they dont allow for a lot room for creative filmmaking when we do get out of the car.

Its nice to discuss objectivity, but the reality is you either embedd with the military or you are so restricted you cant work. The Iraqis on the street won't talk to you, they will be killed if their face shows up on American TV, and its not like you can go down to the pub and talk to the troops in their off hours.

Politics aside, its a new day over there and dosent look to me like its going to get any better soon.

I guess the reason I am posting this is because I am a bit defensive about critizism of the work thats being done by the guys over there now. There are a lot of very hard working people risking thier lives to tell the story in very tough conditions, and I am sure the military, and the administration would rather we just see hand out footage shot by their PR folks.

> there areae

I don't want to give the impression that I am criticizing the very brave photojournalists over there now. I'm sure they shoot a lot of footage that is sensored or edited out; I'm criticizing those doing the editing, the television networks, and maybe the military's policies. I understand their policy, war is messy business no matter whose army it is, but I feel there is a need for the type of journalism that was done in Vietnam in Iraq. In Vietnam too, the VC adopted the policy of "shoot to kill" for the unarmed freelance photojournalists covering the war.

I really don't know where I would draw the line in terms of risk vs. coverage. You're right in that it's a killing frenzy over there. Those people are killing their own population, so it's obvious that any foreigner is at a huge risk when you can look like them, speak their language, and be totally innocent of any political or religious agenda of your own and still be killed just as calously as if you were an enemy. It's a scary time for that whole area right now, and I have no idea whether that will still be the case in a year. It could be better or it could become much much worse. There's really know way of knowing. I don't want to do the whole thing as an "embedded" reporter though. Maybe I'd have to do part of it that way, but I want to come up with a way of blending in to my surroundings enough to pull of an objective perspective.

I'm trying to work from the standpoint that what I shoot isn't time sensitive. I can "ice" what I shoot and keep it on film until everyone is satisfied that the data contained is no longer "sensitive" or "classified" before putting it into the public arena.

Stuart Brereton · February 4, 2007

Karl, I?m sure your aesthetic choices (48fps, 7285, 16mm) will really impress the insurgents from Iran whose president the CIA assassinated and whose infrastructure was devastated by a war we indirectly funded. If it doesn?t, surely it will impress the Saudis whose holy center is home to enormous US military bases and our representatives, 18-24 year old frat boy soldier racists (you can watch US soldiers ramming Iraqi civilian vehicles if you would like?youtube.) I guess if you want to appeal to a domestic audience, I would have to recommend a saving private ryan look. What was the shutter angle again for the D Day scene. Gee? it must have been a good 11.25 deg. You know what?go with a 435ES. Dolly?

I have an idea of why you?re interested in war documentation. It?s grand, glorious and from the biographies I have read, done by a good portion of famous cinematographers . It?s a different time though.

As far as the objectivity of the media? two words?press pools. Journalists need to be accompanied by soldiers at all times.

As a journalist if you would like the opionion of a US soldier (seems reasonable), they?ll tell you by reading the answer off of a laminated card provided to them by their superior officer. You should know that before you waste all your film with those unbiased interview.

Be careful out there.

Danielle,

This isn't the first time that you've introduced your personal politics into a thread. This isn't the place. Give it a rest. Let us talk about what this forum is for - Cinematography.

Daniel Madsen · February 4, 2007

Alright.

Peace

Jason Reimer · February 4, 2007

Thanks for your input Don, and thanks for the job you have been doing. It's good to hear from someone who has actually been there and done that. I'll keep your safety over there in my prayers.

don lee · February 4, 2007

[thanks for that also, I had a brain freeze earlier, the brave guys who were killed were Cameraman Paul Douglas and Soundman James Brolan of CBS News London Bureau, their families are the ones who deserve our prayers and thanks...

e name=Jason Reimer' date='Feb 4 2007, 02:35 PM' post='152626]

Thanks for your input Don, and thanks for the job you have been doing. It's good to hear from someone who has actually been there and done that. I'll keep your safety over there in my prayers.

Matthew Buick · February 4, 2007

Karl, I?m sure your aesthetic choices (48fps, 7285, 16mm) will really impress the insurgents from Iran whose president the CIA assassinated and whose infrastructure was devastated by a war we indirectly funded. If it doesn?t, surely it will impress the Saudis whose holy center is home to enormous US military bases and our representatives, 18-24 year old frat boy soldier racists (you can watch US soldiers ramming Iraqi civilian vehicles if you would like?youtube.) I guess if you want to appeal to a domestic audience, I would have to recommend a saving private ryan look. What was the shutter angle again for the D Day scene. Gee? it must have been a good 11.25 deg. You know what?go with a 435ES. Dolly?

I have an idea of why you?re interested in war documentation. It?s grand, glorious and from the biographies I have read, done by a good portion of famous cinematographers . It?s a different time though.

As far as the objectivity of the media? two words?press pools. Journalists need to be accompanied by soldiers at all times.

As a journalist if you would like the opionion of a US soldier (seems reasonable), they?ll tell you by reading the answer off of a laminated card provided to them by their superior officer. You should know that before you waste all your film with those unbiased interview.

Be careful out there.

DANIELLE!!!!! :blink: And I thought I was bad! :D

Karl, if you're looking for something really special, I watched a documentary in the summer comprised of some amazing COLOUR WWI footage, including one shot of German Soldiers being scared to poop of a Male MK1 Tank, and this truly incredible shot where the cameraman actually lifted the camera up in the trench as a mass of british soldiers ran into no-man's land, it cut just as it was beginning to get exciting, I have a feeling the poor man was shot. :(

Daniel Sheehy · February 5, 2007

You might get an interesting film if you take care of the Allied side of things.. ie. embed with/follow US/British forces. But hire a local (Middle Eastern) cameraman to document the other side of the story. I'm sure that put together it would allow you better access than you would be able to get alone and it would make a very interesting documentary.

Francis Kuhn · February 5, 2007

I can "ice" what I shoot and keep it on film until everyone is satisfied that the data contained is no longer "sensitive" or "classified" before putting it into the public arena.

Hi Karl,

Interesting article in Sunday's Los Angeles Times Calendar section on Mohamed Daradji, who filmed his first feature, Ahlaam, in post-invasion Baghdad. Among other things, the article states how difficult it was for the director to get film: "All 35mm filmstock had been banned under international sanctions as a 'dual-use' item that could be used to help make chemical weapons."

I think you'd find the rest of the article interesting if you can get a copy.

Fran