Leica 100 commercial

[Ken Nadvornick]

Sheesh, never mind all this camera stuff, what on earth is going on at 1:13 to 1:15 of the ad pointed to in the original post??? That looks a bit more like propaganda than creative license.

"It was while covering the Vietnam War for the Associated Press that [Eddie Adams] took his best-known photograph – the picture of police chief General Nguyễn Ngọc Loan executing a Vietcong prisoner, Nguyễn Văn Lém, on a Saigon street, on February 1, 1968, during the opening stages of the Tet Offensive.

"Adams won the 1969 Pulitzer Prize for Spot News Photography and a World Press Photo award for the photograph..."

— Excerpt from the Wikipedia article Eddie Adams (photographer)



"Two people died in that photograph: the recipient of the bullet and GENERAL NGUYEN NGOC LOAN. The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapons in the world. People believe them; but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths. ... What the photograph didn't say was, 'What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American people?'.... This picture really messed up his life. He never blamed me. He told me if I hadn't taken the picture, someone else would have, but I've felt bad for him and his family for a long time. ... I sent flowers when I heard that he had died and wrote, "I'm sorry. There are tears in my eyes."

— Photographer Eddie Adams, Time magazine article, 1998

 

[jon koss]

Yes, I understand that there is an iconic image of a Vietnamese general executing a Vietnamese prisoner. So why has the shooter suddenly become so American-looking in the video?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Because it was the iconic nature of the image being showcased, not the historical facts depicted within it. None of the depictions in the ad video used the original photographs. They are all recreations intended to tweak the viewer's memories. Few of that era will have forgotten that searing image.

Ken

 

[jon koss]

The image is iconic only because of the historical facts depicted. The snippet reeks of Orwellian revisionism. The other photos in the video stream seem like fairly straight recreations. Why has our Asian executioner suddenly become a Westerner?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

The image is iconic only because of the historical facts depicted.

I disagree. You recognized it's iconic nature instantly, even with the historically incorrect subject matter. As did I. So obviously it was some other aspect of the image, beyond the basic historical facts, that resided within each of our memories that made it iconic to us.

It's not Orwellian revisionism as you are defining it here because the iconic nature of the photograph does not depend on the nationalities of the subjects. It depends on the interaction occurring between the subjects. It's what's happening to them that sears. The arbitrary brutality itself. Not to whom it's happening. It could be anybody. On either side of the gun. Anywhere in the world. During any point in human history.

It's the raw act itself, caught and forever frozen on film, that lingers in our memories.

Ken

 

[Double Negative]

Full info and details here, along with a working video (and posted well before Petapixel, who lists the wrong source):

http://lavidaleica.com/content/new-leica-100-videoadvertisement

 

[ciniframe]

Slick (and slippery) ad. I guess no more egregious that many other ads for products that are just sure to make you beautiful, smart, and 'in with the in crowd'.

 

[jon koss]

I recognized its perverted nature instantly, because of the historically incorrect subject matter. So clearly the historical facts pertain. The original execution image is primarily an icon of something we now capitalize and call The Vietnam Era. So is the photo of the 'napalm girl', if I may engage in shorthand. Nobody looks at these images and thinks of the firebombing of Dresden or the slaughter at Gettysburg or Al Capone offing a snitch. To say otherwise is prima facie silly.

What if the Leica video showed a black fellow lancing a white person in a corruption of 'The Soiling of Old Glory'. Would you still say that such historical liberties were benign?

I disagree. You recognized it's iconic nature instantly, even with the historically incorrect subject matter. As did I. So obviously it was some other aspect of the image, beyond the basic historical facts, that resided within each of our memories that made it iconic to us.

It's not Orwellian revisionism as you are defining it here because the iconic nature of the photograph does not depend on the nationalities of the subjects. It depends on the interaction occurring between the subjects. It's what's happening to them that sears. The arbitrary brutality itself. Not to whom it's happening. It could be anybody. On either side of the gun. Anywhere in the world. During any point in human history.

It's the raw act itself, caught and forever frozen on film, that lingers in our memories.

Ken

 

[AgX]

I found that "Alma" film disgusting because it uses war as means for advertizing a product.

