 |
 |
HBO: How did you come to Kevin Carter, and what
compelled you to want to tell his story?
Dan Krauss: I came to Kevin Carter in much the same way
many photojournalists have, which is by
hearing of his legend, a cautionary tale of the
dangers of witnessing extreme degrees of
bloodshed. He is known as the man who had
seen too much, who had witnessed this
extraordinary period in South Africa, who had
taken this very famous photograph and was
tormented by what he had seen.
That's as much as I knew going into this
story. And, of course, I was drawn to this
mystery. The mystery of why Kevin had taken
his own life so soon after winning the Pulitzer
Prize, which by any measure is the highest
achievement for a journalist.
What I discovered was that Kevin's story is
much larger than just that question. It's an
epic parable that really questions morality in
the technical age where history is
photographed and recorded. Kevin's story is
really emblematic of a dilemma that has a
very broad scope, and has to deal with this
question of whether it is better to document
or to intervene in scenes of suffering.
HBO: What were your first impressions when you
began to speak with family and colleagues
who worked with him?
Dan Krauss: One of the more emotional moments was
meeting Kevin's family and friends face to face
for the first time. because In my mind, he had
grown to be sort of this legendary fellow. He
almost had the attributes of a fictional
character. Of course, I knew from a practical
level that this was not the case, but when I
first entered his parents' home and saw their
family photos and saw remnants of Kevin's
life, I remember being struck by the
realization that Kevin was a human being
first, and a legend second. I can still feel it
now.
HBO: Give a little context about what it was like
working in South Africa at that time.
Dan Krauss: The violence which accompanied the decline
of apartheid and the emergence of a
democratic society in South Africa was
extraordinarily brutal. People were hacked to
death and burned alive in front of Kevin
Carter's lens. Many photographers are able to
use the camera as an emotional shield to
protect themselves from what they're
witnessing. But Kevin was as exposed
emotionally as his film was to the images that
he saw.
He, in some ways, was perhaps not
adequately suited to do this kind of work
because it took its toll on him in a much more
serious way than it did his colleagues. That's
not to say his colleagues weren't also deeply
affected. They were.
And the environment at that time--there was
a lot of drinking and drugging going on, but it
was not purely hedonistic. It was a reaction
to the difficulty, the strain of this work. You
have to imagine, it's almost like hopping
between hot and cold water.You would spend
your mornings taking photographs and
reporting on the violence that happened the
night before, which was often going into the
townships and trying to find burned corpses,
or hacked-up bodies,.And then you would
spend the afternoon in the suburbs having tea
and filing your pictures.
And so you had this huge disconnect between
these two realities that were very closely
situated. Photographers were constantly
moving between the safety and comfort of the
suburbs and this hellish world of violence and
chaos in the townships. And they were
trapped between those two worlds. They were
lost in a sense. They didn't really have a firm
footing in either world, and I think that
caused some dysfunction.
HBO: The reaction to Kevin's famous photograph--
can you talk a little bit about the impact that
had on him.
Dan Krauss: Winning the Pulitzer was the strongest
affirmation that his work was being noticed,
and that his work was having an effect lLike
many of the photographers in South Africa
during this period, Kevin believed that
photographs could indeed change the world,
as they did in Vietnam for the United States.
You could argue that those photographs
changed public policy, changed the course of
the war; changed the world.
And Kevin and his contemporaries hoped to
achieve that same goal. They believed that
photographs could help bring attention to
Africa, and in turn help cure some of its ills.
And this photograph was the strongest
affirmation of that ideal. And so it was a huge
boost to Kevin, but at the same time it was
accompanied by this criticism about his
behavior, how he should have acted in Sudan.
And it weighed on him tremendously.
The criticism that was leveled at him was
devastating to him because I think in part he
questioned whether the criticism was indeed
valid.
HBO: The criticism being, Am I exploiting my
subject or am I helping?
Dan Krauss: Yes. It brought to the fore an issue that had
been in his mind throughout his entire career
as a photographer,which is: what is the right
thing to do? Is it to make the photograph or
to attempt to save the victims? Are the victims
even savable? Can I do anything with my own
two hands to change the situation or is the
camera the best means to an end to
accomplish change?
And that is a question that was pervasive
throughout his entire career, and this single
photograph of the vulture and the child
brought that question into sharp relief. And I
think what tormented him is that he didn't
have an answer to it. It wasn't an easy
problem to solve, and that haunted him.
And then of course the other factor with that
photograph is that it brought him a great deal
of acclaim. And I think it's difficult for anyone
to live up to that sort of expectation. When
you take a Pulitzer Prize winning picture,
suddenly you have been vaulted into an
entirely new league of photography. And I
think he had a lot of self-doubt as to whether
he could live up to his reputation now that he
had won a Pulitzer.
And the fact that his best friend, Ken
Oosterbroek, was killed while Kevin was being
interviewed about his Pulitzer Prize made him
tremendously guilty because he was not there
when Ken died. He felt that Ken was the
person most deserving of a Pulitzer. He was
considered by many, including Kevin, to be
the best photographer in South Africa during
that period.
HBO: Kevin's daughter Megan had a very interesting
take on the photo.
Dan Krauss: She said something very enlightening I
thought, and wise beyond her years, because
she was a sixteen year old when she spoke to
me. She said that in the photograph of the
vulture and the child she actually saw Kevin
as the child and the world as the vulture. It
was a very interesting perspective because a
lot of people envisioned Kevin as the vulture,
if you apply the symbolism of that picture to
Kevin Carter's particular circumstance.
Many people thought that photojournalistsat
large, and in this case Kevin Carter
specifically, were the vultures praying on the
suffering of other people with their cameras.
But Megan reversed that whole archetype.
She put Kevin in place of the child who was
suffering and being watched by the world.
HBO: What can we take away from Kevin's story?
Dan Krauss: I think what we can take away from it is a
broader understanding of the relationship
between photographer and subject, subject
and photographer, subject and the world,
photographer and the world. This is a very
complex relationship. One thing I hope
audiences take away is this understanding
that beyond the borders of the frame lies a
much larger and perhaps more meaningful
context and that as viewers, we need to think
of photographs as things which provoke us to
take action, to make us think about the
broader context in which the photograph was
taken, and to truly understand its benefit.
The benefit of a photograph is also part of its
value in terms of spurring people into action. I
think that's what Kevin wanted. I think that's
what many great photographers want. And I
hope that message comes through loud and
clear.
|
|
|
|
|
