Photojournalism is a tireless pursuit, and there are only so many instantly recognizable photographs. One such image, “The Terror of War,” is often credited as having helped shift the American public’s perception of the Vietnam War. The shot earned Vietnamese American photojournalist Nick Ut a Pulitzer Prize in 1973 and kick-started his five-decade-long career.
But what if Ut didn’t take the photograph? Armed with allegations from former Associated Press photo editor Carl Robinson that a powerful editor swapped the attribution without Ut’s knowledge, journalist Gary Knight set out to find the truth in 2022. Vietnamese American CAS alum Bao Nguyen documents Knight’s investigation in the film “The Stringer: The Man Who Took the Photo.”
In the documentary, Knight and his team track down the titular stringer — or a part-time freelance photographer typically covering events in a singular place — a humble family man named Nguyen Thành Nghệ now living in California. The oral evidence of the film’s claim comes from Knight’s interviews with Nghệ, his extended family and Robinson about Nghệ’s account of taking the photo. The film’s key proof comes from INDEX, a forensics firm that created a 3D map of the distances Ut would have had to move in a short time to take “The Terror of War.” Put together, the film presents a search for truth alongside a larger narrative about Western media’s exploitation of the Global South.
“I was very grateful that I could be part of this film,” Nguyen told WSN. “Because there aren’t that many opportunities for Vietnamese or Vietnamese Americans to tell the story of Vietnam from our own perspective. It’s been told sort of ad nauseam through an American, frankly, white male perspective.”
While Knight, an English white male journalist, led the film’s investigation, Nguyen explained that the journalist and his team recognized their own privilege and put their reputations on the line. Still, it’s hard not to notice so much screentime given to Knight and not to Vietnamese voices like journalist Lê Vân.
“It takes allies like Gary and people in the photojournalism world to help us open up the story,” Nguyen said. “Not just the human story, but obviously the story of systemic racism and injustice that was perpetuated through the photojournalism industry.”
Ut declined Nguyen’s initial request, made through mutual friends, at the project’s start. According to Nguyen, the photographer chose not to respond to 16 additional requests for an interview from Knight. Although the film includes past reflections from Ut, the lack of a new interview is glaring. In one scene, Knight waits in a cafe for Ut to arrive for a conversation, but Ut never shows.
Another voice missing is Phan Thị Kim Phúc, the girl running in the photograph. Instead of an interview, Knight spoke with her cousin who disputes Ut’s claim that he brought Phúc to the hospital.
“The Stringer” never alleges that Ut was involved in the misattribution, but it implies that a photographer should know which images they did and did not take, even in a war zone. The film portrays Ut as a victim of Western media, but simultaneously questions the accuracy of his own memories, in turn accusing him of complicity in accepting credit. Even if Nguyen and Knight did not want to diminish Ut’s legacy, damage was still done.
When the investigation into the photograph’s authorship was first announced in early 2025, it sent shockwaves throughout the media world. Many journalists came out against the film, even without seeing it, prompting Knight to publicly express his disappointment that some didn’t want this story told.
As noted near the end of “The Stringer,” the AP issued its own report in response to the film, casting doubt on several aspects of Knight’s investigation, namely the 3D model. The AP recognized that a conclusive answer is unlikely more than fifty years after the fact, and that while the film’s conclusion is possible, they believe it is highly unlikely.
“I honestly always want my film to ask more questions than it answers,” Nguyen said. “I want to trust the audience in terms of what they come out of it with.”
The problems with “The Stringer” do not lie with its style or form, but rather its investigative substance. The film crafts a compelling case for Nghệ, but while he has finally shared his story, the injustice the film presents lacks the closure audiences may expect. The viewer is left with an incomplete puzzle, but that might be the point.
“I hope it allows people to think about the bigger themes of the film and not just if he did it or not,” Nguyen said. “But at the end of the day, the film is called ‘The Stringer’ for a reason. No matter if the AP had changed the credit or the Pulitzer had rewarded it to someone else, Nghệ’s story and emotional truth remain the same to me.”
Contact Jason Alpert-Wisnia at [email protected].