The Photographer's Focus

Matthew Toups

On March 20, 1972 at 11:45 a.m. an anonymous phone call was made to police headquarters in Belfast, Northern Ireland warning of a bomb in crowded Church Street (Fisk 2). At 11:52 a.m. a second emergency call reached police headquarters confirming the threat of a bomb (Fisk 2). The police made efforts to evacuate the street as quickly as possible. Then, at 11:55 a.m. headquarters received a third emergency call warning of a bomb, but this time the caller gave the location of the bomb to be in the adjoining Donegall Street (Fisk 2). Three minutes later a 100-pound gelignite bomb exploded in Donegall Street killing six people and wounding 147 others (Fisk 1). The bombing was a terrorist act by the Irish Republican Army (IRA), whose mission is to drive the British out of Northern Ireland.

It was in the ensuing minutes of the explosion that Derek Brind of the Press Association probably arrived at the gruesome scene: nearly a hundred young girls “lay on the street or in the shattered doorways screaming with pain and shock” (Fisk 1). As he approached the site, he spotted a British paratrooper holding “a young Irish girl in his arms to comfort her” (Dewar 62) and snapped this photo:

What makes this, or any photograph, so unique is that the viewer actually sees what the photographer saw when he or she took the picture; we too, see the paratrooper clutching the wounded girl in his arms. What we don’t see, however, is what takes place around the picture. The photographer chooses where we look and in doing so, decides what deserves attention and what can be left out. This selection process is entirely subjective, and as such, it is a reflection of the photographer's perspective—not just literally, but figuratively as well. The photographer focuses on what has special significance to him or her. The key to understanding art is to discover what the photographer is trying to convey by the selection of that particular focus.

Art critic and essayist John Berger offers one approach to determining the intended meaning of a photograph. Berger suggests that artists use “the language of images” to express personal and historical experiences where words are insufficient (33). Therefore, to discover these personal and historical experiences, Berger argues we must “situate ourselves in history” (11). Hence, we shall try to relate the focus of a photograph to the photographer’s place in history in order to better understand its meaning.

Taking a look at Northern Ireland’s history we see that it has always been the site of cultural conflict. It is an example of what Mary Louise Pratt refers to as a contact zone. By contact zone, Pratt means a "social [space] where cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power” (584). In Northern Ireland the Irish Catholics were oppressed for many years under the rule of British Protestants. At the time of the bombing the Irish Catholics were fighting to gain independence from Britain, and British paratroopers had been summoned to sustain the British regime. With the complex cultural differences of the British paratrooper and the wounded Irish girl in mind, one might at first read the image as a statement about a British soldier transcending political, cultural, and religious differences to come to the aid of another human being. However, by analyzing the focus of the image it becomes clear that this is not the intent of the photographer at all.

In this image the photographer chooses to focus on the face of the paratrooper, even though the action of the scene takes place near the girl's legs. The photographer doesn't even choose to focus on the girl's pain-stricken face, which we could have seen more clearly if the photographer had simply stepped six feet to the left. The decision to focus on the soldier's seemingly shocked face and draw our attention away from the Irish girl diminishes our recognition of the Irish girl’s suffering. This is inconsistent with a reading of the image as an acknowledgement of the British soldier’s compassion for human suffering. An accurate interpretation of the image must agree with the emphasis the photographer places on the British soldier. Therefore, perhaps the photographer is placing the blame for the Irish girl’s suffering on the British paratrooper: as long as the British remain in Northern Ireland the bombings will continue and more innocent will suffer. This reading of the image would indeed be consistent with having the paratrooper at the focus of the image and human suffering in the periphery as a consequence of the soldier’s presence. On the other hand, the photographer may be trying to evoke sympathy for the conflicted position of the British soldier as an invading foreign police force. The British soldier realizes his presence in Northern Ireland is the cause of these acts of terrorism, and although he has no power over British military initiative in Northern Ireland, he still feels responsible for suffering his presence engenders. This interpretation would also be consistent with having the soldier as the central image and the Irish girl as the ancillary object.

We can explore each of these interpretations in greater depth by isolating the British paratrooper’s face (the focus of our image) and analyzing it in its own right. Here we see the soldier cannot bring himself to look at the girl's legs; all he can do is stare blankly straight ahead. He wears a face of disbelief and horror. Several things can account for this facial expression. The soldier might be appalled at the inhumanity of the terrorists' actions: why did the IRA deliberately mislead the police so that the bomb would injure dozens of innocent civilians? Why would the IRA risk injuring innocent young Irish girls who could possibly be related to the members of the IRA? This girl did nothing wrong; she did not deserve to be attacked. On the other hand, the soldier my be appalled at the recognition that the inhumanity of the terrorists’ actions are in part his fault—as a foreign, peacekeeping soldier and as a British subject. As a British soldier, his presence in Northern Ireland is the cause of the terrorist bombings; as a British citizen, his country’s oppression of Irish Catholics is the source of the terrorists’ resentment of British rule. In each case, the expression on the face of the paratrooper serves to convey the horror of the violence the soldier sees as a result of the cultural struggle existing in Northern Ireland.

We must now attempt to reconcile the horror conveyed by the soldier’s facial expression with our two readings of the image. How might placing the blame for the terrorists’ actions on the soldier agree with his horrified appearance? We might guess that the horrified look on the soldier’s face can be seen as evidence of the soldier’s own recognition that he is to blame for the incident. If this were true, the soldier’s facial expression would serve to reinforce the photographer’s message. Certain images in the photograph, however, make it seem inappropriate to cast blame on the soldier. The image of the soldier affectionately clutching the girl against his breast and the appalled look on the soldier’s face show that he is truly sorry for any suffering he may have indirectly caused. These images invite us to not only sympathize with, but also to empathize with the soldier’s conflicting position. How many times has each of us witnessed suffering, of which we—as Americans, as whites, or as humans—were indirect participants, whether it be from war, from slavery, or from animal cruelty? When we situate ourselves in one of these similar conflicting positions, we too, begin to become aware of the cruel nature of mankind. This is what Derek Brind saw in the violence in Northern Ireland and this is what he tried to convey through this image. Hence, what may appear to be a photo about how loving and caring fellow man can be, is really a criticism of the inhumanity of man. This is the photographer's message as reflected through his choice of focus in the image.

WORKS CITED

Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. Penguin Books,1972. 7-33.

Dewar, Michael, Colonel. The British Army in Northern Ireland. London: Arms and Armour Press, 1996. 57-79.

Fisk, Robert. “Six killed, 147 injured by bomb after misleading calls.” The London

Times. March 21, 1972: A1-A2.

Pratt, Mary Louise. "Arts of the Contact Zone." Ways of Reading. Ed. David

Bartholomae and Anthony Petrosky. 5th ed. Boston: St. Martin's, 1999. 582-596.