Picture of the day
Some thoughts on angelz and virgins
By AcademicElephant Posted in Archived — Comments (36) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
There has been a minor tempest in a teapot today over this NYTimes photograph, which illustrates an article about the entertainment troupe "Purrfect Angelz" visiting the troops in Iraq. The photo caused a stir because bloggers now (rightly) on the alert for any evidence of photo-shopping noticed that the performer's microphone cord seemed to disappear somewhere around the Marines' heads so that she becomes an isolated and mutated object rather than a performer interacting with the crowd. Concerns of photoshopping are probably misplaced here; as Allah points out in the above link, the cord is visible, but it's in motion, making it a blur. I think, however, that this photo is still cause for concern. To my eye, rather than the absence of the cord, the issue is the way the picture is cropped. Either Times' photographer Jim Wilson or the paper's layout team cut that Angel at the waist, and I don't think it is because she was in some magic act.
Why would they do this? Because it makes the Angel in question into a shockingly sexual object by reducing her to legs and genitals, at which the assembled Marines (not to mention the Times' readers) obligingly ogle. Clearly, they are after One Thing, and the woman has become no more and no less than an anonymous piece of meat. A photo-shopped cord is child's play by comparison. Such a contrived image suits the agenda of the Times' article, which, as streiff pointed out this morning, wants to see a G-rated war. Not so much testosterone. After all, as the Times so frequently scolds, unchecked male aggression is to blame for the many shortcomings of the Iraq war, either as found in the character of the President and his top advisors (pace, Condi), or in the atrocities committed by the soldiers at their command. This article not-so-delicately suggests the Angelz' audience has been inflamed by their performance, which is being subsidized by the US military. The Times also takes this opportunity to get in a few pot shots about pre-war planning. And how convenient that they could report on this from the Haditha dam, allowing them to work the loaded word "Haditha" into the story seven times.
But here's the thing--none of this has anything to do with the Purrfect Angelz' performance. The Marines didn't cut this woman off at the waist. The New York Times did. Look at their faces--they're gazing at her with obvious admiration and no one seems to be thinking "nice boots," but they're looking up at something above the frame of the photo. No, I am under no illusions regarding the "talents" of the Angelz; they're basically a burlesque group made up of extremely attractive women in scanty costumes who happen to sing and dance. The Purrfect Angelz are not selfless patriots--after all, they're being well paid for their services, and I suppose the more cynical would say they're drumming up business. Well, more power to them. All too few entertainers have been willing to make the trip to Iraq whether they were being paid or not. And I'm certainly no apologist for pornography, but this is a far cry from that. Anyone who doesn't understand that young men living under extremely stressful circumstances far from home would find it appealing to spend an hour or two with these women is out of touch with biology. Furthermore, I think that such an exercise, as it is a release of pressure, actually reduces the chances for violent outbreaks among the troops. Call me a hedonist, but it seems to me that a young man who has met a Purrfect Angel here on earth is far less likely to strap on an explosive vest in the hopes of meeting 72 virgins in heaven.
I'm not saying that the Marines didn't appreciate the Angelz' rather obvious charms. But the Times could have credited them with the discernment to prefer their women with arms and a head.
« BREAKING: Bank Collapses. Feds cite Sen. Chuck Schumer as "immediate cause" of collapse — Comments (14) | Primary Challenges: Past, Present and Future — Comments (8) »
Picture of the day 36 Comments (0 topical, 36 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
But there's also a possibility that nobody has raised so far regarding the "missing" microphone cord: in fact, it might be a microphone cord that emerges *from* the front of the stage and connects to a microphone, an amplifier, or a guitar being held by someone *behind* the subject. It's very difficult to tell without having an eyewitness to the photo, but I'm not convinced this was a photoshopped image as we've come to understand it -- it was a deliberate crop of the image, and then we go to your analysis...
Frankly given the way the picture was composed, the missing few feet of microphone cord wouldn't have been that big a "distraction" in any case.
I am a hawkish warmonger with a crusty demeanour and a heart of steel. But I have a softer side.
Is what looks to be an amplifier/speaker unit mounted on a stand in the far right of the picture. It could very well be that the cable for that speaker is running across the floor in front of the men, and then up onto the stage and past the subject of the photo to someone standing behind her. Tough to tell without knowing how the stage was set up and how hasty the preparations were, but I've seen worse under hastily-arranged conditions.
I am a hawkish warmonger with a crusty demeanour and a heart of steel. But I have a softer side.
The cable blur is the result of having incorrect camera shutter speed. The photographer simply had it set wrong. I'd remain focused on Arabics as being the most likely photograshoppers.
