English 569: Digital Media and English Studies

"I had to do that. I had to do that. What would he have done to me and all, you know, picture-wise and all of that?"
I do not think the murder of Hugh O’Connor was quite justified. Ison killed Hugh to sacrifice a blow to his own pride. He was worried about what people would think if they saw him engulfed in poverty, on film. I found it odd that because he was a product of his time and culture he was basically excused for murdering a man. Parole after one year in jail is hardly punishment for murder. I understand his anger toward people who were filming the poor, but he didn't "have to" kill a man who was leaving the premises of his property. So many Kentucky people were on Ison's side that they had a hard time finding jurors that had an unbiased opinion. This seems to say a lot about the ethics of many of the people in Kentucky at the time. They were willing to see a man murdered in order to protect their pride from suffering a blow. The film also said that O’Connor called Ison in advance to see if he could film Ison or some of his property. It seemed to me that O’Connor’s crew had respected Ison’s answer, seeing as they were on their way out of town when they saw a minor sitting on the front porch of a poverty stricken home. Did O’Connor’s crew know that this was one of Ison’s houses? If so would it have mattered? Even if the camera crew had stepped over their bounds, murder is a harsh price to pay. The camera crew was also listening to the threats from Ison and leaving the property when Ison shot O’Connor in the side. I thought Ison’s action and motive were cowardly.

Can filmmakers show poverty without shaming the people we portray.
Before I begin my argument I would like to make it clear that I do not believe that O’Connor’s death is justifiable. What I do believe is that filming people in a time of despair is crossing some major boundaries. I felt that the voices in the film reiterate that the only part of the community being captured on film was that of the poor. The people, like the filmmaker, with some wealth, were never interviewed. The film also shows that the people who were interviewed, the poor, were actually really hard workers. They worked six twelve-hour days for a measly six dollars a day. In this situation it is not their fault that they are not successful. I do understand that the filmmakers may have wanted the public to see the situation in order to make a change. But being filmed over and over again is crossing the line. To live as they unfortunately had to and to be constantly reminded by the filmmakers would get old real fast. I am sure they were not proud of the circumstances. I also think that the filmmakers had ulterior motives. I have a hard time believing that they were only there to help the people and for no other reason. I am sure they were there to benefit themselves by making money from their films. And to do so by capturing others misfortunes is a rotten thing to do. Even after all this said, if I am way off track and they were really only there to help; I can still understand why some people in the community would not want to be filmed. It is a hard question and cannot properly be answered without ever being in their (the people in Kentucky) shoes.

“Some filmmakers wanted to show that contrast to help bring about social change; others mined the images the way the companies mined the coal."

The key to all this is the use of the pictures/films. It is just as easy, or even easier, to make the poor look lazy or stupid, as it is to show them as hardworking and mistreated. The problem is that the people being filmed cannot differentiate between the two without seeing the finished product. Even outlining where the film is supposed to go can be misleading to the subjects, or an outright lie. I think this problem added to the mistrust of the filmmakers in Kentucky. Ison was wrong to kill O’ Connor, and there were not extenuating circumstances, but I do not think the feelings behind what he did were wrong. His anger was just exaggerated for the situation, especially since he was not being filmed, just his property. The problem is not an easy one to fix, it may even be impossible, without a lot of changes taking place in the world of journalism and documentary. The only time people can feel perfectly safe is when people stop using the pictures in unfair ways, and taking them out of context.

"[There is] a complex relationship between social action and social embarrassment."
As we watched the documentary, I was at first outraged at the murder. I could not believe that anyone would even stand up for Ison. Look at what he had done, and for no justifiable reason, at least in my opinion. Then I began not just to hear the words, but listen. The people of poverty in Kentucky were the ones being hurt and embarrassed by these films not the coal owners, or documentary makers. I agree that a call for social action was needed but at what cost? Were the lives of these people better for it? Or were they embarrassed and ashamed of there poverty because of it? There is a very complex relationship between social action and embarrassment and like wise; there is a thin line that should not be crossed. I still think Ison was wrong, but I also think that in his mind, that line was being crossed one more time and he could not take it.

