Photojournalism and ethics

Photojournalism happens to be the closest area of photography to me. Something I would want to do on a daily basis, but don't really have a chance yet. I am very appreciative of it though and I like the idea of capturing moments and events, without staging them.

You don't have to be a photographer to discuss certain aspects of photography. I think internet proves it all the time. It is full of people judging from their own point of view, even if they don't know much about the subject.

Now, how do you feel looking at this famous picture?

ph. Kevin Carter

First thing many people see is how good and unusual it is. If you are not a photographer, all you know is that you "like" it - you see it was taken by professional. You don't know technicalities or reasons for liking it. Being a photographer the only difference is that often you can say why you like the picture. The point is, it doesn't matter your first impression was good once someone points out the background of taking it. If you start to imagine the process of taking a photo and you start to realise this child is still alive, your blood pressure gets higher. You start to think of a photographer as a heartless person, who prefered to take a picture rather than help and do something. By the way, what would you do?


Another situation photographer might end up being in is when something already happened and you are not the only person there. Nobody can help. There is you, scenery, and probably some audience.

ph. Nathan Veber

This is not a photograph showing what happened. This photograph shows what is happening after something happens. Controversial in its form indeed. It makes you probably hate photojournalists for what they do. But hey, remember. The girl is already dead.

ph. Paul Hansen

This is the photograph, that shows an actual tragedy. Even though the "object" (the girl) appears in both, the subject is different. It makes a huge difference in what your perspective is, since without seeing the first picture, you would contemplate of how sad the photograph is, some people would see some beauty in it. But hey, remember. There was plenty of eager photographers there. Plus, pretty sure they staged the picture little bit (was she originally holding all these artwork this way when she fell down after being shot?).


What about if something is currently happening but there is no way you can help? No way you can save anyone?

ph. Stanley Forman

First impression: old picture, two women falling, photographer must have been really quick.
Impression is correct in all points. Two women were escaping from a fire, but the fire escape collapsed and they fell. Photographer was quick with the photo, but probably was already pointing in this direction anyway, since fire was there for a while already.
He couldn't save anyone. However, picture is still controversial and the author was accused of "invading the privacy of the victims" and "looking for sensation".


I think the biggest reason why we talk about ethics in photography is that doing something else than helping or being sad/sympathetic in moments when tragedy happens is considered highly inappropriate. What if I tell you something that applies to all of us (to some more, to some less) - we care about things that touch us directly the most. You will not be taking picture of your own mother falling from the building, you will not laugh at anything when 3 minutes ago you found out someone close to you died, you will not be able to continue working if you are feeling very sick or you just put down your dog. But you will be able to do all these things if someone else was experiencing the bad part. Someone you don't know, you don't relate to. As much as we can react to tragedy of someone we don't know, most of the reaction comes from not knowing, but seeing.

There was a girl in Colombia who died trapped in her house after the eruption of a volcano. She was only 13 and nobody was able to help her.


How bad are you feeling?



How sad?



Can you imagine her suffering vividly?



That's her:

ph. Frank Fournier

Isn't it ironic? You find out about most of these tragedies from photographs and media. Both can manipulate if they want, but those most controversial are not famous because of their manipulation, but because how sad/brutal truth they show. However you still come back to the thought "they still shouldn't".

You can hate imagining the scene of photographer focusing on the picture more than an issue, but it is thanks to him why you see this picture. I'll come back to the question - what would you do? Would you do something more useful? Yes, you can call emergency number, but usually someone has done it already. If not, photographers are humans too and they also do it. Just because all you know about the author is his work, doesn't mean he hasn't done anything else or he didn't feel bad or shocked when taking the picture.

Funny thing is we live in times of smartphones and now everyone takes pictures. It is normal, at least until you see smartphones in the air covering the scene of tragedy.
What is the difference?
In my opinion, the significance difference is thinking. Photographer thinks when he takes a photograph. Tragedy is already happening, he doesn't want to waste it. He wants it to be captured well.
Normal person doesn't think. They get their phones out all days in various moments, sometimes to text, sometimes to take a selfie, sometimes to play Candy Crush. Mobile phones became "AllInOne" and people tend to use them all the time, everywhere. It became something they are used to do whenever they are not occupied with anything important. Photograph taken as a result of witnessing, by the phone, with no thought of "how" has no purpose of documenting dramatic scene. It is "snapping a picture". You do it for yourself, for the sake of remembering you've been there and unless you are the only person who captured the scene, your picture will be forgotten or used once and forgotten.
I am not judging people who do it. If I didn't have my camera with me and only a smartphone, I would probably do the same. But something is wrong, when you think it's okay for you to do it, and not for professional.
If you don't think it's okay to do it at all, then I have sad news. It is normal. Years ago, owning and knowing how to use a camera was a privilege, now it's a casual thing. Instead of capturing photos, people were using words to describe a situation. They were talking and being interviewed by newspapers. Now, it's the same + all those pixels everywhere.

