What I liked most about this movie is how well it presents the internal conflict that must go on inside war correspondents (unless they're completely emotionally detached).
On one hand, war photographers do an important job in showing outsiders what's going on in a conflict. On the other hand, is it really OK for someone to take pictures of another person getting burned to death in the hopes that one of those pictures is going to land them their dream job? The film does not try to push a correct answer down your throat. It does not try to justify the actions of any characters by making them local heroes later in the film (although it almost goes down that road at one point). Instead, it leaves the viewers to decide for themselves whether or not the actions of the characters are OK.
The one thing I would have liked being left out and for which I pulled points for was the romantic story line between one of the photographers and the picture editor of the magazine he ends up working for. You could spot that story line the second the two characters in question meet for the first time. It gave the film a pinch of typical Hollywood taste and it took away a bit of focus from the actual issue at hand. On the other hand, the film managed to not make this romantic connection the main focus at any point. It just happened and then it tagged along for the rest of the film, which I guess is why it bothered me so much. Why not just leave it out completely?
A lot of the imagery in this movie is horrible to watch, so it's definitely not for people with a weak stomach. But it's still worth watching, simply because it tells the story from a side that you usually don't get to see a conflict from and because it raises some very interesting questions about ethics.
On one hand, war photographers do an important job in showing outsiders what's going on in a conflict. On the other hand, is it really OK for someone to take pictures of another person getting burned to death in the hopes that one of those pictures is going to land them their dream job? The film does not try to push a correct answer down your throat. It does not try to justify the actions of any characters by making them local heroes later in the film (although it almost goes down that road at one point). Instead, it leaves the viewers to decide for themselves whether or not the actions of the characters are OK.
The one thing I would have liked being left out and for which I pulled points for was the romantic story line between one of the photographers and the picture editor of the magazine he ends up working for. You could spot that story line the second the two characters in question meet for the first time. It gave the film a pinch of typical Hollywood taste and it took away a bit of focus from the actual issue at hand. On the other hand, the film managed to not make this romantic connection the main focus at any point. It just happened and then it tagged along for the rest of the film, which I guess is why it bothered me so much. Why not just leave it out completely?
A lot of the imagery in this movie is horrible to watch, so it's definitely not for people with a weak stomach. But it's still worth watching, simply because it tells the story from a side that you usually don't get to see a conflict from and because it raises some very interesting questions about ethics.