Alisa Lebow's Shooting With Intent: Framing Conflict

Guns, Cameras, War: An Analysis of ‘Shooting with Intent: Framing Conflict”

In an age where the news is dominated by visual media and wars, there is a constant stream of images portraying the horrors of these conflicts are more prevalent than ever. Members of society are constantly bombarded with images of death, genocide, terrorist attacks and other acts of violence as brave amateurs and journalists attempt to document the horrors individuals endure. In 2012, scholar Alisa Lebow wrote, “Shooting with Intent: Framing Conflict,” an essay where she analyzed the role of the camera, detailed Gunsight POV and Barrel POV, the two primary perspectives used when filming wars, highlighted the analogous relationship between the camera and gun. Lebow

saw the gun and camera as counterparts both capable of maintaining peace, creating havoc, and inciting violence, but questioned the effectiveness of the use of cameras in war to promote a message. Although most of the claims Lebow makes are reinforced by an effective structure, strong background, and several credible sources, there are still some instances where evidence is weak and counter-arguments are not addressed weakening her overall argument.
“Shooting with Intent: Framing Conflict” first appears in the 2012 book, Killer Images, in which author Alisa Lebow explores the relationship between the camera and the gun.

Lebow’s piece has four main sections, an introduction where she explores the stark similarities between the camera and the gun, an analysis of Gunsight POV, an analysis of Barrel POV through the lens of the Burma VJ film, and a critique of Barrel POV through the lens of B’tselem project. Lebow’s introduction focuses on the history of the gun and the camera, specifically how early cameras we appeared and functioned similarly to guns and the historical use of cameras in wars. Following her contextualization of the topic, Lebow introduces the idea of Gunsight and Barrel POVs, calling them the “two distinct positionalities that visual realist filmmaking can take within the context of violent conflict zones” (Lebow, 43), before transitioning to her analysis of these two POVs in the context of the Burma VJ film and the Shooting Back Project. In her analysis of Gunsight POV, which she describes a perspective from the soldier’s weapon or body to mimic their viewpoint usually “official or governmental, she describes the immersive nature of the preservative leaving the audience feeling like they themselves are a soldier in the combat

zone.
Following her analysis of Gunsight POV, Lebow transitions to Barrel POV, the perspective that is often Despite the amateur nature of this prospective, Lebow makes it clear how the power of the camera in this perspective using the Burma VJ film as evidence, where the camera was treated as a “provocation tantamount to the gun.” The power of the camera as a counterpart to the gun is explored further through the Shooting Back project. Lebow describes that in the Shooting back shorts, we see the camera have similar effects as a gun. Both can provoke violence, can act as a deterrent and has the power that matches that of a gun. In the concluding section of her essay, Lebow criticises the excessive occupation of journalist and their manipulation of the environment, such as using repressive force to make occupation seem favorable.
Most claim Lebow make is backed with at least one piece of strong evidence and her structure was very coherent and progressed logically in a strategic, strengthening her argument tremendously. Her clear delivery of her claim and use of evidence is evident in the opening section of the piece, Lebow introduces the idea of the similarities between the gun and camera, providing context for the reader. This background information on the similar entomology of guns and cameras serves as a starting point for her conversation on the similar nature of the two objects, by showing the audience that the verbiage used to describe using guns and cameras are the same and the physical structure of early cameras mimicked guns. Her claim of the physical similarities between guns and cameras is supported by referencing early prototypes of the motion picture camera and including photographs of early cameras that had stark similarities with guns. Following the introduction of the relationship between guns and camera, Lebow cites French philosopher and writer, Paul Virilio and his book War and Cinema. Lebow uses this credible source, to focus her comparison of cameras and guns in the context of war documentation.
Following Lebow’s contextualization and the introduction of her main claim, Lebow began discussing the power of the camera in the context of Gunsight POV. In this section Lebow highlights two key ideas: the camera allows the audience to put themselves in a soldier's shoes, and how the camera has become an instrument of war. Lebow explains that Gunsight POV, “mimic’s the soldiers, and just as they find themselves disoriented and uncertain of their feelings, so does the viewer. As soon as the first soldier is killed, the identification between the viewer and soldier, by virtue of POV, is strengthened” (Lebow, 45). Her justification for this claim is very antidotal and does not apply to every viewer; the reaction of a few viewers should not be projected as a reaction everyone would receive. Lebow doesn’t present any credible evidence or testimonials from a viewer who had seen Our War or Restrepo, rather assumed a belief the audience may have, putting herself in the mind of the audience. I noticed when we viewed the Reuter leaked military footage, there were many in the class who felt the perspective was very distant and did not feel immersive. The lack of sufficient evidence has a detrimental effect on her argument of the power of the camera. One Gunsight POV clips we viewed in class of the predator drone killing innocent civilians had many in our class saying that they did not feel a personal connection with the victims and the point of view did not provide a sense of being in the moment.
Despite the lack of evidence supporting her first argument, Lebow does an excellent job supporting her claim that the camera is an instrument of war.

