Went to see War Photographer last night, and it was worth seeing, although there was some quality about it that became so strong I felt like rebelling in some way. Hard to see how it could've been made differently, exactly, though. The quality was a kind of veneration -- a eulogistic extremism -- that might've been, however understandable, more appropriate for one recently deceased. It may just be my problem -- I've always felt that if you are doing something good you must keep your mouth shut. In the case of Jim Nachtwey, he is giving a voice to people whose stories might otherwise never be known. His photographs are beautiful and to the point -- if a photo can be described as succinct, then his definitely are. He's ok -- it's the filmmakers who are the soft-spoken worshippers, here. I liked the movie in a way -- but I think the movie itself was not in character for its subject. If suffering people should be given a voice, then it would be a clearer voice when not filtered through the photographer's celebrity. If an image has the strength to reveal a scene of disaster, the strength is only diluted by the image taking a place as one out of many, one scene of disaster out of decades of disaster around the world. Maybe that's just quibbling... maybe a photo of an "old" disaster needs a place to go. But a current image has got to stand alone to carry weight... uh...