Oh I agree--I don't think this is photoshopped, I think it's rather dramatically cropped. And I don't think that's some sort of accident of photo-journalism.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
I don't think the photograph was altered, but the shutter speed had little to do with it. The shutter speed was fast enough to freeze all the motion in the frame, and if there had been a cable dangling from a microphone in the woman's hand, there would be more evidence of it than we see here. In all likelihood, this photograph was taken with a camera in Program mode, with autoexposure -- it was a snapshot, albeit one taken with a good camera.
It's the composition of the photo that matters, and any subsequent cropping. But I find it very hard to believe that a three-foot long piece of cord from the edge of the stage to the top of the photo could have been moving fast enough to disappear into a blur completely when the eyeblinks of the men in the foreground and all their movements are frozen.
I think the cord came from the front of the stage and went to a microphone behind the subject. Actually, if you look at the woman's foot, it seems like she has "kicked" the cord over a few inches. And isn't that her right hand dangling down? If so, where is the microphone?
I am a hawkish warmonger with a crusty demeanour and a heart of steel. But I have a softer side.
The shutter speed was a little slow. Look at the head of the Marine next to her kneecap. Just left of him you see a marine with black hair at the back of the room. Just above his head you see what looks like a gray strip that runs to the top of the picture. That gray strip is the mic cord. The lady must have just moved her hand while the picture was being taken and that movement caused the cord to blur. The shutter speed was probably slow due to lack of lighting and because everyone else was basically still, they were in focus but whatever little hand movement she did with the mic was enough to cause the cord to blur.
"Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose." - Ronald Reagan
My explanation for the shadowed area in the background was that that was a discolored area of the wall, perhaps where a duct had been mounted to the wall and then removed. But your explanation makes more sense than mine.
There is a cord in the picture? There are Marines in the picture? There is a stage? Guess I will have to study this some more, thank you.
I'm glad that we are sending a bunch of cute entertainers over there for them. These soldiers are doing a great service for our nation, and if all it takes to make them happy is some legs that go from the ground to heaven and a thank you at the end, I will be glad to hire the legs and say thanks.
Thanks, guys.
And I think the nyt is a hypocritical, shrewish, old, gray, doddering, waddling, fat, stupid craw. These same prudes undoubtedly do pay-per-view for their entertainment.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
And I'll bet they know it. And I know the rest of us know it.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
that the NYT "elite" would even be interested in the Purfect Angelz? Maybe not their type.
In Vino Veritas
Would be the point of photoshopping this picture anyway?
But, I would demand the Times release the ENTIRE original photo for, er, clarification :-)
without entertainment from beautiful women? Can anybody name just one?
The attempt to smear our troops by the Democrat Party mouthpiece is just one more reason they are not fit to govern. Where is the condemnation? Not to be found because one more time they will snicker and hide behind the skirt of First Amendment protection while saying they support the troops.
Party and paper of the jackass indeed.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
It amazes me that these guys are all looking up!! I don't see one single guy looking where you would think they might be looking.
That doesn't quite fit the nyt stereotype of young men overwhelmed by their raging testosterone levels.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
a looong time ago, I recall going to shows like this after weeks of recruit training, being around nothing but other male Marine recruits and their stinking chamoflaged utility uniforms. To see something colorful, feminine, pretty, and to hear them sing, to smell the perfume from 50 feet away -- it was like being a human being again.
I can only imagine how much more amplified this situation was.
Or could it be that the subject of the pictures are the Marines who are being entertained? Given the position of the photographer and the fact that the woman is on a stage about 3 feet hight, it would be difficult to get the full shot of the woman without placing the Marines on the bottom 1/4 of the shot. Of course, the picture could have simply photographed the woman's head, but then it bears no relation to the story at all.
This whole thing seems vastly overblown. Sure, the headline was a bit silly, but overall the article seemed to insist that while this might have been bit more than a superbowl halftime show, the whole thing is rather tame.
It's actually quite simple--turn the camera so it is vertical instead of horizontal. Then you don't get a woman cut off at the waist.
Look, you're welcome to believe that photography is a random genre that simply catches visual accidents that give the viewer an unmitigated, authentic glimpse onto another world. My experience, however, is that it is more artifice than accident.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
I understand what you are saying--and I know enough about photography to know that it isn't just a random photograph. It's a picture of Marines being entertained.
Even if you take the picture vertically, you've still got the problem of the picture's subject, which is the Marines.
Notice that
- The camera is focused on the woman
- The Marines are blurry, but she is not
- At camera level we see: knees
- The camera is kept level, instead of pointing upward
- How much stage and Marine uniform you see. There was plenty of room to show her torso, but the photographer (or editor) cropped it.