I had to do that. I had to do that. What would he have done to me and all, you know, picture-wise and all of that?
In my opinion Hobert Ison did not have“to do that”. He took a human life by killing Hugh O’Connor which is wrong to do in any circumstance. I know that Hobert was as Hugh’s daughter said, “a product of his culture, place …”, but that does not justify the killing of a man. The law includes everyone living in the United States, even Kentucky. Hugh had a family and it seemed that he worked hard for a living doing what he loved. Hobert had no right to take that away. But, I can see why Hobert was upset and even scared about the picture-taking and the filming of his property and community because it was intrusive and the images could have been used in a negative way. But, it seems to me that this uneasiness of the people could have been lessened by Hugh informing the people of his exact goal/ vision for his film. He could have accomplished this by either organizing a town meeting or in some way getting this information out to the public. Then, if he had their permission to gather the images, maybe the killing would not have taken place. This information may have put the community and even Hobert’s mind at ease. Hugh could have shown them that his intentions were to try to make a positive film and not a film that embarrassed them or made them look bad as other filmmakers had done. I feel this would have helped because the quote from Hobart (at the top) seemed that he acted out of fear and uncertainty .So, if Hobert had the whole picture he could have made a more rational decision.

I would like to apologize in advance for the length of my response. Sorry.
Elizabeth Barret’s documentary presents an important issue that many documentary filmmakers and audiences may not consider: the subjects of documentaries are real people. Many documentary filmmakers specifically choose interviews and images that will strengthen and support the argument of the filmmaker. When viewing the final product (complete with music, commentary, etc.), it is easy for audiences to forget that the montage of faces and voices in the documentary belong to living, breathing, thinking human beings. I wonder if, when these human subjects agree to be interviewed and photographed, they are made completely aware of the filmmaker’s intentions. What if they aren’t?
Some documentary filmmakers want to use their skills to help others, and from their footage, they design a documentary to enlighten other people who might be willing to help. In doing this, the filmmaker himself/herself also discovers something about the subjects. However, some documentary filmmakers have no intention of discovering anything new. These people know exactly what they want to say before they even arrive, and they gather footage specifically to support that story. These two different methods of documentary making are expressed in Barret’s film when someone observes, “Some filmmakers wanted to show that contrast to help bring about social change; others mined the images the way the companies mined the coal."
In Stranger with a Camera, Barret poses the question: "What are the responsibilities of any of us who take the images of other people and put them to our own uses?" I wonder if the people of Eastern Kentucky understood the intentions of the filmmakers when they agreed to be interviewed and photographed. I think that it is very important for documentary creators to be honest and straightforward with the people who are the subjects of their films, for the sake of the people and themselves.
In the excerpts from the documentary made in 1967(?), the Kentuckians were made to look very foolish. The filmmaker combined images of the people with ridiculous music and lyrics that were very degrading to Kentuckians. If these people had known the filmmaker’s intentions, it is unlikely that they would have consented to being filmed. Whoever obtained the images for that documentary probably did so deceptively. This brand of documentary filmmaking reminds me of tabloid journalism; it is pathetic and not at all admirable.
After seeing such a disparaging portrayal of the lives of their people, I am not surprised that the Kentuckians were upset and o the offensive. Cameras are extremely intrusive and filmmakers can easily misconstrue and misrepresent their subjects by placing their images within negative contexts. I certainly do not condone the action taken by Hobart Isen and am appalled by the townspeople’s decision to support his crime. However, I think that there should be laws against misrepresenting people in documentaries, just as there are laws which protect people against slander and liable. We’ve all seen the violence and tragedy that can result when people don’t want to be filmed. Movie stars erupt when bombarded by the unwanted and aggressive attention of the media; Princess Diana died attempting to flee from it; and Hobart Isen killed Hugh O’Conner in order to prevent it. Was he wrong? Of course he was. Violence was not the answer; it never is. However, Isen’s excuse reflects the intimidating effect of the media: "I had to do that. I had to do that. What would he have done to me and all, you know, picture-wise and all of that?"

"stranger with a camera" was thought provoking documentary filmmaking because it made the audience care about the people and their differing views on how poverty is portrayed through the camera which always only tells part of a story. I liked the quote "can filmmakers show poverty without shaming the people they portray". I think filmmakers can show poverty without shaming the people they portray because i viewed the documentary at first feeling sorry for the kentucky coal miners families, then when i reavaluated the ramifications of these images when they ended up being mass produced over the entire country, it made me feel like the kentucky people had a point when they simply wanted to be left alone. This is the power of "stranger with a camera" because it shows the audience both sides of the argument in a expository manner.

In the film Stranger With a Camera we are presented with the idea of a "complex relationship between social action and social embarassment". Social action and collective behaviors are positively correlated although I am unsure of the definitive relation to social embarassement. In Stranger With a Camera the native Appalachians do not appear to be embarassed by their economic and particularly their social status yet the Good Old Boys afraid of Communists, Marxism or god forbid Beatnicks seem most embarrased. In reviewing the social action it appears that the social action taken was produced by outsiders who were stifled by the majority of the community both wealthy and poor. Stranger With a Camera has attributes of all the documentary styles however it is in my estimation that it can be best described as in reflexive style.

