The Terror of War—Was Nick Ut's "Napalm Girl" photo taken with a Pentax camera?

[AusDLK]

It was picked up by Netflix internationally. They made money on it.

you don't know that. i am filmmaker. i know the landscape. being picked up by any streamer does not guarantee anything of the sort. i know for a fact that a great many independent films are "sold" for much less that what they cost to make and this was not an inexpensive film to make.

 

[AusDLK]

I can’t speak to the personal motives. I don’t know the people involved. I do feel confident in saying they have not proven anything to me, and I do feel it is likely that the money they made was probably not nothing. You have to put it in perspective - in the world of photojournalism what qualifies as “money” is often far less than it would for most people. It may also be that they made the film for the right reasons and simply are just wrong. For my own part, I just find it to be unconvincing and Yunghi’s argument worth noting.

Speaking generally, context matters as well. This film was made at a time when debunking all sorts of historical claims became a trend, and yes, a business of sorts. Some of those claims were right, some, I think, probably overstepped, or revised in ways that were too aggressive - or overcorrected to a degree that matched the bias of the original story. I consider this film certainly part of a zealous political moment - one that yielded no shortage of poor takes. Just my thoughts.

see my comment to Mr. Freakscene -- there is almost zero change that this film made anyone money, that almost never happens for independent films, particularly documentaries. in ~90 out of 100 cases, indie films are labors of love, not protit. i know, i'm making one.

 

[Out to Lunch]

They made money on it.

How do you know that?
The details of the Netflix distribution deal are not publicly known.

 

[pgh]

see my comment to Mr. Freakscene -- there is almost zero change that this film made anyone money, that almost never happens for independent films, particularly documentaries. in ~90 out of 100 cases, indie films are labors of love, not protit. i know, i'm making one.

It’s really orthogonal to the discussion whether or not they made money. The claim Yunghi is making is that the premise of the film was set before it was made and it was used to secure funding to make the film. In the end, who knows. I just find her claim that the conclusion of the film was set before the making to be credible enough to doubt a real consideration of available evidence. It looks like one big cherry picked argument, essentially. Until it looks like a better argument, I see no reason to strip Ut of his credit and neither do the AP, who generally, I respect as trying as hard as anyone to hold themselves to the most scrupulous standards.

It might also be good to read David Burnett’s editorial that the Washington Post published. He is making an eyewitness claim. He is also noting how the filmmakers used his work without permission. I hate to see two legends go at each other like this but even using images without permission is solid evidence of neglect of considerate process, and does more to diminish the film’s credibility IMO. Knight knows better than that.

 

[Freakscene]

How do you know that?
The details of the Netflix distribution deal are not publicly known.

I know some of the Australian team involved in distribution.

There is also the sheer fuss. This is all over every photo site. It has been covered extensively in mainstream media. It’s a big deal for securing funding for your next project if you have been covered in the NYT, WSJ, Guardian, Times and many major non-english language newspapers.

 

[Freakscene]

It’s really orthogonal to the discussion whether or not they made money. The claim Yunghi is making is that the premise of the film was set before it was made and it was used to secure funding to make the film. In the end, who knows. I just find her claim that the conclusion of the film was set before the making to be credible enough to doubt a real consideration of available evidence. It looks like one big cherry picked argument, essentially. Until it looks like a better argument, I see no reason to strip Ut of his credit and neither do the AP, who generally, I respect as trying as hard as anyone to hold themselves to the most scrupulous standards.

It might also be good to read David Burnett’s editorial that the Washington Post published. He is making an eyewitness claim. He is also noting how the filmmakers used his work without permission. I hate to see two legends go at each other like this but even using images without permission is solid evidence of neglect of considerate process, and does more to diminish the film’s credibility IMO. Knight knows better than that.

It is never orthogonal to consider money when examining motivations for someone doing some thing.

 

[Out to Lunch]

I just find her claim that the conclusion of the film was set before the making to be credible enough to doubt a real consideration of available evidence.

We're now entering into 'the fog of social media' especially considering that she also claimed that the documentary was an ''attempted slander of a beloved trailblazing Asian photographer by a group of white producers''. Perhaps she did not know that the director, Bao Nguyen was born to Vietnamese parents.

 

[BillBingham2]

see my comment to Mr. Freakscene -- there is almost zero change that this film made anyone money, that almost never happens for independent films, particularly documentaries. in ~90 out of 100 cases, indie films are labors of love, not protit. i know, i'm making one.

Looking forward to seeing your magic. Hope you break the mold and make some big monkey bucks.

B2 (;->

 

[pgh]

It is never orthogonal to consider money when examining motivations for someone doing some thing.

It was orthogonal to my particular claim, since I have no knowledge of whether or not the makers were profitable. It’s not an argument I am making, and while I can speculate, what I am saying would be the same whether or not the film broke (breaks?) even.

That said, it is worth noting like I said before that “money” to photojournalists is really paltry compared to other professions, and even getting a project funded (regardless of if it makes money) is often viewed as”money” because it pays for more days at work. The grant seeking photojournalist is always chasing more funded days at work. The project rarely makes money. Just being paid to work on a project a few more days is a big success, even for many of the big names.
So in that sense, the claim of money as motivator is maybe not orthogonal, since a predetermined conclusion that sells the viability of the film and thus secures funding for more work could be part of the issue.

 

[pgh]

We're now entering into 'the fog of social media' especially considering that she also claimed that the documentary was an ''attempted slander of a beloved trailblazing Asian photographer by a group of white producers''. Perhaps she did not know that the director, Bao Nguyen was born to Vietnamese parents.

Feel free to skip Yunghi’s argument, and go straight to David Burnett’s story - and his reflections on his disappointing and exploitative experience with Knight and how he was there with Ut the day the picture was made.

