The film “Stranger with a Camera” follows the events that led up to and the results of the
murder of Hugh O’Connor by Hobart Ison. Hugh O’Connor was a filmmaker who was known for going to
third-world countries to make documentaries about the people and how they lived. In 1967, O’Connor
along with a small crew went to Jeremiah, Kentucky to film a portion of their documentary “Us”. He
entered land owned by Ison with permission from a family who rented a house from Ison. A neighbor
saw the film crew on his property and went to alert them. According to the interviews in “Stranger with
a Camera” Hobart cared about his land more than anything and was very protective of it, refusing to sell
even a foot of it. Hobart Ison rushed to his property and shot at Hugh O’Connor 4 to 5 times, striking him
in the chest, and killing him. Hobart was considered an outstanding member of the community, known
to be the first to help and the last to leave. The filmmaker, Elizabeth Barrett, wanted to learn more
about what led those two men to meet in 1967. According to the documentary, Hobart was so well
known and highly regarded that it was almost impossible to find an unbiased jury. In 1968, Hobart was
tried for murder. The jury could not come to a unanimous decision, with 11 calling for conviction and 1
not. Ison pled guilty of involuntary manslaughter, was sentenced to 10 years in prison, and paroled one
year after.
The filmmaker makes a point to show that it is difficult to show an impoverished area without
demeaning or hurting the people who live there. Many articles, pictures, and videos had been made of
the people in Jeremiah that showed them in a bad light and didn’t care about the feelings of the people.
Due to this, the residents were not overwhelmingly welcoming to individuals and crews coming into the
area. Elizabeth Barrett was in a unique situation because she was there as a filmmaker, but she was also
a local and known in the community. Elizabeth’s agenda for this documentary was to learn for herself
what led to that interaction in 1967 and share what she learned with anyone who may be interested.
One major cause of that interaction was a topic of this week’s reading, stereotyping. Stereotypes about
Appalachia were not uncommon nor flattering. They led to a tendency to be unwelcoming to outsiders
who were looking to show the world how they acted and lived, as they felt there were there to make
them look bad. The filmmaker used many personal interviews of individuals who knew both Hugh
O’Connor and Hobart Ison to get a full story of what happened that day in 1967.
One thing I found very interesting was the history of Hobart Ison. Having been drafted and then
released to care for his father made me think of the other topic of this week, modernization. Along with
modernization the Civil War was focused on as well. The Civil War had a huge impact on communities in
Kentucky. People were drafted randomly and that was a huge detriment because skilled laborers and
teachers were removed from the area and had a big effect. In this case, the one affected was Hobart’s
father who needed help from his son to tend to the farm. I did not know that anyone had or could be
allowed to leave after being drafted if their family or other circumstances required it. Another thing that
I found very interesting was that it was so hard for the court to find a jury that would not be biased
towards Hobart. From just hearing about the encounter, it seems clear that Hobart killed Hugh
O’Connor just for being on his land. While in essence that is what happened, I think the reason barely
any part of the story was shared was because of stereotypes. In part, stereotypes led to Hobart Ison’s
actions and only part of the encounter became popular because of those same stereotypes. The
filmmaker has a unique point of view in this documentary because they are not an outsider trying to get
a look at Appalachian communities. She was born in Jeremiah and wanted to know more about what
happened between Hugh O’Connor and Hobart Ison. One major way that the individuals are treated
differently is that they are approached and treated as ordinary people. They weren’t interviewed as
experts in a particular area or as someone who was very different, just as someone who knew what
happened and had a story to tell. I found the documentary to be very effective because you could tell
that the filmmaker cared about not only the event, but the history, the community, and the individuals.