Colleen Jaskot, Movie Reflection

It’s a ruthless business, war photography, with journalists just hoping someone will die so they can get the perfect picture.
That is, unless they are war photographer James Nachtwey, on their knees begging for someone not to be killed.
The documentary War Photographer follows the experiences of Nachtwey and the hardships he has faced with his job, including, as he puts it, making a living off of other people’s pain. Nachtwey has photographed war and poverty all over the world. He has won numerous prizes for his photographs, because he gets right up close to the action.
The problem with other war photographers and journalists, according to Reuters cameraman Des Wright in the documentary, is that they distance themselves from what is going on. According to Wright, they say, “I’m sorry, I’m a journalist, I’m not part of this.” They do not get in the middle of things and act like they are not involved. Nachtwey, however, is the one who is right there, telling people there is no point in killing someone, and that is precisely why he gets such good pictures—because he gets involved with what is going on.
I think one of the biggest questions for journalists is balancing the line between being an objective observer and a human being who is part of the world, and that is a main issue in the film. Personally, I think that it is not even a question. You are always a human being first and a journalist second. A journalist is not doing a favor to society by taking a picture of someone dying, instead of trying to stop it. As Wright describes in the documentary, some journalists take themselves too seriously, letting their ambitions and the competitiveness of the business to get the best picture or story get in the way. They stand back, excusing themselves because they are journalists, as if that excuses them from trying to stop someone from being killed. Just standing by and watching it happen is just as bad as being a part of it. Yes, journalists are supposed to be objective, but how can anyone be objective about another human being dying?
Nachtwey is living proof that that doesn’t need to happen for a war photographer to get good pictures. He does not stand back and watch, but instead is right where the action is; he treats people with respect, which is why they welcome him into their homes to take pictures of them grieving their dead from war.
That issue, for me, was the most memorable part of the film, and something that I think was not even stressed enough. It is slow moving at times, but it did allow all the horrible images of what Nachtwey has seen and photographed to sink in. At the end, the question of whether taking pictures really do anything to help still lingers, but those questions are answered, maybe as well as they can ever be answered, with a letter from someone who saw Nachtwey’s photographs that says they will try to donate money to one of the poor families Nachtwey photographed. Nachtwey’s comments at the end are compelling too. He says that maybe photography is the opposite of war, and he hopes that through photography, he can bring an end to it. Maybe that is an overly ambitious goal, but one thing is certain—that journalists who stand by while people die definitely do not help.