The Vietnam War in Images – Sophie Lacombe 2011


1. Choose two photographs from the 10 above that feature in the documentary. Consider the strengths and weaknesses of war photography as an historical source using evidence from the photographs you have chosen.

My Lai Massacre 1969

Strengths: It is a very powerful photograph. It shows the Americans' brutality through the people's expression. It also marks the fact that war had reached a stage where massive murder was allowed any time, at any place, to anybody. Also, as it is a photograph, it doesn't only affect people's mind but people's feelings as well, which is much more powerful as an impact as it cannot be “rationalised”.

Weaknesses: Americans are not shown, therefore it can argued that the scene was set up only to shock the (USA) population. A photograph doesn't give global information about events, it only shows a captured moment. For instance, here there is no proof that the Vietnamese people on the picture where killed, based only on this photograph; it can be argued that they were only hiding (which would support the commanding officer's report which claimed that civilians were killed by accident).

Fall of Saigon 1975

Strengths: Also very powerful and very well centred. The photograph includes many elements which makes it more neutral towards any American or Vietnamese point of view. It clearly shows desperation. People's desperation, general desperate atmosphere (through the desperate situation of a paradox: the helicopter's size/the number of people wanting to get in it). It can also be used to support the idea that Americans were quite egoistic in the end, as they wouldn't provide any help to their 'allies' even in emergency situations. But still a photograph is always neutral; as it can only capture a moment and not count a whole course of events therefore it is open to various interpretations according to who is holding it. Although it can be called a historical archive, a photograph is still a piece of art (therefore open to interpretation).

Weaknesses: Once again, photographs are to show emotions rather than full explanation of the situation. Also because of the distance, one cannot be certain that the helicopter is in fact American. Neither can we be sure that the photograph is not fake, made on propaganda purposes. The Viet Congs' presence is lacking and we do not have any clear idea of who are the people waiting for the helicopter nor do we know their destination. It consequently leaves us to hypothesis therefore personal interpretation.



2. ‘The Vietnam War is called the first televised war, but it is the photographs we remember’. How far do you agree with the assertion that still images are more powerful than moving film?

Television played an enormous role during the Vietnam War as it is one of the firsts which could followed almost day-to-day by the viewers. It consequently had an impact on people's mind, much greater than when news were reported on the newspapers. Watching scenes with sound not inspired by reality but actually real was revolutionary on the population's opinion. For instance, in 1968, the execution of a suspect Viet Cong was projected to the whole United States of America, which eventually stayed astounded to the television set. The impact on the human being is such that he actually gets merged for a few second into the video and lives the moment as the protagonist. With sound and image, it is indeed much easier to make things look all of a sudden quite realistic and break the distance with the viewer. Emotions arise and become uncontrollable. (This is for me the most prodigious example of manipulation, and it is not without reason that television is used for political and commercial purposes).

However, despite the important role of television, I personally agree with the idea that still images are indeed much more powerful. In my opinion, it doesn't really concern the fact that it is way easier to watch again and again a photograph, whereas it is not the case with a video (which today is completely irrelevant anyway). I think that, concerning videos, as short as these can be, they always have a sense of chronological course (of action), with a 'beginning' and an 'end'. We are therefore conscious that it stops at a precise time and in cases such as the Vietnam War for example, the suffering has an ending (through the ending of the video). As easily we get merged into one (virtual) reality for a few seconds, as easily we are thrown out of it and back into our own reality which is far away from what we just saw. The number of informations our brain receives during the video makes it impossible for us to record everything and in the end, we only stay with a blurred view of what happened. With photographs, in contrast, as long as someone will watch it and discover every detail in it, it will never have no 'beginning' nor any 'ending'. It marks a precise moment of emotion to which the viewer is confronted which doesn't change. If the person fixes it, his brain will have the time to explore the details of the image, therefore get a fixed idea of what happened. Videos make us merge into another reality. Photos make us merge into reality. In videos, we hear all sorts of noise, we sometimes see people, we see movement, there is an atmosphere which is already installed, and despite our emotions, once it is over and we are back into our reality we just think “Thanks God I'm not out there”. In photographs, as movement, sound and therefore atmosphere are lacking, we automatically use our imagination in order to build one. We therefore create a reality, which is inspired from ours, through the whole number of emotions kept fixed to a single image. But as a still image is not another reality by itself, it makes our imagination grow without limits in order to build one and our emotions emphasize this phenomena. It is like painting. Tragedy is much more 'emphasizeable' as our emotions don't let us keep contact with reality but make our imagination work. As the image is silent for instance, when seeing a photograph such as Nick Ut's photo the Napalm girl, our mind makes us hear this horrible shouting of the children crying. This is the power of silence in a picture. As a photo has no 'beginning' and no 'end', the suffering (in the case of the Vietnam war for example) looks as if always here, whenever someone turns to look at the photo, it will still be there. It has a sense of eternity. And we have the time, while fixing it, to imagine this beginning, this atmosphere and this end.