 

[Out to Lunch]

go straight to David Burnett

David Burnett appears to be more convinced than the AP that Nick Ut took to photo. The use of his photos should not be become a trial by internet. If his lawyer believes his rights were infringed upon he should take his case to court.

 

[olakiril]

If his lawyer believes his rights were infringed upon he should take his case to court.

I agree. And the same should be said for Nick Ut's case.

 

[AusDLK]

Looking forward to seeing your magic. Hope you break the mold and make some big monkey bucks.

B2 (;->

that is very kind of you. thank you. no one in their right mind would take a leap of faith like i and so many other nobody filmmakers do if we didn't believe out there on the far fringes of our rational minds that we will be the exception.

 

[AusDLK]

i don't necessarily think it matters that the filmmakers recognized a wrong before the film was made and that subsequently motivated them to set out to set the record straight. who hasn't had such an experience in their lives?

in this case, the filmmakers somehow were able actually take action in the face of what they thought was an injustice.

i don't have a reputation to protect or a Pulitzer to justify or feelings to be hurt, and maybe i'm just a rube -- but the digital recreation presented in the film by examining first hand photographic evidence, not hearsay, was totally convincing to me.

how about someone else make a film to right this wrong and let's see their digital recreation reveals.

 

[pgh]

i don't necessarily think it matters that the filmmakers recognized a wrong before the film was made and that subsequently motivated them to set out to set the record straight. who hasn't had such an experience in their lives?

I think it sure does if you’re going to totally disregard eyewitnesses (even to the extent of using their work to try make your point without their permission) in order to keep your project moving.

At any rate, documentary filmmakers and photojournalists tend to have different ethics. Photojournalists still (at an organizational level) tend to subscribe to the idea that activism and journalism are incompatible and that they are not activists. Theoretically Knight comes from that lineage, although it seems he’s maybe changed. I don’t know the man. Documentary film has a sort of broader scope generally - activism is often part of the point.

 

[AusDLK]

I think it sure does if you’re going to totally disregard eyewitnesses (even to the extent of using their work to try make your point without their permission) in order to keep your project moving.

At any rate, documentary filmmakers and photojournalists tend to have different ethics. Photojournalists still (at an organizational level) tend to subscribe to the idea that activism and journalism are incompatible and that they are not activists. Theoretically Knight comes from that lineage, although it seems he’s maybe changed. I don’t know the man. Documentary film has a sort of broader scope generally - activism is often part of the point.

eyewitnesses have memories that can fail, some may have their own agendas. photographs do not. i am quite confident that if you or i had won a Pulitzer prize whether we knew we have earned it or not, would be very hostile and uncooperative when someone came around to try to take it away. and so would a large organization like the AP.

 

[OmegaB600]

i don't necessarily think it matters that the filmmakers recognized a wrong before the film was made and that subsequently motivated them to set out to set the record straight. who hasn't had such an experience in their lives?

in this case, the filmmakers somehow were able actually take action in the face of what they thought was an injustice.

i don't have a reputation to protect or a Pulitzer to justify or feelings to be hurt, and maybe i'm just a rube -- but the digital recreation presented in the film by examining first hand photographic evidence, not hearsay, was totally convincing to me.

how about someone else make a film to right this wrong and let's see their digital recreation reveals.

A person can make anything they want, however what they have done is recreate things to suit their own eveidence.

As far as digitally "recreating" an event such as this, well lets just say. With AI and a modern computer less then 2 years old, a 15 year old can create an AI movie of their favorite actor as King Arthur, and have king arthur debate the merits of Light Beer over drinking regular beer.

 

[AusDLK]

A person can make anything they want, however what they have done is recreate things to suit their own eveidence.

As far as digitally "recreating" an event such as this, well lets just say. With AI and a modern computer less then 2 years old, a 15 year old can create an AI movie of their favorite actor as King Arthur, and have king arthur debate the merits of Light Beer over drinking regular beer.

as a former software engineer over some 40 years, i know a little bit about this.

you are essentially correct in general about kids and AI but your argument falls fact because there are legit photographs to corraborate the 3D modeling showing where people were at a point in time, how far apart they were, etc.. where might we find the photographic evidence to corraborate King Arthur doing anything?

and how do you know they recreated things to suite anything? have you closely examined the 3D models? have you cross referenced them with photographs used to create the models?

no.

and i haven't either. all i have been saying from the outset of my contribution to this thread is that the evidence presented in the film is very compelling that Ut could not have taken the famous photograph.

i would love it if someone took it upon themselves to use the same set of photographs and create 3D models in an effort to prove the opposite.

 

[OmegaB600]

as a former software engineer over some 40 years, i know a little bit about this.

you are essentially correct in general about kids and AI but your argument falls fact because there are legit photographs to corraborate the 3D modeling showing where people were at a point in time, how far apart they were, etc.. where might we find the photographic evidence to corraborate King Arthur doing anything?

and how do you know they recreated things to suite anything? have you closely examined the 3D models? have you cross referenced them with photographs used to create the models?

no.

and i haven't either. all i have been saying from the outset of my contribution to this thread is that the evidence presented in the film is very compelling that Ut could not have taken the famous photograph.

i would love it if someone took it upon themselves to use the same set of photographs and create 3D models in an effort to prove the opposite.

drink your koolaid kid.. drink your koolaid.

next youll be telling me that the cat in the hat is real, because you saw a movie and a book about the cat in the hat..

 

[Duofold RF]

Both sides have presented compelling arguments. Even the AP was unable to definitively confirm that the image was captured by Nick Ut’s who has been claimed the photo was taken by a Leica M2. AusDLK or the Nextfllex documentary film has provided a reasonable and well-supported perspective on this specific point.