Review
Art
Attention
Culture
5 min read

The very image of kindness

Photography risks cruelty in search of sensation. Andrew Davison contrasts such works with Dorothea Lange’s compassionate gaze.

Andrew works at the intersection of theology, science and philosophy. He is Canon and Regius Professor of Divinity at Christ Church, Oxford.

A black and white close up of a mothers cradling her jaw in worry as children cuddle into her.
'Migrant Mother', Lange's best known image.
Public Domain, The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles.

Do you like your photography cruel or kind? I’m generally an enthusiast for kindness – an unsung virtue – but I was mesmerised by a 2019 show of photography by Diane Arbus (1923–71) at the Heyward Gallery, London, and she’s the cruellest of the lot. Her photographs are a study in the awkward, the disturbing, and the unusual: a pair of brothers with extraordinarily large ears, a child with a grimace and a toy hand grenade, a boy from a pro-war parade, wearing with straw boater and “Bomb Hanoi” badge. 

Arbus’s photographs have an undeniable charge. They hold your view. I’m glad, however, that I stand in front of her prints, not in front of her lens. She was not out to show you at your best. Here is Germaine Greer, describing a photoshoot with Arbus in the Chelsea Hotel in Manhattan. 

'Clutching the camera she climbed on to the bed and straddled me, moving up until she was kneeling with a knee on both sides of my chest. She held the Rolleiflex at waist height with the lens right in my face. She bent her head to look through the viewfinder on top of the camera, and waited… as soon as I exhibited any signs of distress, she would have her picture… Nothing would happen for minutes on end, until I sighed, or frowned, and then the flash would pop. After an eternity she climbed off me, put the camera back in her bag and buggered off. A few weeks later she took an overdose of barbiturates and slit her wrists.' 

Reviewing the Aperture monograph that would secure Arbus’s fame, Susan Sontag described her work as ‘a hymn to the isolation and atomization of the individual’. I am not sure that’s entirely fair. There was undeniable cruelty to Arbus. “You see someone on the street,” she wrote, “and essentially what you notice about them is the flaw.” Perhaps all photography risks cruelty, depicting us warts and all (at least before the advent of the Instagram filter, although I’m inclined to call Instagram filters the worst indignity of all). Yet, even in Arbus, just in portraying the human as human, compassion lurks at least just round the corner. 

But sometimes compassion is nearer at hand, even centre stage. For that, I turn to Dorothea Lange (1895–1965), and to a recently-opened show of her work at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC, entitled Seeing People. It holds Lange before us as the archetype of compassionate photography.  

Lange could not have produced the photographs she did, however compassionate she might have been, without time, care, and attention. 

Lange trained as a portrait photographer, establishing a successful studio in San Francisco in the 1920s. Her approach to photography as a humane act developed during her work documenting rural poverty in the decade that followed. With it, she drew public attention to the effects of the Great Depression and the dust bowl, and helped to shift the public mood. From 1935, she did that under the auspices of what would soon become the Farm Security Administration. A photograph taken in March 1936 – “Human Erosion in California” (eventually known as “Migrant Mother”) – proved to be her career-defining shot. It shows Florence Owens, mother of ten children, photographed in the pea pickers’ camp in Nipomo, California. She and her family were in a dire situation, constantly moving to find new, transitory work.  

In the 1940s, Lange documented the suffering of Japanese Americans during the Second World War (“Japanese American-Owned Grocery Store, March 1942”), not least once Japanese Americans began to be moved into internment camps (“Grandfather and Grandson of Japanese Ancestry at a War Relocation Authority Center, July 1942”). For the rest of her career, Lange would travel to places in the United States that rarely, if ever, feature in genteel conversation, to photograph people scraping through on very little, never failing to capture a sense of their dignity. 

So, Lange was a compassionate photographer. I knew that before this show opened, and kindness is there in print after print. I was expecting that. What struck me for the first time is that Lange’s compassion was no light, easily achieved affair. She was careful, prepared, painstaking. She spent extended periods in deprived parts of her country, sometimes travelling for months at a time. She immersed herself in the life of a community, not least in its religious life, rather as an anthropologist would. She took detailed notes, and laboured over how to describe her subjects in captions and accompanying prose. 

It is too easy to say that Lange was compassionate in way in which Arbus was not: too easy, if that implies that the fruits of her compassion were easily achieved. Lange could not have produced the photographs she did, however compassionate she might have been, without time, care, and attention.  

She ‘saw people’, as the name of this exhibition reminds us. She saw people is because she took time to look. Before she clicked her shutter, she looked, she saw, she listened. 

In contrast to Lange’s deliberate intent, Arbus was a wanderer. She had a remarkable eye, and she took what she wanted. She is among the greatest of opportunist photographers. Sontag got to the heart of that, remarking that Arbus treated human beings like the “found objects” that Surrealists elevated to the status of art: 

What may seem journalistic (read “sensational”) in Arbus’s photographs places them, rather, in the main tradition of Surrealist art—with their taste for the grotesque, the proclaimed innocence with respect to their subjects, their claim that all subjects are merely objets trouvés.  

