Talk:The Falling Soldier

Confusing statement?

"...subsequent investigations confirmed that it is indeed authentic. The location has been identified and the direction of shadows in the photograph show that it was taken in the late morning, about 6 hours before Borrell was shot."

These lines in the article are confusing, the second sentence seems to contradict the first, saying that the previously proclaimed "authentic" photograph was taken 6 hours before the man died. Perhaps it is referring to the first image of Borrell but that is not clear. -- Miles (not registered) 12 Nov 07

Only one?

The Article states: he was the only member of the Columna Alcoyana to die in the fighting at Cerro Muriano that day. But the link has pics of another dying oldier that day. Any comment?--Tresckow 10:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a little confusing. However, the Columna Alcoyana was not the group of people fighting but the 'regiment' in Alicante where they came from. So the other soldier would not have necessarily been Columna Alcoyana. Macgruder 17:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably the other pics are staged as well.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I question the authenticity of the photo

I am afraid the statement that “investigations confirmed that it is indeed authentic” is incorrect. I believe the following discussion will make clear that it is highly improbable that the photo is an authentic moment-of-death combat shot.

The existing pictures of the soldier and his unit prior to the famous photo (click the PBS link on the article page) show a group of militiamen who are clearly play-acting for the camera. Richard Whelan agrees, stating the soldiers “decided to play around a bit for the benefit of Capa's camera” and that “they pretended to fire.” They were definitely pretending, for in one picture two men have not cocked their Mausers, one does not even have his finger on the trigger, and nobody is operating the rifle bolts or doing anything other than pointing their guns. And they are awfully exposed for people being shot at - one would think they would be laying lower if bullets were flying. This creates a real problem - not only was Robert Capa capable of setting up shots (or at least photographing bogus combat with the intent of publication), he was actually doing it in the minutes and seconds before the “Falling Soldier” photo was taken, and had done so prior. There are a number of photos that of Republican troops pointing rifles at barricades and glaring steely-eyed over cannons that precede the point where Capa “finally found the front” (Capa’s words, based on photos and text from Richard Whelan’s “Capa: The Definitive Collection”).

Now let’s consider the “Falling Soldier” photos that were published in Vu magazine. For Robert Capa to get the famous picture, he would have had to have his camera wound, f/stop and shutter speed set (cameras then were not automatic), the focus pre-set, the camera up to his eye, his finger on the shutter button, and the decision to press made. If the photo is genuine, Capa would not have had time to realize the man had been shot before taking the picture. This is a real marvel of luck, but admittedly not impossible. However, Capa then does it again, being completely ready with his camera to get another picture of another man who was also just shot and who has also fallen back and away on a remarkably similar angle, who also has his eyes closed, who also has his mouth closed, who also has no visible wound, who has landed in the exact (and I mean EXACT) same spot (where there is no sign of the first casualty), and both in the same compositional position in the frame. Wow, that’s a lot of coincidence. Worse, the camera is about two-to-three feet above the ground, so Robert Capa was quite a target when the second soldier got shot. And Capa does not change his position at all, not left or right, not forward or back, not up or down. The two photos are taken from the exact same spot, of soldiers shot and fallen in the exact same spot.

Richard Whelan, Capa’s biographer and the lead proponent of the authentic-photo position, got a police detective to analyze the photo. Captain Franks found that the hand position was quite unnatural for a conscious person to have taken (Whelan has a fuller discussion of this is in the PBS article). If the hand position is as he states, then the photo would be pretty credible. But there is a visual perspective problem with this evidence. To look as it does in the photo, the soldiers hand is either palm up, fingers pointed towards the viewer (Whelan’s and Franks position), or it is palm down, fingers pointed away, which is consistent with the position that Captain Franks states a conscious person WOULD take. The photo is just not sharp enough to tell which way the hand is angled. However, there is a shadow on the outer edge of the palm that seems to indicate the hand it palm down, fingers away (but my testing is really crude and thus unreliable - perhaps some lighting specialist could provide some insight). This “definitive” evidence seems pretty inconclusive either way.