I guess most people of my age in Germany would share this view.

I also reject those war reenactment shows. Luckily they do not exist in Germany around where I live.
But I know from experience that abroad views and perceptions are quite different.

 

[cowanw]

As I said, caveat emptor.

Ken

Yes I understand "caveat emptor".
It seems a shame that there is no expectation of truth from the transmitter of the information and the onus for discerning truth lies with the receiver of the information.
I expect this comes from society that allows anything, including "known to be lies", to be said.
There was a time when truth and honour were values to be admired and expected.
I still believe most people are not quite that cynical and want to believe they are being told the truth at least at a personal level.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I don't much like it, I find it to be a collection of poor fakes.

Exactly my thoughts. I stopped it halfway and moved on I was so bored with the feeble attempts.

 

[blockend]

The first 35mm camera pre-dated the commercial release of the Leica by nineteen years. Many of the photographs reproduced were originally shot with SLRs or medium format cameras. How is a picture shot on a Rolleiflex made "because of Leica"? It was created on paper backed roll film by a camera with two lenses, which is about as far from "because" as you can get. I can't begin to comprehend the justification for stretching history so far, even in the hubristic world of Leica.

 

[jon koss]

Thank you for reminding us of the big picture, AgX. I certainly had lost sight of the forest for the trees.

J

I found that "Alma" film disgusting because it uses war as means for advertizing a product.

I guess most people of my age in Germany would share this view.

I also reject those war reenactment shows. Luckily they do not exist in Germany around where I live.
But I know from experience that abroad views and perceptions are quite different.

 

[digital&film]

I don't much like it, I find it to be a collection of poor fakes.

I agree.. like the Motown Song says: "Ain't nothin' like the Real Thing!"

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I recognized its perverted nature instantly, because of the historically incorrect subject matter. So clearly the historical facts pertain. The original execution image is primarily an icon of something we now capitalize and call The Vietnam Era. So is the photo of the 'napalm girl', if I may engage in shorthand. Nobody looks at these images and thinks of the firebombing of Dresden or the slaughter at Gettysburg or Al Capone offing a snitch. To say otherwise is prima facie silly.

What if the Leica video showed a black fellow lancing a white person in a corruption of 'The Soiling of Old Glory'. Would you still say that such historical liberties were benign?

OK... I'm willing to try approaching this from a different direction.

I am aware of the circumstances and basic background knowledge surrounding the scene in question. At the point I first watched it, I took no personal offense. But very obviously you took extreme offense. I don't know you or your background. So perhaps there are other variables at work here of which I am unaware.

I saw an attempt to recreate the sense of a grayish faded memory of an iconic image. This included the basic elements of the original composition, but very intentionally not a perfect recreation. That dramatic license further mimics our own memories. Included in this intentionally close-but-not-perfect recreation was a less than perfect pair of subjects. Just close enough in placement to tweak the viewer's memory of the original photograph.

For me all of that subtlety did what it was intended to do. It worked for me, as did similar grayish treatments of the other iconic images. (Please note that those brave Marines did not plant that flag on the moon.)

What was it that you saw? Or did not see? And more importantly, what was it that so extremely offended you?

Ken

 

[pbromaghin]

OK... (Please note that those brave Marines did not plant that flag on the moon.)

Ken

And there was a guy missing - specifically Ira Hayes on the far left. Why was the Native American left out?!?! Call Ward Churchill! He'll get to the bottom of it.

 

[jon koss]

Jeez, I am not so sure that posting a few lines on APUG constitutes taking extreme offense, lol. At risk of repeating, what I saw was the insertion of an Ugly American triggerman into an image where no Ugly American had gone before.

Next I am going to tackle the question of just what Joe Rosenthal was implying when he placed Ira Hayes on the far left of the moon photo.

J

OK... But very obviously you took extreme offense...
For me all of that subtlety did what it was intended to do. It worked for me, as did similar grayish treatments of the other iconic images. (Please note that those brave Marines did not plant that flag on the moon.)

What was it that you saw? Or did not see? And more importantly, what was it that so extremely offended you?

Ken