Therein lies the difference from Lange. 

The world could do with more compassion. Who would deny that? The message of the Washington exhibition, and of Lange’s work as a whole, is that compassion is not the work of a moment. Posting outrage to social media, or posting solidarity for that matter, is not going to change very much at all. It may make things worse. Lange’s lesson for this hour is that compassion requires us to take time. Her message is in her anthropological attention to people, communities, stories. She ‘saw people’, as the name of this exhibition reminds us. She saw people is because she took time to look. Before she clicked her shutter, she looked, she saw, she listened. 

  

Dorothea Lange: Seeing People runs from 5 November 2023 to 31 March 2024 in the West Building of the National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC. Entry is free. 

Review
Culture
Film & TV
Monsters
8 min read

Here's why E.T. is in my list of top Halloween films

What Halloween films reveal about our fears, our families, and our fondness for the ridiculous
A child and E.T. ride a BMX bike across a moon lit sky.
Universal Pictures.

 

Halloween can be exhausting these days. As we continue to import and cement more and more of the American cultural experience, and as I age into maturity and (especially) fatherhood, I find myself spending All Hallow’s Eve in two ways (neither of which is prayer and meditation of the hallowed Saints of the Church, or the Faithful Departed Souls who now rest in Christ): I can take my daughter trick-or-treating, or I can stay home and desperately throw handfuls of sweets and the horde of children in fancy dress who arrive at my door. I always choose option A…I’m a priest…I have a ready-made costume. To aid in the convalescence necessary after such an exhausting evening, I have compiled by Top 5 Halloween Films. 

NOTE: This list is in no particular order, and the entries are not all horror films. In an effort to be ecumenical, and to bring solace to those of all temperaments and dispositions, I’ve taken my criteria as films set on, or around, Halloween. I hope there is at least one offering here that might intrigue and delight you. 

5. The Crow 

A supernatural superhero flick which has gained cult status, this film kicks off the list in style. What style, you ask? The inimitable style of the 90s. Eric Draven and his fiancée are murdered on ‘Devil Night’ (also known as ‘Mischief Night’), on the eve of their Halloween wedding, leaving a distraught Sarah – the young girl they care for. One year later, Eric is resurrected by the spirit of the Crow, who shepherds souls to the afterlife, and resurrects those who die by evil and violence as undead warriors with a mission to find revenge and, perhaps…peace? Certainly not to begin with!  

This film is perfect Halloween fare for those who want the grit and vibe of the holiday without actually having to engage with real fear. The 90s was a decade of looking and sounding edgy without any commitment: the decade of bark, not bite. Brandon Lee (who died during filming in a prop accident – a star in the making, taken too soon) looks terrific as Eric Draven/The Crow, covered in black leather and face paint, excelling at fight and stunt choreography, and towing the line of camp perfectly. The setting is moody darkness and rain and neon, and gothic gargoyles! The music underpins the atmosphere superbly…I mean…the title track is by The Cure! It goes hell for leather in a deliciously pantomimesque fashion and is well worth a watch for spooky fun without the fear. 

4. Halloween II 

The unwanted sibling. The sequel that was never meant to happen. It is unclear to me quite what it was that forced John Carpenter and Debra Hill back to the writing room (perhaps the threat that this sequel would happen with or without them), but it certainly wasn’t passion for the project! Carpenter has described the writing process as one where he essentially had to be drunk to get through it. I must say, if this is the case, it doesn’t show! Halloween II picks up right where the original ends, Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) is catatonic after surviving the Haddonfield Halloween night massacre and is immediately transported to hospital. The murderous Michael Myers has disappeared after being shot by his psychiatrist, Dr Loomis (Donald Pleasance returning with the most delightfully hammy performance…in fact with the whole back half of the pig), and now Loomis is back on the hunt. It is all leading to a blood-soaked showdown in Haddonfield Memorial Hospital, and the most contrived plot-twist in horror history; necessary, Carpenter says, for any of this forced sequel (to a perfectly conceived standalone film) to make sense. It isn’t a patch on its progenitor, but it is far better than it deserves to be, allows you to spend some more time with beloved characters, cranks everything up to 11, and is a guilty pleasure of mine – me, a man of taste and refinement, a connoisseur of the creepy, a gentleman in the gathering of the ghoulish. 

3. E.T. 

One for the kids now, especially for those children who find Halloween a bit too much. This is the film that proved Steven Spielberg isn’t just a good filmmaker – he is one of the finest ever to pick up a camera, able to master any story in any genre. E.T. is a small alien who is separated from his group on a routine mission to collect plant samples from Earth. He is taken in by a young boy, Elliot, and protected from the government agents trying to capture him. Over the coming days the two bond, developing an odd empathic link that gives Elliot confidence in school, and gives the two much joy and laughter at home. Soon it is time for E.T. to ‘phone home’ and return to his own planet. Naturally this escape attempt takes place on Halloween, so that the little gremlin-like creature can wear a bedsheet without attracting unwanted attention. After several near escapes form the law, E.T. and Elliot have a goodbye so emotional and poignant that I dare you to watch this with your little ones and not cry…go on…I DARE YOU! E.T. is everything a children’s story should be, and has everything it should have: aliens, coming-of-age shenanigans, clueless parents, a chase with levitating bicycles. It is perfect, and perfectly gentle for a Halloween wind down as a family.  

