I thought one of the essays mentioned the idea that neither was "staged," but rather that one of the photos was taken before the army had passed the road and the other after (they had cleared it so they could pass)?

I would go look for it, but it's a million words long.

am i an idiot because i don't understand what these photos are all about, or is errol morris just really, really boring?

i starting reading the article. errol morris is, in fact, really, really boring.

That is a way too long article about two fairly boring photos with many many many boring intereviews. I understand what he was getting at, but my god. It was pretty obvious that the ON photo came first, no? Couldn'y he just use occam's razor and be done with it. Can Errol get back to doing something I am interested in, or is he going to continue to make crappy segments for the Oscar's that are "amazing" because he did it and would be absolute crap if anyone else did it, Make a documentary for god's sake.

by the way: Error Morris?

that's such a meta-typo!

Actually, the OFF photo came first.

I think these articles are great, and would love to see him continuing to post more things like this.

And you should be aware that it's precisely this type of research and analysis that makes his movies great, and I'm sure his thoughts in these essays will come out in one way or the other in his upcoming Abu Ghraib documentary.

That is what I meant. The OFF.

This type of research is also what makes him batshit crazy.

"It was pretty obvious that the ON photo came first, no? Couldn't he just use occam's razor and be done with it."

Have you read his blog post about the Hooded Man in Abu Ghraib?

come ON...

ERROR morris! and it was an ERROR!!!

I did read that. Now that was an interesting blog. Mainly because it wasn't a three part series on two bland photographs that hold zero interest to the greater public. It was about an iconic photo and the misleading nature of photography.

That said, I still think that it is obvious that the OFF photo was first. If you had a gun to your head and had to choose which one came first, which would you choose? The one that looks possibly staged or the one that doesn't. I just think he spent a lot of time on two photos. I liked CSI-like investigation he did, but it just was way too long for something so trivial.

I like how it was obvious to LAA that both the ON and OFF photos came first.

Why did these articles almost break firefox? I guess out of dullness.

They didn't break my firefox.

my firefox, too, jon! dullness and ridiculous LENGTH. i admit i just had to stop, couldn't get through part i. oh, well. all i care about is MY OWN aesthetic judgment of the two photos, and i prefer the OFF. the ON one is crap.

No way, Jess. There's so much more balance and light and composition in the ON one.

Oh wait, no there isn't. They're practically the same photo. In fact, at first I thought they WERE the same photo.

Reading too quickly, I thought your post said the photos were taken 150 years *apart*, which made it a particularly compelling enigma.

After discussing this with Jon May and LAA, I have visited the essay for myself and marveled at Errol Morris for caring enough to investigate in the first place. It's well written enough, and clearly the guy's hunger for correct detail is an asset when creating large works of fiction, but I still can't bring myself to care.

Did you mean large works of nonfiction?

please. like any of that vietnam stuff actually happened.

Well, I didn't MEAN large works of nonfiction, but clearly I should have. I'm not really a film person. (Anyway, details are much easier to keep track of when they're real.)

I dunno... the minutiae of star trek, star wars, middle earth, etc. are legendary.

Details are also easier to keep track of when there is a LEGION OF DORKS obsessed with your universe. Wanna see a close-up of Peter Petrelli's passport?