If you also think photographers do it for the money or/and fame, the truth is most really don't think about it when taking a picture. Photographers follow their "instict" and camera is their tool. After using it in many various occasions, when facing an event or accident they think like photographers, not typical human (important note: they are still humans and they don't become insensitive at any point). If you are a printer, you will look at brochures in a different way than other people. If you are a cook, you will look at food in a different way than other people. If you are a politician, you will... look at ethics in a different way than other people. Photography profession is different in this manner, that your perspective applies to everything around, or to specific field like photojournalism. And photojournalism unfortunately involves happenings that are not always positive or happy.


What is also good to keep in mind, there are photographers and hyenas. Hyenas with a camera might basically act like their need of taking a picture is the most important. They would get in other people's way, they would sometimes stage things in order to manipulate the picture. The difference between those two types of photographers is the key point. Everywhere in every field you have good and bad people and let's stick to that.

Charlie, Willy and Chocolate Factory

First actual post will be a review. Comparison and review of these two movies:

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory - 1971, directed by Mel Stuart

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - 2005, directed by Tim Burton

I watched both lately with my partner. It was the first time for me to watch the old version. Burton's one I saw years ago and I do like Burton as a director, at least in most of his movies.

I don't necessarily follow the exact structure of things, so forgive me if my review is not written in a way it should be. 

STORY

The same story in both movies with not many differences. At least when it comes to main idea of poor boy dreaming of visiting Willy Wonka's chocolate factory and having it happening. He shows up with his also poor, but old and cheerful grandpa next to bunch of other kids with their parents. Willy shows them around and you see most of the kids falling into a trap of their - as I call it - problems. This eliminates them from the "game". The reward for being the least greedy, screwed up kid is SPOILER? taking over the whole factory. As you can expect, Charlie is the one to win. ENDOFSPOILER

Old version focuses a lot on showing how wanted and rare the golden tickets to the factory are. New version does the same, but with less push on how the poor Charlie gets so sad and miserable whenever another kids find next tickets. Because of some reason, Mel really wanted to point out how extremely important it is to the boy (and his grandpa), at the same time not really showing why. Of course we generally know why - everyone wants to visit the factory and meet Willy Wonka, but it seems like Charlie thinks he deserves it more than anyone else. Because he's poor? Because he loves his family and chocolate so much? Tim at least showed some history behind it. Grandpa was a former worker in the factory and admired Willy and his chocolate. You can also see Charlie building a small replica of the factory out of toothpaste caps, before all the madness started. You can feel that Charlie has been devoted to his vision of the factory and Willy Wonka for a while.
Mel basically puts less attention to the story behind things. Plot is very straight forward, so is the ending. We have a little bit of tension (conflict) that releases very quickly and everything ends SPOILER very happily ENDOFSPOILER. This was a little bit confusing to me, especially that you see within 2 minutes extreme emotions, when the last one makes you feel like there has been a bond between two main characters. Bond that you haven't seen throughtout the whole movie. 

Meanwhile Tim puts flashbacks and there is more storyTELLING in it, including narration. I am not a big fan of narration, but I accept it when it is not too much of it. Even though the idea is still pretty simple, you feel like you know the characters more, therefore you might like (or dislike) them more. Ending has also more to it - longer and more interesting resolution.

CHARLIE

I really don't know why but the boy hired to be 1971 Charlie is American. American looking with American accent acting British poor little fellow. Something was not right. It wasn't right the way he was but also how miserable he was made to be in moments between "some kid found the golden ticket". He did the acting bit as well as he could, but I just don't think he was a good fit.

2005 Charlie was a bit better. They hired British boy, and as much as I am not a fan of this actor - he is kind of like Harry Potter. You can accept his way of acting when he is so little. Later it feels weird. Modern Charlie was also more believable and less annoying.

WILLY

Gene Wilder as Willy did a great job in my opinion. The way this character was written to be was also very thought through. I think he is the strongest thing in the movie. Little weird and crazy, but in a likeable way. He got a lot of witty and funny lines, that made you like him even more. Unfortunately, I felt like 90% of funny bits in the movie was thanks to him. I would like to see more of the situational humour to which other characters can contribute more.

Johnny Depp was typical character taken straight from Tim Burton's vision. Very over the top and so weird that you are not sure if he is entirely human. I didn't mind it only because he fits to the scenery and theme of the movie very well. It is not set exactly how Willy should be like and two directors did it in two different ways, where none is my favorite, however I feel more appreciative to Gene's acting. In my opinion it is harder to be witty crazy rather than weird crazy.

Burton also used scenes with young Willy showing a bit of his story. I find it a good move, but I had no feelings towards young Willy. I neither liked or disliked him.

SCENERY

Obviously, in 70s the resources and techniques were limited. You can see they tried, but the effects are not the greatest. Especially considering how much the movie makes you hyped for seeing this factory. It can be a disappointment. It didn't throw me off though. I can adjust my mind to the times the film was made. The big plus is the atmosphere though. Good ol' 70s times, when films and music felt so good to watch/listen.