So, based on the photos alone, the authenticity appears pretty dubious to me, but let’s see what else can be revealed. Richard Whelan provides evidence of the identity of the victim which seems to positively identify him as Federico Borrell Garcia, and I believe he is right. As well as the evidence given on the PBS site, there is also an article (on some web site that I cannot find at the moment) with an earlier picture of Borrell which is quite convincingly similar. Whelan also places Capa in Cerro Muriano on the afternoon Borrell was killed by finding the pictures of the same refugees taken by other photographers. And that creates another problem. Capa’s refugee pictures were taken in the afternoon, after the “Falling Soldier” photo (according to Capa’s own photo chronology system). Borrell was killed at about 5 o’clock in the afternoon. The shadows visible on and around the refugees are almost precisely the same as that in the “Falling Soldier” photo: it’s almost the same time. Same day, almost the same time, and afternoon shadows move quite quickly. Did Robert Capa really stop taking pictures just when combat started (and combat photography got interesting) and leave an exposed hillside under fire, then drive to the refugees, who are on different terrain and show no signs of being near gunfire (they are not running or hunkering; they are just walking), covering the distance in a very short period of time?

So, do you believe Richard Whelan when he states that “there can be no further doubt that The Falling Soldier is a photograph of Federico Borrell García at the moment of his death during the battle at Cerro Muriano on September 5, 1936"? I personally tend to think these photos were taken that morning, and that Borrell was coincidentally killed that afternoon. There is far less coincidence in that than in any possibility that the photo is authentic. I found a Spanish-language website (http://www.photographers.it/articoli/patricio_hidalgo.htm) that claims to show modern pictures of the place the picture was taken, and the appropriate shadow angle comes in the morning, not the evening. I have no way to confirm they were at the right spot, though.

Believe it or not, I really like Richard Whelan’s biography of Capa. I just think he is most likely wrong on this small point. And Robert Capa was a very interesting, full-of-life person whose work I like and admire. I bet he was a lot of fun to be around. And I forgive him if he did stage the “Falling Soldier,” as he was a very young man, a very passionate anti-fascist, on his first trip into a war zone, and he had first seen real combat only days before.

I find it interesting that I could find no picture after the Borrell shots that look staged - he apparently learned that he did not have to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.170.218 (talk) 06:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Shown to be authentic? I don't think so

How does the angle of the shadows and identification of the location prove that this is actually a photo of a man being killed? The overwhelming evidence is that this photo was staged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.109.109 (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Renaming article

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of photography#The Falling Soldier

I disagree, its half biography and half about the photo. It now looks odd to have a biography having the title of a photo. Maybe it needs to be split, with more info added about the photo. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Capa, Death of a Loyalist Soldier.jpg

The image File:Capa, Death of a Loyalist Soldier.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Hoary (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Iconic Capa war photo was staged: newspaper

Check this article about the photo. It reads: "A Spanish Civil War photo by Robert Capa that shows a Republican soldier at the apparent moment he was fatally hit in the back by a bullet was in fact staged, a Spanish newspaper claimed on Friday.". -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Proof

There were 2 falling men and both shot in the same place, the same surroundings, the same ground, the same clouds, the same composition, THE SAME SPOT!

Of course it was staged!
Here is the composite of the two falling soldiers: http://ethicalmartini.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/fallingman.jpg

BOTH SHOT IN THE EXACT SAME SPOT - WHAT ELSE IS THERE TO DEBATE? IT IS A FAKE FFS

If evidence like this isn't enough to convince believers, then what is there to say about religion... Added in this series of edits on 26 January 2013 by User:Autismal

As you have already been reminded, article talk pages are not soapboxes. Now, if you'd like to make a calm, concise, persuasive presentation of arguments made by others in reliable sources, citing those reliable sources, this might help the improvement of the article and would therefore be welcome. (Do please forgo the CAPITALS, exclamation points, "FFS", and so forth.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Also a second soldier "aparently falls" in the exact same place..! [url]https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=Apj%2fhhhh&id=BCDE1F01291EA27FE2DC754106EFFF6AA4D656B8&thid=OIP.Apj_hhhh-gaB4z8028isTwHaEK&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2f1.bp.blogspot.com%2f-t60KtZozz-E%2fUp3EzBq2_GI%2fAAAAAAAAAVM%2fEAW9nr8eoww%2fs1600%2f031219.jpg&exph=900&expw=1600&q=Robert+Capa+Falling+Soldier&simid=608001592573234777&ck=A4E308977D68212CEACEBD5275FDCE9F&selectedIndex=13&FORM=IRPRST&ajaxhist=0[/url]

