[ The Stringer ] A friend Whatsapped me after watching The Stringer with this question — “Does Gary Knight have a personal grudge against Nick Ut?”

It is NOT an unreasonable question, especially if you are an ‘outsider’ with no interest or knowledge of the world of photojournalism.

Before we go any further, I would say the answer is no, there is no reason to believe it was a personal thing.

Look, Gary Knight is not just Gary Knight. He is Gary Knight of VII photo agency, or VII Foundation. While he is probably powerful in his own right, it is doubtful that the illustrious board of trustees he works with will allow him to be so unreasonable as to take on an institution like AP.

Outside of the photojournalism world, this documentary by American filmmaker Bao Nyugen has attracted the eyeballs of ‘normal’ viewers, making it one of the most-watched shows on Netflix since it started streaming a few weeks ago.

The question is why?

But before that, the bigger question — Is Nick Ut guilty of taking credit for a picture he did not make?

Well, I won’t spoil the fun for you. Watch it. And if you have little patience, just fast forward to the last 30 minutes of the documentary.

To me, the proof is crystal clear. But you will have to decide for yourself what or who to believe.

However, I will strongly encourage you to watch it from the beginning. I did that, twice, just to be sure I understand it clearly.

To me, the proof is crystal clear. But you will have to decide for yourself what or who to believe.

Even if you think you are familiar with The Napalm Girl and Nick Ut, you may want to think again how much you really know.

For instance, who delivered the rolls of film to the AP office in Saigon?

How many frames were there in total? It seems to be two. If so, what happened to the other frames from that roll?

According to Nguyễn Thành Nghệ, the other photographer in the centre of this mystery, he sold them to another news organisation after AP snipped off what they wanted.

But first, you have to believe that Nghệ was indeed the real photographer, and not Ut.

While the documentary has gone to length to untangle certain mysteries, it does not dispel all.

And I think that is deliberate and inevitable.

For instance, Nghệ’s own account of when he tore up the print given to him is quite from what his daughter remembers.

Let’s be clear, this happened many decades ago. Things can become cloudy, just as Ut cannot be faulted if he really believes he is the author.

Perhaps in another world, “The Stringer” could be called “Did Horst Pull A Faas One?” or even the more insulting “Horst Shxt”.

A few things are clearer though.

Such as the ‘assigning’ of blame. The filmmakers have spared little effort in suggesting that more than anything, Ut is a victim too. Personally, I believe that this sympathetic stance is a way of saying to Ut, “We know you did not steal from another photographer, let’s have a chat”. But is also clear that it is not enough to get him to participate in the dialogue.

It is clear as daylight that the bigger culprit, if there is one, would be Horst Faas, the man who allegedly decided who got the credit.

Perhaps in another world, “The Stringer” could be called “Did Horst Pull A Faas One?” or even the more insulting “Horst Shxt”.

The fact that Ut has refused to participate in this documentary has not done him any favours. We can safely assumed that because he has been able to live off this amazing pictures, he would have made enough enemies, and many would want him to be disgraced.

I guess the question going forward is — can there be a happy ending for all?