BagNews Archives About Staff BagNews is a progressive site dedicated to visual politics and the analysis of news images.
Monday, February 13, 2012

Twitter

@bagnewsnotes »
Advertisement



September 13, 2007

Alive Day: Beyond The Mind’s Eye

Anderson-Humvee

Anderson-Explosion1

Anderson-Explosion2

My first piece for American Photo is on-line.

It takes issue with the still photographs of injured war veterans created in conjunction with the HBO program “Alive Day.” (The “alive day” is the date a particular soldier suffered, but survived a catastrophic injury.)  For some reason, most likely a commercial one, the soldiers are posed in such a uniform and stereotyped manner that it frustrates the point of portraiture.

I hope you’ll take a look at it, and show some “BAG presence” by commenting at American Photo’s fine State of the Art blog.

On the subject of the program itself, I know I was critical of the staging and the role of James Gandolfini.  Having now watched the program on-line, I thought Gandolfini did a tasteful, warm and smartly inconspicuous job.  There were a couple other elements to the production that were also interesting from a visual perspective.

One thing I was fascinated by was just how much video documentation — from both the U.S. and the insurgent side — seems to be available of the battlefield.  We are all familiar with the number of surveillance cameras in public/civilian spaces, and how quickly authorities seem to be able to reconstruct video accounts of incidents after the fact.  What is more novel and less familiar, however, is how much the same can be done from a particular field encounter or IED detonation, which this documentary seems to take full advantage of.

I’m not sure if the shot of Sgt. Anderson from the “humvee cam” was taken on his “alive day,” or not.  (Notice all the documentation Jonathan Bartlett has of his attack, however, or the web-cam footage of the blast that hit Jay Wilkerson’s humvee.)  I also can’t say if the insurgent-shot attack footage that HBO shows for each soldier is the actual one that involved them.  Although I’m thinking many of these sequences do.

Just the sense that it is, or easily could be, however, has all kinds of new implications for the veterans relationship to his personal cataclysm. Whereas these experiences used to be exclusive to memory, how different is it to witness, as well as to own a copy of how your old life ended when you arms or legs were blown off — one you could review anytime, edit, and share with family or friends?

—-

Update 9/14/07:

I wrote to to the HBO publicist for clarification about the “attack” videos paired with each soldier in the program.  The response is as follows (italics mine): 

“The insurgent supplied video mirrors the kind of attack each soldier/marine was involved in.  The insurgent video matches the attack and was carefully vetted by HBO military advisors.”

So one more question here: Should the program or caption somehow indicate that these are not the actual incidents where the individual soldier was injured, or are we expected to know that?  Also, given that “friendly” web cams capture some of the actual attacks, doesn’t that just further blur the line?

(image via HBO Documentary Films and Attaboy Films)

  • http://wonderworldofbooks.blogspot.com/ Books Alive

    Whereas these experiences used to be exclusive to memory, how different is it to witness, as well as to own a copy of how your old life ended when you arms or legs were blown off — one you could review anytime, edit, and share with family or friends?
    Can we hope that maybe such documentation will result in less enthusiasm for going to war? The “Alive Day” veterans shared their bitterness and resignation in their interviews; the show’s subtitle indicates determination to overcome their injury as well. I hope there is more publicity for the program. My thanks go to Paul Rieckhoff of IAVA, whose email contained the link to the video.
    http://www.hbo.com/aliveday/thefilm/?ntrack_para1=feat_main_image

  • lytom

    So much to react to.
    First, emotional reaction, yes the feeling sorry, even though I know that is not helpful to the ones who are injured and have to live with challenges every minute of their life. Can’t help, but to admire each individual and the ways they mentally deal with terrible loss and hurts of their body and how they survive the second “alive day” every living day of their life.
    Second, comes the reaction and feeling of frustration, that probably all viewers have the same, their first reaction, and do not let in the awful facts of how the soldiers in the first place got to Iraq.
    To my mind comes political and military brainwashing of population, who will justify their support for their country doing wrong things and that will go on and on…producing more of hurt of their own people.
    Lastly, I did not hear much of a compassion for Iraqi, who also have their casualties and innocent second “alive days”. Did not hear much of a reflection, though some, have started seeing through the fog.
    One fact remains, all these injuries have occurred on foreign land – Iraq, and most likely were caused by people, who live in that country and who have right to their views on how they want to live and the reasons, why they do not want foreign army taking over their land. One more observation, those soldiers were not hurt unarmed, they had in their possession guns and high technology to cause harm, the minute they would have chance.

  • PTate in FR

    I’m still mulling over Alan Chin’s 9/11 photos, and your comment in that thread that “Overall, I am fascinated how much we Americans have been politically and socially conditioned to think, look and see everything in life in terms of strength and weakness (or winning and losing)….the pictures of war we are fed are not what war really looks like, because the “real” pictures would be more than we could handle.”
    “…the real pictures would be more than we could handle.” For some reason the image of the wounded soldier–discussed in your essay for American Photo–made me think of the portraits of the dead done in the 19th century.
    Your question in this thread, “how different is it to witness, as well as to own a copy of how your old life ended when you arms or legs were blown off — one you could review anytime, edit, and share with family or friends?” focuses on individual experience as opposed to the public context in which these photos are being presented. Your question is a fascinating one, but I’m more interested in the public context right now, in that set of cultural assumptions that conditions us to see in certain ways. The US media spins their narrative by focusing on the narrow human interest story, the personal experience. What they ignore is the broad historical and cultural perspective that allows us to see our interdependencies. We miss the forest for the leaves on the trees. It seems to me that how individual soldiers view their Alive Day will be a function of their cultural conditioning although it will be told as an individual tale.
    The US invasion of Iraq has already lasted longer than WW2, but the personal impact on most Americans has been more media-hype and posturing than real. In 2003, the push for war was unstoppable. It was as if the US had dredged up all the ugly emotional residue stuffed away since the end of the Vietnam war and started lobbing it at each other: the right-wing charges that the Democrats were weak on defense, didn’t support the troops, pulled out too soon and the left-wing anti-war, anti-USA rhetoric. It was as if we needed to work through those emotional conflicts before we could begin to come to grips with what was actually happening in the world today. It was Military Invasion as psychodrama.
    At the start of the war, “support the troops” was the battle-cry of the Right, and the charge had great power. Now, four years later, the charge is not as potent, but it is still there, and Bush still makes it regularly. It seems to have been resolved by everyone agreeing that supporting the US troops is our #1 priority in Iraq and in the US. They are all heroes, 24/7/365.
    But we are confronted by these pictures of wounded war veterans, and, wow, we can view the videos that show the explosions that wounded them. We are asked to imagine ourselves in the prothesis of these heroes. And yet the photography from Iraq is highly censored. We don’t see images of the dead. We don’t see pictures of car-bombings. The kind of Vietnam-era war photography that played a role in eroding public support has been banned.
    So what is going on here? I wonder if these photos of injury serve the cultural function of allowing us to dwell on the wrongs that have been done to “us” (the post 9/11 mind-set?), and, so consumed by our own suffering, we can justify the immorality of what we have inflicted on Iraq?
    “…the real pictures would be more than we could handle.”

  • lytom

    Another soldier’s view on … in a new film “Body of War.”
    http://www.bodyofwar.com/

  • http://home.comcast.net/~sfs73/index.html MonsieurGonzo

    how truly weird, that Verité of ‘insurgent released video’ -v- American empTeeVee be.