The Stringer, 2025.
Directed by Bao Nguyen.
SYNOPSIS:
A two-year investigation uncovers a scandal behind the making of one of the most-recognized photographs of the 20th century. Five decades of secrets are unraveled in the search for justice for a man known only as “the stringer.”
On June 8th, 1972, nine-year-old Phan Thị Kim Phúc was photographed running down the street naked following a napalm attack that severely burned her entire back. She was immediately rushed to a nearby hospital. Titled ‘The Terror of War’ and taken by Associated Press staff war correspondent stringer Nick Ut, the iconic Pulitzer prize-winning photograph marked a turning point in the Vietnam War regarding sympathy toward these victims while elevating the photographer to celebrated status. One problem: Nick Ut now stands accused of not taking that photo, with documentarian Bao Nguyen’s The Stringer digging into the truth, enthralling beyond its investigative journalism presentation.
As much as the film is about questioning the Associated Press, who certainly seem guilty and powerful enough to cut any whistleblower down to size, there is something more insidious at play of trusted, mostly white journalists not only potentially toying with history but the lives of Vietnamese war correspondents. One of them is former longtime Associated Press photo editor Carl Robinson, filled with long-tormenting guilt and shame over spinelessly doing as told by his superior and changing the byline of the actual photographer to AP staff stringer Nick Ut to claim the work as theirs. He has finally come forward (although not without trying and failing years ago, backing out of publishing the truth in a memoir, as some similarly tormented emails reveal) and is willing to go on the record and do whatever it takes to get a man named Nghe the credit he deserves.
The further the investigation team goes down this rabbit hole, which first includes the difficult task of locating Nghe, infuriatingly implies that the Associated Press left him with evidence that he took the photograph, presumably confident that any allegation from a poor minority wouldn’t hold up. It’s learned that these were powerful and highly respected journalists that no one wanted to accuse of wrongdoing. However, now it begs the question of whether there are similar shady alterations in world-changing pieces of photojournalism and the names behind them. If verifiably accurate, will it open the floodgates for other stories, or is it a one-off controversy?
The accused parties declined to make any appearances in this documentary. It’s also important to note that, if true, despite his questionable morals, Nick is also a victim of dishonest Associated Press practices. Of course, it’s also possible they don’t want to give any attention to something they believe to be absurd and categorically false. Having seen the film, the Associated Press does come across as sketchy, and there is nothing to gain for the guilt-ridden whistleblower involved. The evidence feels credible.
Juicy scandal aside, The Stringer (Netflix would probably be a good fit for the documentary should they acquire it out of Sundance) is more about telling a moving story of regret on one side and humility in the face of a proposed stolen legacy on the other. There are the occasional short stretches where the film feels as if it’s repeating information and could move on to the next leg of the bigger picture quicker, but this is an otherwise riveting and emotionally involving documentary through and through, tainting one legacy and correcting another.
In the interest of fairness, here is a statement from the Associated Press on the subject.
Flickering Myth Rating – Film: ★ ★ ★ ★ / Movie: ★ ★ ★ ★
Robert Kojder is a member of the Chicago Film Critics Association, Critics Choice Association, and Online Film Critics Society. He is also the Flickering Myth Reviews Editor. Check here for new reviews and follow my BlueSky or Letterboxd
Originally published January 26, 2025. Updated January 27, 2025.
