Chronicles of an Israeli Reservist
In Israel, a large part of the male population is brought together periodically for a return to military service that contrasts dramatically from their day to day activities. Released after three years of regular service, some Israeli soldiers begin (at the age of 21 – or older for officers,) a civilian life that is interrupted by periods of reserve military duty – in Hebrew – Miluim.
Military reserve duty offers a privileged opportunity to observe a microcosm of Israeli society. Reserve units bring together men of different ages and from various walks of life. They are comprised of young students, fathers, cooks, lawyers, drivers and teachers. When on duty, reservists leave their normal life – their family, friends or a promising first date. On their return, they face financial problems, angry clients or an academic year compromised by thirty days of an involuntary break.
Israeli reservists are rightists and leftists, supporters of a tough security policy or of a unilateral dismantling of the settlements. They are, above all, civilians who become soldiers for a period of a few weeks during which they carry out missions as basic as simple patrols or as complex as combat operations when their lives might be at risk.
These periods of forced intimacy – Miluim – are catalysts of strong friendships or disagreements, stormy political debates and interesting conversations that step beyond the social or geographical borders which ordinarily connect one to homogeneous relationships. For many men, these intense dialogs soften the harsh reality of their service. They are, for numerous reservists, the reason why they are ready once again to wear their uniform. As one of them once stated: “After all, and with all due respect to ideology, when it’s time to fight, the only thing holding you from running in the other direction is the guy next you.”
Photographs: Michael Hassoun
Website: http://photomh.com/
And before you say it DAVID!, nothing in that last post is supposed to look like i’m disagreeing with you! i’m just passionately laying out my own thought process in more detail! So stand down :-))))))
MICHAEL, JOE, DAVID, ALL :))
I promise this will be succinct. I’m only writing a comment here, as i was part of the original and on-going discussion. What I am about to write is a distillation of what I wrote Michael yesterday after seeing Joe’s edit and LONG BEFORE i read David’s comment (now).
I MUCH MUCH prefer David’s edit. this has nothing to do with my loving wrestling match with joe but a simple relationship to story telling. The stories are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. The great part of this exercise is that it allows photographers and viewers to see how CRUCIAL editing is and, especially in photography, can totally change what the story is or what the reader perceives. This is EXACTLY WHY i was so vociferous about Joe’s comments about editing being critical: the MOST IMPORTANT KEY in an edit is the PHOTOGRAPHER’S NARRATIVE/STORY/IDEA/OPINION. Otherwise, the story can be manipulated to promulgate any narrative. The 2 are very very different.
Joe’s edit is basically a story of ‘war.’ It is clear that this edit is about the struggle and the job the reservists have vis-a-vis their military service and the conflict with Palestinians: capture, border checks, exhaustion, fear, confusion etc. The one element that I like about Joe’s edit is that he does bring forth more of this ‘job’ tension than the original edit. HOWEVER, i have seen these pictures a 1,000,000 times and far better. This story (the role of the IDF, including reservists, and their daily difficulties as military personnel) has been photographed countless times. Moreover, this edit does include more pictures that are not powerful great. I absolutely do not udnerstand at all the narrative sequence either. the tank picture is not, for photographic or narrative sense, a good opener and tells us only: ok, here comes another war story. I also do not understand the soldiers on the be at all. this photo might work narratively as a ‘closer’, but this then would be way too pedestrian and more importantly as a photo it isnt particularly compelling. ditto many many of the pics. I agree a border picture would be nice but i also dont feel the power in this one. Yes, the body gesture of the soldier in the background is nice as is his size, but the relationship between the truck driver and the border guard isn’t much or tense at all. i would not have selected it. I do like the Arafat picture. I dont think it’s a strong picture, but if i added it to the original edit, i’d have kept only to get that tension: to show the reservists have different political views.
David’s edit is much more interesting, narratively and visually. the pictures, on the whole are better, and the sequence is stronger. While the last photo is risky, i like it for both it’s biblical suggestions (and crosses are not just christian) and its mythology (sisyphus). The story of David’s story is much ‘newer’ and subtler: the intimate conflicts and the tedium punctuated by difficult moments and work. The pictures of the palestians also STAND OUT much more: this is maybe what makes Michael nervous now. He and i have been writing, a good dialog, for the last few days, so this is nothing new to michael. I told Michael all of this in a private email.
the most important lesson is that a photographer, like a writer, MUST know what is the story he/she wishes to tell and be able, through pictures and editing and text, tell that story. I like the story of the original edit and i think that story can be fleshed out and enhanced by bringing the CONFLICT of emotions/ideology that exists between the reservists themselves. For that is the story. This story is NOT about border crossings and war, but about the difficulty and the conflict that exists for Israelis as they come to terms with service…and the binds that that conflict and tension and tedium create.