Computer techniques once used, they usually give a good-to-look-at effect, especially in fantasy world. One condition - must be operated and supervised by competent people. I don't doubt they were while making the 2005 version, but sometimes it went over the top, this time in a bad way. It can be same disturbing as looking at someone photoshoping their selfie too much. Few scenes with kids involved were like that and it didn't look right. The factory itself looked way more interesting than in 1971 version. More colorful, chocolate fountain resembled chocolate more, any machinery and crazy equipment looked appealing and interestingly complex plus the reference to "2001: A Space Odyssey" makes you feel like "oh! it's 2001 reference! oh! (I'm so smart I got it)" once you notice it in a scene with TV room.

OTHER CHARACTERS and OTHER THINGS

Singing Umpa Lumpas were in both directors' visions, but Mel made the whole film more of a musical. It didn't bother me, I just swallowed it with other ingridients.

Umpa Lumpas themselves were funny and adorable element in both. Not just because of singing, but because of their size and how hard-working they were. However in this case I also tip my hat to Tim, whose Umpa Lumpas were way more amusing: they looked exactly the same, were even tinier than dwarves, so well synchronised (even if it is achieved through copy-pasting), they were funny in a lot of ways and you know their story more since you get to see the flashback of their original place of living.

Grandpa Joe in old version is a "strong" character as well. He is the type of old man you feel really warm when thinking about. It feels like he is a perfect grandpa - will always look after you, but you won't get bored with him either. 2005 grandpa Joe is not by far any worse. I would say you might feel even stronger about him when you know his story. He seems to be a good person, but the movie doesn't really show you much of his humours side if he has one.

It might look like I very much favour Tim Burton's version and indeed, I think I like it slightly more. Old version though, is still very good in its own way. It gave me the comfortable feeling while watching it and it still did a great work entertaining me. The most important character (Willy) was written perfectly and even if it's thanks to him why the movie is good, I don't mind that much.

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory 1971 - 7/10

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory 2005 - 8/10

Introduction

So, blogging.

Each one has its purpose. Mine might seem to be quite common, but at the same time, not very interesting, at least for most people.

This blog will be about... things. Things that are my thoughts. Thoughts that are in my brain. Promising description, I know.
It is actually hard to tell. I do like writing, but if I was to write a book, I would get lost in the first chapter, and then I would probably give up. It is easier if you write whenever you want about things that are currently occupying your mind. Those things are sometimes silly, but sometimes serious or funny or interesting. I will be commenting on stuff from various fields, including life, but not really my private one.

However, it is probably good to inctroduce myself, since some of my views and opinions will be strongly based on my experiences.
My name is Jagoda. Jagoda = Berry. That is why there is Berry in the title. Smart, isn't it?
I'm Polish immigrant living in Australia. I am a photographer, who is interested in artistic and visual things. This means I enjoy fiddling with graphical software, I enjoy watching and discussing movies, I enjoy playing video games, I obviously enjoy taking pictures and playing with pixels (in photographs as well as in a form of pixel art), I enjoy looking at people's works, no matter if it is artistic or commercial. I tend to be critical, but in a constructive way. I want people and myself to get better in things and when I know what can help with that, I say it and then watch the progress. I don't necessarily enjoy crushing people with my smart-ass opinions, so that they can get either depressed or feel unable of doing something better. But if it happens, well, I am sorry.
I also tend to make jokes (not always funny, but I like to think they are funny) about my "polishness" and "polishness" in general. I might also come out racist for many, but I don't consider myself a racist or intolerant person. How I see it, is that I speak openly about what I see around me. If I generalise, I do it to make things easier for me or clearer or funnier, but we all know there is not a single thing that applies to all. So if you see me talking about homosexuals, black people or muslims not in a way that you like, first consider if I trully insult them or I desribe my observations. I am prepared not everyone sits in  my head and can understand what I mean, but the truth is I don't hate differences. What I maybe hate is when anyone is in my way. Finishing this point - I write the blog for myself, but if you read it and disagree with something - feel free to say it. Say, not shout it in my face.
I am also into psychology (of humans and dogs), so yes, I might be a little bit philosophical about any aspect that involves thinking, reactions, behaviour and so on. Ironic is, like many people interested in psychology, I have issues with applying things to myself. I am a great adviser and helper for others though, if they need it (and pay enough*).
*Attention. That is a joke. I do * it in this case, but I won't be in other cases. So learn to recognise my not-funny jokes, before you consider them to be serious too quickly.
I don't really care about how many views I will get. However, if you do read me, feel free to comment or discuss. If you have any questions, ask them as well. I can't always promise I will answer to everything, but hey, worth to try.

One last thing that might appear on this blog - my little artistic attempts and experiments. I have ideas, but not always I manage to go through the whole creation process. But if I do, I might show it in here. The blog is still "Berry thinks", but "thinks" can sometimes overlap with "creates" and if it doesn't, who cares, I still can do what I want in here.

I think that's it for now.
So long.