{"id":48010,"date":"2026-05-24T23:45:20","date_gmt":"2026-05-25T03:45:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/?p=48010"},"modified":"2026-05-31T22:18:44","modified_gmt":"2026-06-01T02:18:44","slug":"thoughts-on-the-stringer-c","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/2026\/05\/24\/thoughts-on-the-stringer-c\/","title":{"rendered":"Thoughts on \u201cThe Stringer\u201d (c)"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"As noted in my previous post<\/a>, the VII Foundation team behind The Stringer<\/em> decided that it should take the “cinematic” form of a “proper film.” They did so at the urging of director Bao Nguyen, whose models were “cinema about journalism, like All The President’s Men<\/em> and Spotlight<\/em>. ” This required casting someone as the lead; Nguyen selected the foundation’s Gary Knight for that role. In addition to foregrounding Knight in this way, Nguyen’s decision to do so takes up so much running time that, in my opinion, some of it could have better served other purposes \u2014 specifically, to fill in some serious gaps in the evidence.<\/p>\n

The first lacuna concerns the film’s conflicting narratives concerning Nick Ut’s and Nguyen Thanh Nghe’s arrival at and departure from the bombing scene in Trang Bang. Both Associated Press staff photographer Ut and freelance “stringer” Nghe state that Nghe drove Ut and several other journalists to Trang Bang in a rented van, so their stories agree on that point: they both arrived on the scene at the same time. But Ut says (at timestamp 21:45) that after making the “Napalm Girl” exposure and dousing Kim Phuc with water, “I picked her up, put her into my company car, the van,” drove her and several other injured children to the Cu Chi hospital, and used his media pass to get her admitted immediately. Later, at timestamp 1:14:00, Ut elaborates:<\/p>\n

Kim Phuc’s uncle ran out and asked me if I could take the children to the hospital. I had a van. I opened the door. I carried Kim Phuc and put her on the floor of the car, because her back was burned badly, so she couldn’t lean back. Then three kids jumped in.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"AssociatedThis implies that Nghe, who had rented the van and driven Ut to Trang Bang, then drove Ut to Cu Chi, and then drove them both back to Saigon and Associated Press headquarters. But Nghe doesn’t tell it that way. Indeed, in the film he offers no account whatsoever of his departure from Trang Bang. The next we hear about him (at timestamp 1:00:50) subsequent to making the “Napalm Girl” exposure, he’s outside the AP office in Saigon with his brother-in-law and colleague Tran van Than, a sound man for NBC News, present in that capacity at the scene in Trang Bang that day, who was selling Nghe’s film for him to AP, including the “Napalm Girl” negative.<\/p>\n

This indicates that Nghe drove back to Saigon with Than, and had nothing to do with transporting Kim Phuc to the hospital.<\/p>\n

Not only that. On August 1, 2025 Rolling Stone<\/em> published a lengthy article by Knight on the making of this film<\/a>. It’s substantial, well-written, heartfelt, and persuasive. But mostly anecdotal, and thus not probative. However, it includes this relevant passage:<\/p>\n

In his appearance on Bolsa TV, \u00dat referred to Ngh\u1ec7 as a driver for NBC, but he was neither a hired driver nor had a job for NBC. Ngh\u1ec7 was freelancing on spec and had NBC accreditation. Like many photographers in wars before and since, he needed accreditation to access combat zones if he was working as a freelancer; at the time, news bureaus would often give them out in exchange for a first look at your material. Ngh\u1ec7 says he drove to Tr\u1ea3ng B\u00e0ng that day and took \u00dat as a back-seat passenger, then drove directly back to Saigon after the work was over, also with \u00dat in the back seat. This may explain why \u00dat refers to him as a driver.<\/em><\/p>\n

Unfortunately, this crucial bit of information didn’t make it into the film in any form \u2014 not as first-person testimony from Nghe, not as voiceover, not as on-screen text. Yet it’s essential in many ways, making its absence from the film inexplicable. First, it affirms that Nghe and Ut arrived back in Saigon together, so that Nghe’s film got submitted to AP for processing at the same time as Ut’s. If so, then Ut could have been present when AP bureau chief Horst Faas authorized the attribution of “Napalm Girl” to him. Which could make him actively complicit.<\/p>\n

Second, it implies that Ut had nothing to do with getting Kim Phuc to the hospital. Reinforcing that scenario, Kim Phuc’s mother tells the following story in the film (in a clip from a 1984 documentary, at timestamp 1:14:55):<\/p>\n

She [Kim Phuc] was burned badly. We didn’t know how to save her. There was an uncle who carried her on his back and ran. He took her down to Bac Ha, Cu Chi. From there, a plane took her to the Children’s Hospital.<\/em><\/p>\n