thank you joe for taking the time to do this. i’d love to do it as well for michael, but i think what would be good for michael, if he’s up to it, is to get one of david’s editors to help. but before that happens, it SHOULD BE CLEAR in michaels mind what he wwants. We wall struggle over pictures, but a photogrpaher should not struggle over their point of view. that’s the glue in any edit…
thanks michael for doing this and thanks for joe for adding his effort.
all the best
bb
capture, border checks, exhaustion, fear, confusion etc. The one element that I like about Joe’s edit is that he does bring forth more of this ‘job’ tension than the original edit. HOWEVER, i have seen these pictures a 1,000,000 times and far better.
There’s a personal indictment and evidence of the hypocrisy of what you say Bob.
As mentioned, this was the single message we were going for, if you picked it up as the ‘one element’ that you like, well then that’s a success.
I’m sorry if you’ve seen this message a million times before Bob, that doesn’t give you the right to say something else must be messaged!
You go on and on and on about the Author’s right, but you go on and on and on about what this story should be.
Get real Bob! How the heck do you reconcile this in your own head?
Anyway as you’ve made very clear: David’s edit is much more interesting, narrative and visually. the pictures, on the whole are better, and the sequence is stronger.
But what you’ve clearly missed was that was not the same message that Michael wished to deliver, if you read the post above it’s clearly there for you to see.
I will give you this; you’re getting much more succinct with your opinions, maybe that makes them easier to see how problematic they are though!
Anyway, I’m sure Michael will work through with more rigueur his next editing exercise and he’s already paid me the ultimate compliment by asking me to work through another body of work with him. I’m clearly chuffed with this.
Let’s move on then.
and one LAST (promise) word about the edit, and EDITING in general:
The photograph of the juggling is great! In the context/narrative of the original edit it works and is such an IMPORTANT image. In the 2nd edit, it totally fails (for me). Joe’s edit is a story, as a said, about power and war and exhaustion. Part of the strength of this version is that daily difficulty and confusion/exhaustion: it is an emotional, war-torn edit. No doubt. However, in this sense the juggler photograph, PARTICULARLY COMING AT THE END, does not work. In fact, it looks/feels frivolous, superfluous after the preceeding work: it makes not contextual or narrative sense. As an opening image: YES, in fact, as an opening image it sets up (as viewers) a problem: we open with lightness and then quickly descend into the difficult job of the reservist. Yes, in that kind of placement it would work. as a concluding image, i feel ‘what the hell’…it sucks out the energy and the importance of the image. Like all those great shots and film moments from Nam about soldiers relaxing, it lends weight because of the joy and the lightness in opposition, but NOT as a concluding image.
In the end, why this is so so important, and i am happy that Joe has taken the time and effort to do this, is to show the importance NOT of the edit but of the story. The real and primary question all photographers MUST ask themself first is: what is the story? NOT: what is the edit? An edit can change, totally, narrative (Eisenstein anyone ;) ), both the success or failure of pictures but more importantly the meaning of them. again: this was eisentsein’s great contribution to cinema and didactic instruction. A photographer must first now what is the story what he/she wishes to say/report and then work with an edit.
The reason why editing is secondary is because of it’s power. There are lots of great photo editors in the world, and lots of great cinema editors and lots of great writing editors but they DO NOT make great photographic stories or films or books. They help the photographer/filmmaker/writer SHAPE the story, not Make it. As i wrote Joe originally, i love editing, even though it is a struggle. I help my wife edit. I help others edit, i’ve done photo and writing editing. In fact, this week, i’m meeting with a young photographer (student of david’s) to help him on his edit, as i’ve done in the past. The first thing i say to another photographer is this: here is what i see as the meaning, what is it you say/see/mean…and we work from there. without the Idea/Story/Narrative to guide, the story fails, because it becomes just another edit.
All these pictures could be edited in a 1,000,000 ways, and there are many variations of this story, but there is ONLY 1 STORY and that is whatever is Michael’s reflection/point of view. I see two stories here and 2 michaels…i’ve also listened to Michael in our letters/conversations off burh. I think, maybe the 2nd story might be closer to what Michael wants to show (i dont know) based on our exchange…and that is fine…but i think the other story is better and is a more important story to tell: conflict of the soul, not conflict of nations….
AGAIN: what is the story….one can always find a good editor…one does not always know how to tell a story…
all the best
bb
Joe:
again, sorry, nothing personal. i’ve spent 3 exhausting days writing letters with Michael. It’s been a pleasure and i hope a rewarding one for Michael as well.
