COLUMN: It was sort of close, maybe, at times

A few weeks ago I ran into an episode of “The Love Boat” and I wasn’t sure who the actor was in the scene. I like the comedy/drama show from the late 1970s to mid 1980s purely to see what actor, better known from another television show, wanted to be on the boat.

I then turned to IMDB website that is an impressive cross-reference catalogue of every actor and television or movie that has been made. I found my answer but stumbled across something else. The episode I was watching had a character be diagnosed with Lou Gehrig’s disease by the ship’s doctor. The website’s notes dedicated to that episode stated it would be nearly impossible to determine that diagnosis based on what was depicted.

For example, if it’s a 47-step process to make the diagnosis, the doctor went from 1 to 29 to 47 in a matter of seconds. I get that, but it was done only for the drama/entertainment value. I get that too. (Certain surgery scenes in the TV hit show “MASH” were similar.)

Which brings me to the new movie “Civil War.” Our daughter Kari saw it a few weeks ago and highly suggested I see it since the main characters are photojournalists covering a civil war.

There are movies that portray journalists well. Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman were spectacular in “All the President’s Men” based on how the Watergate story developed. I liked Jason Robards as their editor even more. Much of their work as reporters in the movie was real. “Civil War” characters are in a specific category. I’ve taken hundreds of pictures during my 30 year career, but never in a war setting. I’ve worked small weeklies to seven-day daily newspapers. I just wasn’t fully comfortable with the dialogue and personna of the characters relating to their work.

Early on there is the phrase “I’m going to interview....” That is the right phrase, but I don’t think it’s used in daily conversation in newsrooms. I think it is much more casual and informal among staff. “I’m going to go talk to (or meet) with (name of person) about (subject of story),” is what I’m used to. The related story had to be “filed.” Sure, it’s right, but I don’t see using formalities in the setting.

At other times, one character turns to the other simply to ask if she could “take her picture.” Again, that is not wrong, but it didn’t sound or look natural in the movie. If you remember last Tuesday’s paper with the front page of the bent stop sign, that was mine. “I’ll be back, I’m going for a picture,” is what I told the office.

The young, inspired photographer in the movie was using a film camera, not a digital I assumed other characters were using. It seemed like her stash of film was greater than the oversized SUV used in the movie. To this day, film for cameras is not common. I’ve seen it mostly in camera stores (obvious) and national park gift stores. Traditional camera film is not readily accessible in all the big box stores.

And the film in the movie was developed not using a darkroom. I used a darkroom early in my career transferring the film from the camera to the developing process.

What the movie was missing most, based on the characters, was the response to their work. It was never mentioned or even implied where their pictures were being used or how viewers responded. You never saw a group of people reading websites or seeing images on smartphones. That is part of the photojournalists’ jobs; what news consumers see. That is what added to the tension in America during the Vietnam War as people in the states got to see what was happening.

The cause of the war was intentionally vague in the movie’s plot. Giving the cause of the war a little more depth may have created better character development.

I can’t imagine what it would have been like taking pictures during the Vietnam War near the front lines. The same can be said during the war on terrorism 20 years ago. I thought of that while watching and also knowing those who served in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

With so much media these days, and the criticism thereof, it was good to see the industry in a good light.