Number 2 is on the ground.....(posing{?} [url]https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=8ZboiqIi&id=814961A363B255AF61A1CE0B5A26F2FB3BBDC9D2&thid=OIP.8ZboiqIisbY5fkLMD-mgLwDJEs&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic01.nyt.com%2Fimages%2F2009%2F08%2F18%2Farts%2Fcapbig.jpg&exph=500&expw=335&q=Robert+Capa+Falling+Soldier&simid=608045839274871409&ck=8C6777E4CBAD0977094909C8B10384C9&selectedindex=14&form=IRPRST&ajaxhist=0&vt=0&sim=11[/url]

Notice in Number 2 "falling Soldier" the somewhat theother ical way his gun is lying on his chest...likewise the fact the place these pcitures were taken were 50 miles from the battlefield...where fighting took place after the pcitures were first published..Ironically both pictures were publsihed at the same time...two men falling in the same spot..where no battles were taken place! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.174.144 (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Overhaul needed...

I don't have time to check the rest of the article right now, or to fix the bug, but I've just noticed that the second reference, supposedly "What Spain Sees in Robert Capa's Civil War Photo". (Time magazine. July 25, 2009.) is, in fact, a link to a Daily Mail article: "Faking Soldier: The photographic evidence that Capa's camera DOES lie... and that his iconic 'Falling Soldier' was staged". I'll try to get round to fixing it tomorrow, and revising the rest of the article while I'm at it, but if anyone else out there wants to sort it out first, be my guest :) --Technopat (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

"At least one individual believes that the photographs are staged and posed"

Actually the article gives compelling evidence of the photo being staged. Rather than "at least one individual believes that the photographs are staged and posed", it would appear that most objective observers would believe it to be faked. One factor which is overlooked here is that Capa was a communist, promoting a communist agenda during a war between communists and socialists and the rest of Spanish society. It was inevitable that Capa would have used falsification as part of the communist propaganda campaign.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Falling Soldier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Iconic_Capa_war_photo_was_staged_ne_07172009.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"Original title"

Hello,

I have doubts about the claim that the „the original title” of the photograph was „Loyalist Militiaman at the Moment of Death, Cerro Muriano, September 5, 1936”.

To my knowledge the undeveloped roll was sent by Capa to Paris; it was then processed in the lab by some people, either working for Capa or for the French review Vu; finally, this specific photo was published along few others on two opposing pages in Vu on Sep 23, 1936. The common title of both pages was (in French) „The Civil War in Spain”. Sub-heading (of course also in French) on the page which contained two photos, including the one in question, read „How they fell”. Small text at the bottom of the page below both photos though directly under another photo, was (also in French): „“With lively step, breasting the wind, clenching their rifles, they ran down the slope covered with thick stubble. Suddenly their soaring was interrupted, a bullet whistled—a fratricidal bullet—and their blood was drunk by their native soil.”

None of the above seems to be „a title” of the photo. I am not sure what is properly considered „the original” photograph or the „original title” of a photograph. If I make a photo of my grandpa and add a title, either as electronic tag attached to a file storing the digital version, or as handwriting on the back of the print, this would perhaps be „the original title”. Yet Capa is not known to have „titled” this photo anyhow; the negatives or vintage prints from the series are just numbered (and no negative of this very picture – perhaps what should be considered „the original” – has ever been found anyway). Copies stored in museums, e.g. in New York or in Worcester, have not been developed from a negative and I am not sure on what basis these museums title their versions of the photograph. Indeed the photo is sometimes referred to as „Loyalist Militiaman at the Moment of Death, Cerro Muriano, September 5, 1936”, but I failed to establish what the origin of this title is.

Given all the above, I would suggest to drop the reference to „original title” from the photo capture, and to replace „full title” in the lead with „known also as”. --2A02:A311:8140:C580:E121:A418:9430:E7D7 (talk) 12:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Could someone add a trans-title to the citations in Japanese?

There are two citations written completely in a script I cannot read, so I am not a good candidate for the translations. The text indicates they are by a Japanese author. Could some editor who knows both Japanese and English add a tran-title (a parameter of cite book or cite news) in the citations? Thanks. --Prairieplant (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

September 5 or 7?

The full title of the photograph is given in the lede as Loyalist Militiaman at the Moment of Death, Cerro Muriano, September 7, 1936, but all other references to the supposed date of the photo are to September 5, including the image caption in this article and the Federico Borrell García article (according to which he was killed on September 5). Is "September 7" simply a typo? Gildir (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

You're correct. I'll go ahead and change it. An anonymous editor changed it deliberately (not a typo) in 2020 and nobody noticed until now. Itsfullofstars (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)