As i said, this 2nd edit (your edit) is much closer to the Michael who has written me letters, for sure. And i stand by what i’ve said above and written him in private. The 2nd version is not a strong essay, photographically or narratively, period.
that is not about political points of view joe. I’m a 40 year old photographer and writer who knows a thing or two about story telling and editing.
Joe, again, you seem incredibly abbrassive and insecure when it comes to PROFESSIONAL disagreement. I am a WORKING photographer and writer and sorry, but I find your version much less sucessful on all the levels. And that’s ok, who cares. It is Michael’s choice. I was just offering an opinion, JUST AS I DID TO HIM IN A LETTER away from burn.
Well, this will be the last time i write you directly. Joe, if you want to be in this profession, I suggest you grow up a bit when it comes to people who ‘critique’ your ideas/work. You didnt see me get all chagged on descent on my work did you.
best of luck
good day.
bob
Bob, i’ve responded clinically to what you’ve said with loads less flavour than you might use.
I’m sorry you’ve responded this way, i’m certain there were more clinical responses you could have explored (grow up?), should i say ‘my dad can beat up your dad next’? is that not the only way to answer that?
Why do you need to make this so personal? What have i said that’s inaccurate?
Again,
“As i said, this 2nd edit (your edit) is much closer to the Michael who has written me letters, for sure. And i stand by what i’ve said above and written him in private. The 2nd version is not a strong essay, photographically or narratively, period”
this is what puzzles me, if the message is truer, but not stronger, should you go for a false message?
this is a simple question Bob, take a deep breath and don’t take this to some personal level. If you’re going to have such strong opinions you need to be able to respond to them without feeling attacked, haven’t you delivered this same advice to me?
“i’ve spent 3 exhausting days writing letters with Michael”
Bob, David woke me up to something yesterday when I used this very same word.
One man’s ‘Exhausting’ is another man’s ‘Bliss’. I didn’t find writing to Michael even a bit exhausting, entirely a effort of bliss. interesting. ;-)
The real and primary question all photographers MUST ask themself first is: what is the story? NOT: what is the edit?
maybe i should tell you that i like that you said this, so you don’t think i’m on some mission to make your life miserable Bob!
Exchanges with you Bob make me think back to Siskel and Ebert, I wonder which one you would be and which one I would be!
David, all,
I understand how weird the situation may be.
The fact is: I don’t know the editing language.
If I would try to speak it, I would probably say something I didn’t intend to.
I don’t have the experience that allows you, Joe and the others, to spot immediately relations between pictures, their order, their possible impact on people you don’t know.
David, I was very happy to let you edit the story because I don’t know how to do it.
I thought you may yield the “best edit”.
I know, that sounds silly and unprofessional.
I am no professional. I never had a lesson in editing (or photography) and I have “worked” alone for so many years now, learning a few things the hard way, completely missing important others.
You know that you would never give carte blanche to an editor about your work. I can understand that.
Please look at me like at the complete ignorant that goes to his doctor asking for an advice and receives an answer in Latin. How great is the temptation for me, which is not a doctor, to blindly trust my doctor’s decisions.
Of course it doesn’t work like that.
I’d love to be able to say: “That’s my edit. It is the only one that says what I want to say to the majority of people that will see it”.
I can’t
You have to add to that the fact that I know so well the situations depicted, and so little about the people seeing my pictures. It’s very hard to guess what can be the impact of a certain picture or a certain flow of images.
Beyond that, David: Suppose you have a good edit, the one you want to publish, and then you realize it puts a meaning in the story that you didn’t mean to. What would you do?
Go for a lesser edit, but a one that is closer to what you feel should be said, or stick with your truth?
Personally, it seems logical to me that editing is a compromise between the images quality and the story they tell. Showing an image that may not be one of the very best in order to put the story in what looks like the right direction seems legitimate to me.
But is it?
Our first edit is apparently too dramatic (for my taste and the atmosphere I want to bring).
It also includes pictures that I don’t think are very good pictures, but could be an interesting, maybe necessary addition to the story (the two “religious” ones are classic clichés in the Jewish world, and make me feel a bit uncomfortable, but I can understand they are needed and even interesting for someone else.)
On the other hand, the first edit includes things like smiles that I feel the new edit lack.
There has been a strong reaction to some of the pictures, and this made me reevaluate this edit (ours). Joe edited the work, just like with you, I asked for some corrections. I felt the result avoids some of the problems I saw in the first one. Avoiding problems is not enough, and it seems the new edit has some flaws too (I even didn’t spot four men on beds).
David, your proposition of asking another editor to go through the images is very generous, but I fear I wouldn’t be able to appreciate the result.
(of course it’s just fine if you really want to do it)
I would like to propose the following:
Could we, Joe, David and me go through the edit together. I have the feeling now that this could allow me to better understand the choices that are offered to me and help me make my mind.
