NanookI've seen this film a total of three times now. I never really knew what to think of it then. I really don't know what to think of it now either. However, the last two times, I experienced it as a member of the audience. Today, I began to see it as Flaherty might have envisioned.
There are many qualms over the film's documentary status. For those who aren't aware, many significant details were fabricated by Flaherty to romanticize the Inuit way of life and their sense of alienation from the Western world and its technological advances - despite the fact that the Inuit actually served as key crew members during the making of this film and even used rifles to hunt for their food.
This is how I came to see the film: a documentary. But I learn that the full title was once Nanook of the North: A Story of Life and Love in the Actual Arctic. The key word here is story. It must be known that Flaherty was less a filmmaker and more a trader. A hired hand, he was sent out to analyze the potential for railways and minerals. He came into frequent contact with the Inuit during these expeditions and that's how the project came to fruition. He set his sights on commercial distribution and audiences clamoring for narrative fiction rather than the actualities of early cinema. The only true documentary value of Nanook is the actual Arctic. The rest is arguably just that: a story. In light of these discoveries, I now see this film more as fiction rather than documentary. I find that more easy to stomach.
But regardless of how one categorizes Nanook, its images are compelling. The events that take place are foreign to most everyone in the world - a real fantasy. Fortunately, remnants of this fantasy still seem preserved to some extent as witnessed in the film Atarnajuat (reviewed earlier). Perhaps it is not as easy to embrace the modern world in an area as harsh as the Arctic. In any case, I still saw visions of Nanook in Atarnajuat. I wonder if the Inuit would agree. If they did, that would be a testament to Flaherty - fabricated or not.
There are many qualms over the film's documentary status. For those who aren't aware, many significant details were fabricated by Flaherty to romanticize the Inuit way of life and their sense of alienation from the Western world and its technological advances - despite the fact that the Inuit actually served as key crew members during the making of this film and even used rifles to hunt for their food.
This is how I came to see the film: a documentary. But I learn that the full title was once Nanook of the North: A Story of Life and Love in the Actual Arctic. The key word here is story. It must be known that Flaherty was less a filmmaker and more a trader. A hired hand, he was sent out to analyze the potential for railways and minerals. He came into frequent contact with the Inuit during these expeditions and that's how the project came to fruition. He set his sights on commercial distribution and audiences clamoring for narrative fiction rather than the actualities of early cinema. The only true documentary value of Nanook is the actual Arctic. The rest is arguably just that: a story. In light of these discoveries, I now see this film more as fiction rather than documentary. I find that more easy to stomach.
But regardless of how one categorizes Nanook, its images are compelling. The events that take place are foreign to most everyone in the world - a real fantasy. Fortunately, remnants of this fantasy still seem preserved to some extent as witnessed in the film Atarnajuat (reviewed earlier). Perhaps it is not as easy to embrace the modern world in an area as harsh as the Arctic. In any case, I still saw visions of Nanook in Atarnajuat. I wonder if the Inuit would agree. If they did, that would be a testament to Flaherty - fabricated or not.