2. Batman Forever 

Now, I was thirteen when Batman Begins was released; a man of grey-hair and wrinkled visage by the standards of comic books. As a result, Christian Bale is not my Batman – the raspy voice just grates on me! Michael Keaton is my Batman, and is, to this day, the best Batman. However, none of the Keaton films have a Halloween setting as far as I’m aware, so I’m going to recommend the Val Kilmer take on the caped cruder. Kilmer is the billionaire bad-boy Bruce Wayne, a mask he wears to hide his true identity as the crime fighter Batman. Tommy Lee Jones is the once upstanding prosecutor Harvey Dent, who went mad after having acid thrown in his face, and has become the supervillain Two-Face. Jim Carrey plays Edward Nygma, a scientific genius who is researching a technology to send TV signals directly to the brain – research that Bruce Wayne shuts down due to its potential for mind control. Nygma takes on the guise of The Riddler, and he and Two-Face begin to commit a series of robberies to fund the research and, eventually, take down Batman. Their plan culminates on Halloween night, which might explain why no one questions maniacs in ridiculous costume running around Gotham City.  

If you think The Crow is camp (which it is) you haven’t seen anything yet. The gothic is more gothicky, the leather is more leathery, the neon will burn the eyes right out of your skull, and I’m not sure if you can get more 90s than a gurning Jim Carrey menacing Nicole Kidman while Val Kilmer smoulders in anger. If you can keep a secret…I know this film is rubbish, but it was the ‘latest’ Batman film as I was growing up, and I actually really like it, and it brings back so many memories of my childhood, excitedly sitting in front of the telly to watch the action for the fiftieth time. Highly recommended, for the sheer operatic silliness of the film alone – and what is Halloween for if not operatic silliness? 

1. Halloween 

Of course this was going to be on the list. This is THE Halloween film. This is so much a part of the cultural memory that I’m not sure I even need to give a plot synopsis or explain my recommendation. Instead, I could just list the people involved and leave it at that. John Carpenter writing (with Debra Hill), directing, doing the music, probably making the cast’s lunch and everything else! Jamie Lee Curtis in the lead, essentially creating the ‘final-girl’ trope of the slasher flick, and doing it so brilliantly that it has only ever been imitated but never topped. Donald Pleasance…is also there. I can’t quite describe his performance: is it a genius deconstruction of trope and cliché in a valiant attempt to understand the warring forces of light and darkness in the human heart, or is it the work of a man who missed the lunch Carpenter prepared and so has decided to devour the scenery instead? He is bonkers – and I’m here for it! 

Curtis is Laurie Strode, an innocent and virginal (vitally important in the mythos of what becomes the ‘final girl’) high schooler, who will be spending Halloween night babysitting Tommy Doyle while her friends do – ahem – what teenagers do. Honestly, they couldn’t have picked a worse time or place to engage in underaged drinking and pre-marital sex. Haddonfield on Halloween night in 1978 is essentially an abattoir for the morally flexible teen. Because…Michael Myers is on the prowl. Introduced at the start of the film (in a POV shot that has stood the test of time for its chill and shock factor!) as a six-year-old boy who inexplicably stabs his sister to death on Halloween. He is committed to an asylum under the care of Pleasance’s Dr Loomis. On Halloween night, 15 years later, he escapes. Loomis, who’s time with Michael has turned him into a different type of madman, is horrified and starts hunting Michael, accosting innocent children, and all the while screaming about ‘THE EVIL HAS ESCAPED’…he also wonders why the police don’t take him seriously. 

Michael stalks Laurie and her friends, picking them off one-by-one, until only Laurie is left to fight and survive. The film is perfectly taught and lean and coiled: the tension ratchets and ratchets and ratchets until you don’t think you can take anymore. What makes this one of the finest horror films, and my favourite one to watch on Halloween night itself, is its simplicity. Michael Myers has no explanation. Why he killed his sister, why he hunts Laurie, how he is so strong and fast and seemingly invulnerable. He simply is. He happens. He is a force of nature that has no discernible cause or motive. Sometimes evil is like this, and I find my annual viewing of Halloween a tremendous restorative – a reminder of an age when the horror movies didn’t spoon-feed you backstory and explanations…they just gave you damn-good scares! 

Support Seen & Unseen

Since Spring 2023, our readers have enjoyed over 1,500 articles. All for free. 
This is made possible through the generosity of our amazing community of supporters.

If you enjoy Seen & Unseen, would you consider making a gift towards our work?
 
Do so by joining Behind The Seen. Alongside other benefits, you’ll receive an extra fortnightly email from me sharing my reading and reflections on the ideas that are shaping our times.

Graham Tomlin
Editor-in-Chief