World Press Photo & Klatsassin
I’m not a photographer. I don’t pretend to know a single thing about photography. I judge a picture based on the emotional reaction it creates within me. It’s all I’ve got. So when I attended the 2007 World Press Photo exhibition and was put into emotional overdrive, I was quick to pronounce the work of World Press Photo as something profoundly important, though I couldn’t really explain why.
I then happened upon a description from Michele McNally, the Chair of the Jury of World Press Photo’s annual photojournalism contest, of what makes a great press photograph:
“I believe it should be historical, defining a particular time, place, and event. It should be sociological, explaining what people do and what people do to each other. It should have a psychological and emotional tone, making the viewer feel something. It should also have an aesthetic component, drawing in the viewer, urging them to learn more about the story the picture is telling. Above all, it should be truthful.” (World Press)
And there I had my explanation, though it didn’t sit right with me. Indeed, each and every photo in the exhibition is sociological, emotional, visually compelling and I’ll even give the photographers the benefit of the doubt and say that they are each truthful.
But what happens when you take the exhibition as a whole? Certainly, the exhibition remains sociological, emotional and visually compelling, but what of truth? The exhibition paints the same dreary picture that we see on the news and the papers every day – only it does so more effectively because of the quality of photography. Is this then a representation of truth, or a perpetuation of the same stories and images that filter their way through Western journalists each and every day? While the photos may all be true on an individually, how can we be receiving the whole truth when every story speaks of tragedy, death and corruption? In fact, the only images that seemed to come with any positive connotation from areas such as the Middle East and Africa were of animals.
Despite the brilliance within, the World Press Photo 2007 exhibition ultimately fails to achieve what its own chair believes to be the most important reason for its being – truth.
“World Press Photo Exhibition – TORONTO.” 18 Sep. 2007 <http://picturesfestival.com/worldpress01.html>
Before attending the World Press Photo exhibition, I took in another at Montreal’s Darling Foundry where I saw a film called Klatsassin by Stan Douglas as part of Montreal “mois de la photo” presentation. You’ll have to excuse me though. You see, I didn’t actually watch the whole thing. As a matter of fact, I would say that it’s highly unlikely that anyone ever has, save for perhaps Mr. Douglas himself. Klatsassin runs an ungodly 70 hours. It tells the story of the same murder in 850 different permutations.
I’m actually OK with that. Clearly this is a film that was never meant to be viewed in its entirety. There is probably a good reason for that – a reason that might even be somewhat intriguing. And I might even be somewhat compelled to find out what that reason is if I didn’t find the ten minutes that I sat through so agonizing.
I’m not going to pull out the Ebert-style review here. Instead, let me simply list the five things I found most annoying about the film, and leave it at that.
5. The accents. I don’t even know what kinds of accents these were supposed to be, but no two sounded even slightly the same. It’s set in 1864, but one guy sounded like he had been hauled straight out of the OC.
4. One of the guys wore sunglasses. It’s freaking 1864!! Are you kidding me?!
3. The sound. Every punch and gun blast is muted and there’s no soundtrack. I guess they blew their budget on editing.
2. Parts of the film are shot in sort of a documentary interview style. The characters sit down and talk directly to the camera as they’re interviewed (Just like in The Office). Only you can’t hear the interviewer. It’s surprisingly disconcerting to hear only one side of an interview. You can see the actors reacting to the interviewer, but we can`t hear it. Why would they do this? Maybe they couldn’t find an interviewer with an appropriate accent.
1. Just look at that mustache. Can you imagine having to stare at that mustache for 10 minutes, let alone 70 hours?