Finally, the question of the access and “sex-appeal” vs the intrinsic value of the works is bugging me for a long time now. Access is a bless and it is a curse.
I have done a few other things than the IDF reservists story, but only this one is published again and again…
See my point?
That is why I have asked all of you David, Joe, Bob to go and have a look to my other stories, specially the last one on the Jerusalem Hospital.
Joe, Bob, I need both of you to stay around and help me by proposing me alternate views.
One passionate side is just not enough.
(geee, Panos and I are exorcising our demons on much more complex and loaded issues than the essay edit of an obscure middle-eastern photog wannabe :-))
Cheers!
Michael
Don’t worry Michael, Bob’s not going anywhere, except maybe to bed, he’ll be back soon with more words, opinions, and well, just more ;-)
“…(geee, Panos and I are exorcising our demons on much more complex and loaded issues than the essay edit…
yep, Michael… we did…at least tried to exorcise…
and thank u for the opportunity…
( now, regarding the edit part?… all i can think of is that there are one trillion ways to view pictures…)
peace & hugs…
( off for an apartment research now… and then another “family shoot” weekend up in the San Gabriel valley for the weekend… Great news for All: i wont be writing… great news for Me: I will be reading…)
Sorry for the triple post….
Ross
ROSS…
of course, one could do a great essay on the Kansas National Guard…i was only saying that this PARTICULAR SET OF PICTURES is being talked about ONLY because of the ACCESS Michael had…
JOE…
thrashing?? we are just talking about pictures for heavens sake…we are just giving opinions…this is a forum for doing just that….if we disagree about a set or a particular photograph, i would not characterize it as a “thrashing”….
you have never heard me say one word ever about my professional experience as being any more valid than your opinions….have i Joe?? and i never will….you do however, seem to do the opposite…it seems you resent the professional opinions (and Michael does want to work in this business)…
let me say again what i have said to you before….i can clearly see that you look very carefully at photographs…you have spent lots of time with Michael talking about his motives, feelings etc and it is also very clear that you really have THOUGHT a lot about this essay…you may analyze photographs and sequence in a way that i do not, but i think this fair enough (see my comment under the David Gimenez post)…
one of the reasons i WANT YOU HERE as a sometime editor is because you do look at photographs in a way that i do not…do you think i do not welcome this??? i would like nothing more than a collaborative effort here where we have a Joe and a Bob and a Jim and a Patricia etc all adding something different in point of view…believe me Joe, i read every word you write….i am listening…sometimes i do have a very difficult time following your reasoning process, but i never never discount it and i always always have a great deal of respect for you in that you take the time and make the effort to put your thoughts down on “paper”….i just sometimes do exactly what you do and come up with a counter point or my own reasoning which i assume you also respect….
yes, laughing…i think we will just have to agree to disagree on that roadcheck picture..that picture rocks?? oh Joe Joe Joe…..actually, i am a pretty good arm wrestler…i guess we will find out at a London pub…
of course, i DO like the guy in the background..but, unfortunately that is the ONLY thing i like…NOTHING is happening in the foreground of a VISUAL nature…
yes, if you DESCRIBE the picture it is GREAT…….if you LOOK at the picture, it is BORING…..
first round on me bro….
cheers, david
MICHAEL…
i have every intention of working with you in the very near future….you are a very fine young man and i just want you to take your potential as far as you can take it….i will be back in New York over the weekend…so, let’s talk by phone early next week…..
peace, david
David, I think i will finally say this, and i’m grinning ear to ear, Web Chat Sucks!
words as exciting and as positive to me like ‘thrashing’ (a key word we use in my profession, and always in a good way) just gets lost.
All of my passion simply seems combative at times, oh well, i’ll take that on the chin :-) Maybe i should have said that the experience was ‘exhilarating’, as that’s what i feel like after we come out of our war room here at my bank, when you’ve fully explored something and understand it better and can move on.
Luckily we are not only as good as the last words we have written and David you are big enough to take me on the ‘average’ of what you hear from me. I’m always thankful for that, i have strong opinions, but know full well there are big differences between them and fact, but exploring them means you need to be a bit bold.
For once i get to say this back to you David. I don’t disagree with a word you wrote! Except you seem to deliver them to me in a way that there is something to disagree about! Ahhhh, now i see how you feel all the time with me ;-)
And yes round one two you.. um best two out of three??? kidding ;-)
Best wishes and talk to you soon,
Joe
Let the Palestinians LIVE !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Javier; great website, good storytelling! Surely you must have more the say than “Let the Palestinians LIVE !!!!!!!!!!!!!”? Michael will eat you alive if that is all you have to say.
Best,
Mike.