Lebow cites writer, Allen Friedman’s account of the power of the camera in war, calling it “tantamount to aggression” (Lebow, 46). “Framing or focusing a camera lens on a human subject...was tantamount to an act of hostility.” Lebow’s use of Friedman’s accounts clearly supports her argument the overall power of the camera as an instrument of war. Additionally, Lebow establishes the idea that “To be caught in the sightlines of the enemy’s camera, is to foreshadow being caught in the crosshairs of the enemy’s gun.” The power of the camera was also present in the leaked military footage. In the clip, we saw the identification of hostile forces on camera before the sights of the guns were fixed and pulled by the

gunship.
Lebow continues arguing for the power of the camera as she transitioned to a discussion of Barrel POV, the counterpart of Gunsight POV. Once again, Lebow introduces the section with a brief synopsis of Barrel POV, which provides the reader with context allowing the reader to better understand her subsequent claims. Lebow uses Burma VJ, a documentary on the Burmese Saffron Revolution, and the Shooting Back project, a documentary group who captured the lives of civilians caught in the middle of the Israel-Palestine conflict, as evidence to support her strong stance on the powerful nature of the camera in war. From the Burma VJ film, she once again highlights the power of the camera using a scene from the film where Japanese cameraman Kenji Nagai, was shot at point-blank range, demonstrating to her audience that the camera was treated as a provocation. Additionally, Lebow provides an example from Tel Rumeida, one of the best-known films from the Shooting Back project, to further illustrate the camera’s power. In the film, Lebow states of a Palestinian woman who films the abuses of her Israeli neighbors and in one instance when she approached a soldier the soldier was, “less concerned for her safety than about her continuous videotaping” and eventually the women, “pointed the lens downward, in essentially the same position as the soldiers gun...both pointed downward in a gesture of non-confrontation” (Lebow, 53). The evidence Lebow references clearly show her audience how tantamount the gun and camera are; both apparatuses are treated like equals in times of war.
Despite the power of the camera, Lebow introduces a new argument in this section questioning the efficacy of this point of view in promoting change or conveying a message. Lebow believes that due to the ameteul nature of Barrel POV footage, most national media outlets responsible for providing news to the populace were unable to verify the accuracy of the footage. As a result, there is a delay in response from western nations to stopping genocides that take place in plain sight. Lebow presented a very clear argument in this section, citing many instances in history, from Sarajevo to Burma, where war crimes and genocide were being overlooked due to the lack of mass media exposure. Lebow cites author Thomas Keenan who supported her belief that since “having footage broadcast - and thus ‘framed’ - by global corporate and/or national media conglomerates...does not guarantee a response” (Lebow, 51). Despite this clear claim, Lebow’s argument falters because she fails to present evidence of mainstream media manipulating or “framing” raw Barrel POV footage, and assumes the audience has prior experience they can draw upon.
The sentiments raised by Lebow were very present with the reactions to Deep Dish TV’s, “Shock and Awful - The Real Face of Occupation,” a series of documentaries by grassroot filmmakers exposing the injustices and dangers that faced Iraqi civilians as a result of US occupation. The goal of these filmmakers was to show the world what mainstream media would not: the detrimental impact of occupation on the lives of millions of Iraqi civilians and ultimately bring change. This Barrel POV footage was seen as very bias by many students in my class and as a result the message of the film did not impact us as the film intended, supporting Lebow’s belief of the ineffectiveness of the perspective in impacting a wide audience and creating a wave of change.
Overall, Lebow does a good job using supporting evidence to convey to her audience of the power of the camera and it’s tantamount nature to the gun. The overall structure, and a plethora of credible evidence of “Shooting with Intent: Framing Conflict,” allows Lebow to deliver a very convincing argument. She very concisely provides context to all of her arguments and seamlessly her points together. The only knack on Lebow would be the few instances where she assumes too much, as evident when she says the Gunsight POV makes viewers feel like they are a soldier. Lebow’s piece was excellently written and cited, providing readers with a great platform to continue discussion and analysis of the two points of views she introduces.