Don McCullin TV Programme

[Mike Farley]

I do not know what is happening at the BBC's Imagine series, but for the second week in a row it is featuring a photographer. Perhaps togs are becoming fashionable? Last week it was Vivien Maier and Don McCullin is featured tomorrow evening on BBC 1 at 10:35 PM. The programme is 95 minutes long, so for those who might not be able to stay awake until after midnight could want to set their video recorders.

Last year I saw two exhibitions of McCullin's work which were being shown simultaneously at the Imperial War Museum and Tate Britain. His work is awesome and how he got some of the shots he did when under fire is beyond me. He certainly did not shirk from danger and among the exhibits at the IWM was his ruined Nikon, which was shattered when it stopped a bullet which would otherwise have undoubtedly killed him.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b036j3fp

At the age of 77 McCullin recently went with The Times newspaper to Aleppo to photograph the conflict in Syria and although he was disappointed with the results he got, it is remarkable that he was there at all. The man is indefatigible and I am really looking forward to seeing this broadcast.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20710432

[davidc]

Firing bullets at Nikons is something I definitely approve of.

[davidc]

Please note the Imperial War Museum is closed until the end of July.

[Rose]

I watched this last night - I didn't mean to stay up so late but once I started I was hooked and couldn't switch off. A strange man in many ways... certainly arrogant and self centred, but very aware of the power of his images. It would have been very interesting to have seen what he would have produced had he been allowed to go to the Falklands... and how that might have changed our perceptions of that conflict as a result.

[Mike Farley]

Thanks for the review, Rose. I had set the video to record the programme, so straight after the weatherman had told us what the weather will not be doing today, I turned the TV off to avoid getting engrossed.

I suspect that DM's skills in getting powerful and emotive images were the very reason why he was not allowed to go to the Falklands. Photographs from the Vietnam War such as Nick Ut's image of a naked girl running away from the scene of a napalm attack had been part of the reason why so many in the US turned against the conflict.

Another well known image from the era taken by Eddie Adams of a Vietnamese police commander summarily executing a Vietcong suspect in the street was also influential. On seeing it our instinctive reaction is one of foul play, but I recently heard another explanation which puts the picture into a perspective which a single photo cannot portray. Apparently such executions were common in Saigon at the time as there was no front line and nowhere where prisoners could be sent. Added to this, the victim had himself just been responsible for the deaths of the family of one of the policeman's friends. Distinctions between right and wrong get very blurred in such situations.

The Falklands War took place in a remote part of the world with limited access and this allowed the authorities considerable control over reporting, unlike the Balkans or Libya for example. Had McCullin been allowed to go, and I join you in wishing he had, we might well now have a different view of what happened, but not necessarily a more accurate one.

[davidc]

Apparently the reason why he wasn't allowed to go to the Falklands was bureaucratic rather than political, in that all the press passes had been allocated. He doesn't seem to be publically refuting that either, so more a case of "bad luck" than censorship perhaps?

[Mike Farley]

Apparently the reason why he wasn't allowed to go to the Falklands was bureaucratic rather than political, in that all the press passes had been allocated. He doesn't seem to be publically refuting that either, so more a case of "bad luck" than censorship perhaps?

If I recall correctly from last year's exhibition at the IWM, the problem might have been practical in that anyone covering the war from the British side had to be allocated a place on military transport and DM applied too late to be considered. The military had higher priorities than the needs of togs and journos, after all. That said, the Falklands War was notable for the way that media coverage was closely controlled, with Ian MacDonald's dry and carefully worded announcements being the main source of news. Those restrictions also gave rise to Brian Hanrahan's famous expression "I counted them all out and I counted them all in" when relating those details he could of an early Harrier sortie.

DM was very well known at the time and did appeal the decision. His presence could have been a coup in propaganda terms, but lack of space would be a credible excuse if someone had wanted to prevent him going. I doubt if we will ever know for certain, though.

[Paul Heester]

Watched this over the weekend and was just amazed at the man himself. He comes over as relatively unharmed throughout all the wars he has covered, a major achievement considering the number of executions he has witnessed and scenes of utter grief. And yet he spoke with lots of measured insight and wisdom.

We have certainly seen the last of the true war photographers. Judging by this programme it was the US public's reaction to Vietnam that showed the power photographs can have.

[davidc]

We have certainly seen the last of the true war photographers.

Why do you say this?

[Mike Farley]

There is no doubt that images from Vietnam played a part in influencing public opinion as already mentioned earlier in this thread. This was probably one of the reasons that journalists and photographers were "embedded" with troops during the Iraq war, which lead to criticism that this curtailed press freedom. But there have been plenty of other wars where photographers have been able to operate freely and, from what I understand, no shortage of people wanting to make their names by covering them.

What has changed since Vietnam is the way photos are published. There used to be a number of magazines such as Life, Picture Post, Paris Match etc. dedicated to publishing images, but these have long been superseded first by television and now the Internet. Arguably this makes it more difficult to find pictures which create an impact as there are fewer picture editors commissioning photographers and selecting images to present to the public. We are sharing more pictures than ever before, but the imagery just is not capturing the public's attention in the same way.

Here's a question for you. Name two well known photographers. Chances are that unless you are very knowledgeable about photography, your answer will be along the lines of "Ansel Adams and the other one". The other one being someone such as Henri Cartier Bresson, David Bailey, Edward Weston, Robert Capa, Lee Miler or Sebastian Delgado. What these people all have in common is that they made their reputations in previous eras. Who are their contemporary equivalents? I have no doubt that the Don McCullins et al of our day are out there taking superb photos, but they do not have the same appeal as those who have gone before them. We are more likely to see blurry and shaky footage taken on a cameraphone by an anonymous participant than a truly memorable image.