
Do you remember this photograph?: The Falling Man - robg
http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0903-SEP_FALLINGMAN
======
m0nty
"Each jumper, no matter how many there were, brought fresh horror, elicited
shock, tested the spirit, struck a lasting blow."

That is a _seriously_ overwritten article. There are few things worse in
journalism than people who think they're making a big statement, just making
the statement bigger. As if they needed to explain what 9/11 did to us all.

~~~
steveplace
It's esquire. Of course it's overwritten.

------
SwellJoe
I think I only ever saw it in the book _Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close_
by Jonathan Safran Foer. I do remember it from that occasion, however. Pretty
memorable photo.

I have no idea what it has to do with startups or technology, though.

~~~
pistoriusp
In the book, that falling man was the kids father? I read it awhile ago and
can't really recall the exact details of his father's death.

~~~
SwellJoe
No (at least I didn't get that impression). I think it was just used as a
symbol for everyone lost. The kids father did die in the WTC.

------
aslkjdf
Doesnt belong here in hacker news. Lots of things may be interesting to
hackers, that doesnt mean you put them on the tech/startup forum. So keep that
crap on digg/reddit and let their community fall apart not this one.

~~~
slater
That, and the fact that the article is horribly written. It's like the editor
went "Holy &#!! it's 9/11 coming up! Quick, someone write an article!" half an
hour before going to press.

~~~
babyshake
I don't feel that way.

I particularly liked this paragraph:

There was no terror or confusion at the Associated Press. There was, instead,
that feeling of history being manufactured; although the office was as crowded
as he'd ever seen it, there was, instead, "the wonderful calm that comes into
play when people are really doing their jobs."

------
TetOn
"very long rant about the mere premise of this article. Please, for the love
of god, let. it. go."

I think you and many others are missing the premise of the article, if you
bothered to read it at all. 9.11 is merely a setting for the image. The
article is about the image, the inherent "lie" of photography in general, and
about people's reaction to images such as this one.

True, this is a famous image from a particularly notable event in recent
history, but the same basic article could have been written about many other
images, even some of those specifically mentioned in the article itself.

For more in the same vein, check Errol Morris' excellent series of blog
entries ([http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/which-came-
first-...](http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/which-came-first-the-
chicken-or-the-egg-part-one/)); then re-read the Esquire piece. I think you'll
have a different feeling about it coming from that perspective.

~~~
sown
Re-read article. Nope, still snuff photos.

------
mynameishere
Suicide? With a lion facing you in one direction and a tiger at the other,
rushing at the tiger isn't suicide. Stupid fucking journalists.

~~~
robg
Did you read the whole piece? I thought the reality faced was described in all
of its possible dimensions and much more so than I've ever seen any where
else.

~~~
mynameishere
No. I guess I don't think it bears that much analysis. Fire hot, ground far,
shit happens.

~~~
robg
I think you've missed the point. The photographic - in detail and in scope -
is very far removed from "Fire hot, ground far, shit happens."

~~~
mynameishere
Photography is an artistic numbers game. When Michael Angelo plots out a
creation over months, that's one thing. When a photographer grabs an
aestetically pleasing bit of snuff porn in a lucky 0.5 millisecond window,
that's another.

Terrorism, you'll know when it works...they'll be talking about it 7 years
later.

~~~
tdavis
_Terrorism, you'll know when it works...they'll be talking about it 7 years
later._

This is definitely the most concise version of my very long rant about the
mere premise of this article. Please, for the love of god, _let. it. go._ I
know we gotta go with the whole culture of fear thing, but it's time for a new
platform already.

~~~
unalone
I agree with what robg said to you: this isn't a photograph of fear. Far from
it. It's about an act of defiance at the last moment.

~~~
robg
Of course I agree with you. But we could also have a wide-ranging discussion
about what that photograph represents. Indeed, that to me is what makes it so
memorable and artistic. It's photography at its absolute, 1000-word best.
Still amid that, fear never comes close to my interpretation.

------
sown
Re-reading this article, it makes me think of the BF Skinner pigeon
experiments where he described superstitions. It also reminds me of human
pattern recognition and how humans will see things when they're not there.

Perhaps the falling man fell in that way by chance? I guess we'll never know,
but let's not draw wild and probably invalid conclusions.

~~~
pius
_Perhaps the falling man fell in that way by chance? I guess we'll never know,
but let's not draw wild and probably invalid conclusions._

Agreed, but the article does take pains to cover this very thing. They
mentioned that there were something like 11 other photos snapped of the man as
he fell and, by sheer chance, the photographer caught this angle in one of the
frames. In the other frames, the guy didn't look majestic . . . he looked like
a guy falling 100 stories.

~~~
sown
I read that part time and am not convinced. It's like when people see the
image of Mary in a piece of wood or toast. We see what we want to believe.

~~~
pius
I skimmed some parts of it so I may be hallucinating this, but again, I could
have sworn this point was made in the article. Ah well.

