Talk:Federico Borrell García
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is within the scope of WikiProject History of photography, a project to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the history of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||
|
|||||||
this article is an advertisement for PBS and it needs to be edited
Contents |
[edit] Confusing statement?
"...subsequent investigations confirmed that it is indeed authentic. The location has been identified and the direction of shadows in the photograph show that it was taken in the late morning, about 6 hours before Borrell was shot."
These lines in the article are confusing, the second sentence seems to contradict the first, saying that the previously proclaimed "authentic" photograph was taken 6 hours before the man died. Perhaps it is referring to the first image of Borrell but that is not clear. -- Miles (not registered) 12 Nov 07
[edit] Only one?
The Article states: he was the only member of the Columna Alcoyana to die in the fighting at Cerro Muriano that day. But the link has pics of another dying oldier that day. Any comment?--Tresckow 10:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a little confusing. However, the Columna Alcoyana was not the group of people fighting but the 'regiment' in Alicante where they came from. So the other soldier would not have necessarily been Columna Alcoyana. Macgruder 17:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I question the authenticity of the photo.
I am afraid the statement that “investigations confirmed that it is indeed authentic” is incorrect. I believe the following discussion will make clear that it is highly improbable that the photo is an authentic moment-of-death combat shot.
The existing pictures of the soldier and his unit prior to the famous photo (click the PBS link on the article page) show a group of militiamen who are clearly play-acting for the camera. Richard Whelan agrees, stating the soldiers “decided to play around a bit for the benefit of Capa's camera” and that “they pretended to fire.” They were definitely pretending, for in one picture two men have not cocked their Mausers, one does not even have his finger on the trigger, and nobody is operating the rifle bolts or doing anything other than pointing their guns. And they are awfully exposed for people being shot at - one would think they would be laying lower if bullets were flying. This creates a real problem - not only was Robert Capa capable of setting up shots (or at least photographing bogus combat with the intent of publication), he was actually doing it in the minutes and seconds before the “Falling Soldier” photo was taken, and had done so prior. There are a number of photos that of Republican troops pointing rifles at barricades and glaring steely-eyed over cannons that precede the point where Capa “finally found the front” (Capa’s words, based on photos and text from Richard Whelan’s “Capa: The Definitive Collection”).
Now let’s consider the “Falling Soldier” photos that were published in Vu magazine. For Robert Capa to get the famous picture, he would have had to have his camera wound, f/stop and shutter speed set (cameras then were not automatic), the focus pre-set, the camera up to his eye, his finger on the shutter button, and the decision to press made. If the photo is genuine, Capa would not have had time to realize the man had been shot before taking the picture. This is a real marvel of luck, but admittedly not impossible. However, Capa then does it again, being completely ready with his camera to get another picture of another man who was also just shot and who has also fallen back and away on a remarkably similar angle, who also has his eyes closed, who also has his mouth closed, who also has no visible wound, who has landed in the exact (and I mean EXACT) same spot (where there is no sign of the first casualty), and both in the same compositional position in the frame. Wow, that’s a lot of coincidence. Worse, the camera is about two-to-three feet above the ground, so Robert Capa was quite a target when the second soldier got shot. And Capa does not change his position at all, not left or right, not forward or back, not up or down. The two photos are taken from the exact same spot, of soldiers shot and fallen in the exact same spot.
Richard Whelan, Capa’s biographer and the lead proponent of the authentic-photo position, got a police detective to analyze the photo. Captain Franks found that the hand position was quite unnatural for a conscious person to have taken (Whelan has a fuller discussion of this is in the PBS article). If the hand position is as he states, then the photo would be pretty credible. But there is a visual perspective problem with this evidence. To look as it does in the photo, the soldiers hand is either palm up, fingers pointed towards the viewer (Whelan’s and Franks position), or it is palm down, fingers pointed away, which is consistent with the position that Captain Franks states a conscious person WOULD take. The photo is just not sharp enough to tell which way the hand is angled. However, there is a shadow on the outer edge of the palm that seems to indicate the hand it palm down, fingers away (but my testing is really crude and thus unreliable - perhaps some lighting specialist could provide some insight). This “definitive” evidence seems pretty inconclusive either way.
So, based on the photos alone, the authenticity appears pretty dubious to me, but let’s see what else can be revealed. Richard Whelan provides evidence of the identity of the victim which seems to positively identify him as Federico Borrell Garcia, and I believe he is right. As well as the evidence given on the PBS site, there is also an article (on some web site that I cannot find at the moment) with an earlier picture of Borrell which is quite convincingly similar. Whelan also places Capa in Cerro Muriano on the afternoon Borrell was killed by finding the pictures of the same refugees taken by other photographers. And that creates another problem. Capa’s refugee pictures were taken in the afternoon, after the “Falling Soldier” photo (according to Capa’s own photo chronology system). Borrell was killed at about 5 o’clock in the afternoon. The shadows visible on and around the refugees are almost precisely the same as that in the “Falling Soldier” photo: it’s almost the same time. Same day, almost the same time, and afternoon shadows move quite quickly. Did Robert Capa really stop taking pictures just when combat started (and combat photography got interesting) and leave an exposed hillside under fire, then drive to the refugees, who are on different terrain and show no signs of being near gunfire (they are not running or hunkering; they are just walking), covering the distance in a very short period of time?
So, do you believe Richard Whelan when he states that “there can be no further doubt that The Falling Soldier is a photograph of Federico Borrell García at the moment of his death during the battle at Cerro Muriano on September 5, 1936"? I personally tend to think these photos were taken that morning, and that Borrell was coincidentally killed that afternoon. There is far less coincidence in that than in any possibility that the photo is authentic. I found a Spanish-language website (http://www.photographers.it/articoli/patricio_hidalgo.htm) that claims to show modern pictures of the place the picture was taken, and the appropriate shadow angle comes in the morning, not the evening. I have no way to confirm they were at the right spot, though.
Believe it or not, I really like Richard Whelan’s biography of Capa. I just think he is most likely wrong on this small point. And Robert Capa was a very interesting, full-of-life person whose work I like and admire. I bet he was a lot of fun to be around. And I forgive him if he did stage the “Falling Soldier,” as he was a very young man, a very passionate anti-fascist, on his first trip into a war zone, and he had first seen real combat only days before.
I find it interesting that I could find no picture after the Borrell shots that look staged - he apparently learned that he did not have to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.170.218 (talk) 06:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Shown to be authentic? I don't think so.
How does the angle of the shadows and identification of the location prove that this is actually a photo of a man being killed? The overwhelming evidence is that this photo was staged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.109.109 (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