"There is a complex relationship between social action and social embarressment"
Because we only see the final result it is hard for us to see what Hobart Ison had gone through in his lifetime of living in that area of the country. It seems as if a lifetime of mistrust of strangers intentions led him to take matters into his own hands. Many times we have good intentions in mind when wanting to help someone we perceive as needing help, however some people do not want help from outsiders. Take for example the issue of domestic violence. As a good person I call the police when one spouse is beating up the other, the police arrive to the scene and haul someone away, the very instant the one spouse is able to get out of jail they get back together again and blame you the good samaritan for causing trouble. The point is that we have to be very careful when trying to intervene in some person or a groups affairs. emotions are already high and the threat of violence is their. Because they may be frustrated about some event in my life I may lash out at some perceived slight or insignificant act.

“There is a complex relationship between social action and social embarrassment.”

The locals who were trying to bring national attention to the poverty in the area were not those who were poverty-stricken; they were the middle class residents who saw the poverty every day. It may seem like a wonderfully altruistic thing for photographers and documentarians to bring the plight of poverty stricken people to the attention of others, and I’m sure these photos were taken by crews with the best intentions. But it would be hard to be a subject of those photographs. Most people do the best they can with what they have in life. It is very important to remember that these people have pride in their meager surroundings and they are proud of who they are on the inside.

The woman who made Stranger with a Camera seemed to feel that as one of the natives, she was in a better position to understand both sides of the story regarding the shooting of O’Connor. She made a point of saying more than once that these people were “right down the road from her”, or something like that. But I don’t think she was in any better position to understand that those who don’t live in the area because she did not live the same life as the poverty-stricken coal miners; she was middle class. Although she could walk by these poor people and see the way they lived, she, too, was just looking at a picture.

I thought it was telling when the coal miner who was being photographed at the time of the shooting said that he had lived a good life. He worked hard for everything he had, but life had been good. Perhaps it would be wise to sit down and talk to a man like this and find out if he needs help, and what society could do to help him, before assuming that publicizing his plight will solve his problems.

"Can filmmakers show poverty without shaming the people we portray?"

I think that it would be very difficult to how poverty without shaming the people. One way to possibly succeed in this would be to not focus on the impoverished financial aspects of peoples' lives, but on their lives in whole. Think of it as a primitive African tribe or something of that sort. Many impoverished people do not live their lives in poverty. Sounds ironic, doesn't it? What I mean is, they focus on things such as family togetherness and community more than material things. If they have grown up in poverty, although it is sad to us, it may be the only thing they know and some would not choose to live any other way. Barely getting by is sufficient for some people.

I think that if the filmmaker attacked the task in this manner, it may help to not shame the targeted individuals. While people who have not or do not live in poverty may see it, they can see how this culture survives and seeks happiness.

I honestly believe that Hobart Ison thought he was justified in the murder of Hugh O'Connor. From the story told by the people in Kentucky, Hobart and his family worshipped this land. So to Hobart the quote, " I had to do that. I had to do that. What would he have done to me and all, you know, picture-wise and all that", this probably was a sincere belief to him; however, I'm not saying he was right for what he did. He just may have simply felt that Hugh was going to portray him to America as a bad landowner who was not treating his tenants to the best of his ability, and he didn't want that. I can't say I feel the murder of any person is justified, even the murder of someone who kills someone else, I feel the death penalty is a little harsh, but I also think it would have been a waste of state funds to leave Hobart in prison for ten years, because if he honestly felt justified in what he did then ten years in prison was not going to change his mind. I am glad though that before he died he did get a chance to speak with Hugh's daughter, that may have helped him realize how wrong he was in murdering her father, at least I would hope. From what I seen in the film and the stories told about Hugh O'Connor, I honestly don't feel that he was trying to shame the Kentucky families. I think he was just trying to get across to America how much poverty there was and for that matter still is, in our country in an attempt to gain sympathy for the miners and their families.

In Ison's eyes he was justified to shoot O'Connor; though to outsiders he was not. The area that the film makers were interested in is an extremely poor area. Yet, the area is extremely rich in it's values of family, and love. It is unfortunate that O'Connor was shot trying to show this very love. There had been many Journaists and reporters in the hills for some time and no progress was being made to improve the economic conditions. Ison was protecting himself from these reporters, because the people of Appalachia have been looked on as being backward because of their views, and lifestyles reported in these articles. Sure his renters houses were run down but they had no problems making the rent on them and there was a roof over their heads. If the conditions were improved the rent would have to be raised then the tennants could not afford to stay there. These reporters had for a considerable time focused on the poverty in Eastern Kentucky and not on the solution to the poverty. When a man is backed into a corner one of two things is going to happen either he will lay down and quit or he is going to come out with both fists blazing. God help the people standing in the way.