To show Marines watching her perform, get a shot will all of their faces looking at her face. What we have here is a picture intended to give the false impression that the Marines were ogling.
--
More brilliance such as that can be found at the Academy. And yes, I know how pretentious I sound.
They have a Valarie Plame-type in charge there that managed to score her husband a free trip to Iraq to practice his photography.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
that they weren't ogling? Sure they were ogling. Can you blame them? They're in Iraq for crying out loud. All the women there wear carpets for clothes.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
That's why I had to get out :-).
But seriously, in the picture they are looking at her face, rather than where the photographer is looking.
--
More brilliance such as that can be found at the Academy. And yes, I know how pretentious I sound.
And it's a pretty common photo op for concerts. Here's the walkthrough:
Look at her boot. She's stepping on the cord so it won't move and tangle around her feet, which means she's moving the mike around rapidly.
Look at her knees. They're locked, and shoulder-width apart. Not a natural position, which means she striking a pose. It also means that her movement into the pose was vertical, not horizontal, otherwise her feet would be spread apart more.
Look at her hand. Again, a vertically oriented position, indicating vertical movement.
Look at the cord, from bottom to top (in photoshop if you have it). Notice that the cord goes from being distinct, to somewhat blurry just below the Marines' elbow, to very blurry at the top of the picture. This is another indicator of vertical movement, not horizontal.
What seals it is the uniform direction of the Marines gaze. Sorry, but Biology 101 shows us that if any object, especially a young woman, remains in a still pose, our eyes will naturally roam, and it is highly improbable that every single Marines' eyes just happened to roam towards her face at that moment. More likely is that their tendency to ogle was overruled by the fact that the eye naturally follows an object in motion.
Which brings me to the conclusion (finally) that prior to this photo, the singer was in a squatting position, most likely teasing the Marine front and center, raised herself vertical, sliding her hand along her thigh as she did, until she got into this upright and locked pose, at which point the photographer snapped the picture, which captured the motion at the high end of the cord and the uniform direction of the Marines gaze. Like I said, it's a pretty common photo op at concerts.
That's a great explanation/hypothesis, fitting as it does all of the elements. But why did we ever see the photo, if it was a mistake?
--
More brilliance such as that can be found at the Academy. And yes, I know how pretentious I sound.
I think you have identified the crux of the matter. This cannot be the only picture that was taken--it was chosen with care.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
Which brings me to the conclusion (finally) that prior to this photo, the singer was in a squatting position, most likely teasing the Marine front and center, raised herself vertical, sliding her hand along her thigh as she did, until she got into this upright and locked pose, at which point the photographer snapped the picture, which captured the motion at the high end of the cord and the uniform direction of the Marines gaze. Like I said, it's a pretty common photo op at concerts.
Having you describe things is almost as good as having the picture itself. Tell me, why does the Mona Lisa smile? And make the story a little spicey, OK?
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
Heck I never got past those long legs.
Everyone with a family member suffering from diabetes, Parkinson's disease or heart failure wishes Bush had kept that veto pen in his pocket.
I have family members suffering from Huntington's Disease, Rheumatoid Arthritis, diabetes, heart failure, strokes, and various other ailments. I still don't want my money going to use embryos for guinea pigs. Maybe it should just say 'lots of us wish he had kept his veto pen in his pocket.'
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
If it weren't for fast cars, old whiskey, and pretty women, we could all live in some tyranical, dusty, s**thole in the Middle East.
In Vino Veritas
As a photographer, I'd say many have read too much into this photo.
The primary subjects of the photograph, the Marines, are framed well, and the secondary subjects, the stage and the dancer, are left in the photo just enough to tell the story. Putting the full body and face of the dancer in the photo would have detracted from the faces and posture of the Marines.
I'm guessing no flash was used, hence the blurry faces and the cord movement. Probably a good idea, as a flash at that range is always startling and would probably upset the subjects - thus taking away from the moment.
I would have cut out more of the stage in favor of getting more Marines in the photo; however, you can't always get the best angles in these sorts of situations.
The article seems rather neutral to me, as do the other photos that accompany it.
Hardly seems worth talking about as a controversy; it's good to see the Marines having a bit of a break.
First, in defense of my city...I can't believe that board called "Redstate" is talking about New York like we're a bunch of Puritans. We're New York, remember? We are *supposedly* the godless libertines of this great land. But today we get the rap for trying to ruin the soldier's much-deserved fun. Seriously.
Second, I'd advise all to actually read the article. It is very positive, it shows the troops in a good light, and doesn't harp on the failures of the war, like so much other media coverage does. The Times site is free, give it a read, instead of just lking at the pictures...
"So I perform a frontal assault and weaken her defenses, then after she's collapsed I'll take her from the rear"