The filmmakers understand the importance of this thread in the narrative; I counted more than a dozen separate segments in which Ut’s arrival and departure from Trang Bang, his supposed transportation of the girl to the hospital, and his arrival at the AP office get discussed. Surely sorting all that out clearly and conclusively merited a minute or so of film. Not only does Nghe’s account in Knight’s article clarify the actual sequence of events, it gives us parallel Trang Bang arrival and departure timelines for both Ut and Nghe while \u2014 with Ut’s apparent Cu Chi fable \u2014 establishing Ut’s appetite for self-mythification.<\/p>\n

\"VII

VII Foundation, The Stringer (2025), release promo, screenshot<\/p><\/div>\n

This matters greatly, as a gauge of Ut’s character. Arguably, the decision by Horst Faas to switch the credit line for “Napalm Girl” from Nghe to Ut placed Ut in a moral quandary, implicating him in a breach of ethics imposed on him without consultation. But if he has indeed falsely claimed for decades that he stopped photographing at Trang Bang in order to help Kim Phuc, thus saving her life, and instead returned directly to Saigon, that represents an inexcusable deception entirely of his own making. It marks him as self-aggrandizing and mendacious.<\/p>\n

If you make that allegation, you need to prove it decisively. Stating that and verifying it unequivocally, as the film fails to do, could only strengthen both the impact of the film and any legal defense of it. A missed opportunity.<\/p>\n

\u2022<\/p>\n

Still, when all is said and done there’s nothing forensically probative here yet, nothing inarguable. So far it’s all he said\/he said between advocates of two variant sentimental favorites: the young Nick Ut who (purportedly) took the photo and saved the girl vs. the lowly unsung stringer who had his glory stolen. Competing narratives from credible sources on both sides. It’s only toward the film’s end, with the Blender reconstruction of the scene by Index Investigation, that we start to get hard evidence. And it’s not enough.<\/p>\n

The problem in a situation like this \u2014 and I would hold up our Capa D-Day inquiry as a parallel example \u2014 is that the best way to get at the actual truth is by close, attentive scrutiny of not just the anecdotal\/eyewitness accounts but the physical evidence. And this, in my opinion, is where The Stringer<\/em> fails.<\/p>\n

\"WorldI consider that failure inevitable under the circumstances, and don’t fault the filmmakers for it. As audience and informal jury in this proceeding, we have available to us three public presentations of the evidence now in play: The Stringer<\/em>, the Associated Press report<\/a>, and the World Press Photo report<\/a>. In assessing the film and the decisions that went into its making, we should keep in mind that, per various public statements, the makers of this documentary did not have access to any of the archival materials used in the AP response. The producers of\u00a0The Stringer<\/em> refused to allow AP to view the film while preparing the initial version of said response, so, in return, AP refused to give the VII Foundation access to anything in its files.<\/p>\n

Therefore, while the film and the AP response share certain publicly available primary materials as reference points and evidence, they each include materials unavailable to the other side, and were produced entirely separately and independently. (Eventually, of course, with the film’s release AP got access to it, and with the release of the AP report the filmmakers could see what AP gathered as relevant material and how they interpreted it in order to reach the final decision announced in their report.)<\/p>\n

This resulted in an investigative context that was understandably \u2014 and perhaps inevitably \u2014 adversarial, given the charged issues involved. One thing to keep an eye on, then: Did they miss anything they might have discovered had they decided to collaborate on this investigation? …<\/p>\n

Part 1<\/a> I 2<\/a> I 3 I 4<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022<\/p>\n

This post sponsored by a donation from Carlyle T.<\/p>\n

\u2022<\/p>\n

\"Allan<\/p>\n

Special offer:<\/strong> If you want me to either continue pursuing a particular subject or give you a break and (for one post) write on a topic \u2014 my choice \u2014 other than the current main story, make a donation of $50 via the PayPal widget below<\/strong>, indicating your preference in a note accompanying your donation. I’ll credit you as that new post’s sponsor, and link to a website of your choosing.<\/p>\n

And, as a bonus, I’ll send you a signed copy of my new book, poetic license \/ poetic justice<\/em> \u2014 published under my full name, Allan Douglass Coleman, which I use for my creative writing.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \"\"\n <\/div>\n<\/form>\n\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

So far in The Stringer it\u2019s all he said\/he said between advocates of two variant sentimental favorites: the young Nick Ut who (purportedly) took the photo and saved the girl vs. the lowly unsung stringer who had his glory stolen. Competing narratives with equally credible sources on both sides. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[11,945,946],"tags":[2397,2402,2404,2405,2396,2398,2395,2366],"class_list":["post-48010","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-film-reviews","category-photo-history","category-photojournalism-2","tag-associated-press","tag-bao-nguyen","tag-gary-knight","tag-horst-faas","tag-huynh-cong-nick-ut","tag-napalm-girl","tag-nguyen-thanh-nghe","tag-vii-foundation","odd"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48010","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=48010"}],"version-history":[{"count":37,"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48010\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":48145,"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48010\/revisions\/48145"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48010"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48010"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48010"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}