Nanuk, el esquimal

Robert J. Flaherty's `Nanook Of The North' may be the first film about man's relationship with nature. Flaherty helps establish man's successful adaptation to his environment by filming extraordinary hunting and fishing scenes consisting largely of medium shots. The few close-ups of the Inuit generally portray the successful hunters smiling as they eat their kill. Flaherty contrasts these moments with sequences communicating the Inuit's struggles with the natural world. Here, he uses long shots: Nanook and his family become tiny black specks barely visible in the large, white frame. In the foreground the viewer sees bitter gusts of wind ruling over the desolate landscape. Flaherty's technique is simple but very effective. Not only does he depict man as a mere part of his environment, but he emphasizes how powerless man may feel amid the cold indifference of nature. At the same time, the hunting and feast sequences establish Nanook as a smart, tough survivor, a surprising victor over nature's harsh elements. In this way, Flaherty makes Nanook into a heroic figure.

Rating: 9.5

This is a fascinating documentary from Robert Flaherty, a very prolific director of early documentaries. He follows the adventures of the Eskimo Nanook, and we get to see what life was like for the Eskimo in the early 20th Century as we watch Nanook with his family, hunting for food, and building igloos.

This is really amazing stuff for 1922. It feels like it could have been made long after that. That's probably due to the fact that it relies on real settings and real people. It's not bound by the restrictions of manufactured sets, costumes, etc. of the period. However, though it looks utterly authentic, don't be fooled into thinking that Flaherty gives us a purely realistic snapshot of Eskimo life. He planted the early seeds of reality t.v. with this film, making careful use of editing to create a narrative with all of the melodramatic trappings of any studio picture. Though it's a fascinating film, it's also a reminder that documentary film is just as manipulative as fiction, and that Michael Moore wasn't the first to corner the market on presenting fiction as fact.

Grade: A

When looking back to the first documentary feature ever made, Nanook of the North comes up quick. Created by Robert Flaherty between 1916 and 1921 (mainly due to technical issues), the film was praised for being the first non-fictional feature ever made, in addition to capturing the unique lives of native eskimos that audiences at the time would not have expected. Part of that has to do with how much Flaherty worked so painfully hard to pull the whole thing together for so many years, all with the cooperation and patience of his subject, Allakariallak (a.k.a. Nanook). However, that in turn creates a massive conflict with this feature, being that it might not be as factually accurate as you think.

You see, even though the film documents the everyday actions of the Iniut people far up North, Flaherty actually took some creative liberties when crafting the film. In addition to the titular character not actually carrying the name Nanook in real life, his wives were actually played by Flaherty's real life wives, and even the weapons used in the film were not what the natives of the land really used. Allakariallak was actually quite accustomed to hunting with guns rather than spears. Also, the famous comical gramophone scene was all scripted, down to Allakariallak actually knowing what that type of machine was in real life. It really paints an inaccurate and frankly dishonest way of living through people who might not have even been known to international audiences any way.

However, despite the untrue facts shown throughout, the film still works well as a tale of bravery and innovation of the Inuit people up north. Many scenes are quite fascinating to view, including some of the hunts and even how the family operates. Regardless if several sequences were staged or not, much of what happens throughout the film inflicts a unique perspective of foreigners who may live differently from others. The very fact that Allakariallak spent his life around this region displays an earnest respect for both his people and the art of filmmaking in capturing such raw moments in a land one would never consider offering much. In a way, Flaherty wanted to document whilst simultaneously experimenting with the resources around far Northern Canada without degrading the virtues of eskimo livelihood.

So even if it may not be sophisticated in every single aspect, Nanook of the North still does a pretty good job in representing what residing up in a distinct region could be like. Sure, the film's flaws may anger those looking for pure facts, but in doing so, you'd fail to realize how much of a love letter the film is to a unique culture you may not have known about to begin with. Yes, it may not be completely right, but it at least presents itself through innovative craftsmanship unlike anything seen before its time. Besides, Flaherty has stated that much of what ended up in the film was conjured up through years of experimenting and well earned research of where he was shooting. I'm sure what he did is not too far off from what many filmmakers have done since then.

Years ago, in high school, I had to sit through a creaky, dim and dirty, silent black and white documentary about some Eskimo. I remember nothing of the film except that I didn't like it. Today, I had the opportunity to see a recently restored and nicely scored re-release of that film: Nanook of the North. After all the National Geographic, Nova, PBS and Discovery Channel documentaries I have seen over the years chronicling the lives of aboriginal bands of people, (aboriginal people often wearing Coca-Cola T-shirts and baseball caps), this classic 1922 epic is the best I've ever seen showing a happy people working desperately to survive in an incomprehensibly harsh environment. It is quite a compliment to the film and its subject that it retains so much power almost 80 years after it was created. The film simply documents a small group of Inuit and their children in northeast Canada as they struggle to live from day to day. That these people survive at all, let alone remain a seemingly happy, life-loving team in such a place is mind-boggling. So many of the brutally realistic scenes in this wonderful film remind me of how sterilized many contemporary documentaries have become. We see the necessary brutality of finding, stalking and killing your food. Then slicing up your kill right there on the ice and eating it where it died. We witness Nanook harpooning and then `reeling in' a walrus, catching fish with no hook and no real bait and somehow knowing where to dig a tiny hole in the ice. Then, through that tiny hole, he spears and battles to bring in a seal. And he succeeds. But more than the environment and more than the struggle, what keeps us watching this film is character. Nanook is the chief of the small tribe and the father in the main family that is followed. He is smart, curious, inventive, determined and, at the core, a happy, gregarious character that we learn to laugh with, root for and celebrate with as he keeps his family fed. His children are an absolute delight, playful and endearing, seemingly oblivious to the awful world in which they live. The film seems to have no artifice at all and everything seems to be a regular part of their life with little attention paid to the camera. If you are a lover of the documentary form, you cannot miss this re-release. It appears to have been struck from a near pristine negative and restored to its original length of somewhere over 65 minutes. The pleasant score is not too obtrusive and sounds as though it may be a reconstruction of the score composed for the theatrical re-release of the film in 1939, but the credits aren't completely clear on that. See this film.

Explorer Robert J. Flaherty spent the majority of 1914 and 1915 along the Hudson Bay, doing research and exploring for a Canadian railway company. Being a keen photographer and potential film-maker, he took a camera along with him. He shot 30,000 feet of film, of the native Eskimo tribes and their alien, hunter-gatherer lifestyle. The test footage was met with universal excitement, only Flaherty dropped a cigarette on the highly-flammable nitrate film-stock whilst editing, and lost it all. He would return, only this time with the sole intent on making a narrative- driven documentary, about one specific family of Eskimos, and their highly-charismatic leader Nanook, a legendary hunter.

Though it is now widely heralded as a masterpiece, and the film that gave birth to the documentary genre, the film is often criticised for its obviously staged dramatic scenes, and truth-manipulation in the search for a coherent narrative and to inject the film with an air of excitement and wonder. Personally, I have no problem with this approach, after all, one of my favourite directors Werner Herzog frequently does this in his documentary films to create a sort of artistic truth, opposed to the point-the-camera approach of cinema verite. In the modern age, we are treated to high-definition, sweeping footage of some of the most exotic and hostile corners of the planet, so it's a marvel to see where it all started, and Flaherty, faced with early, clunky film equipment and relatively little experience of film-making, created a magical documentary for an audience that, back then, knew little about the world outside their own country.

Amongst the many set-pieces we are treated to, the greatest (and much- celebrated) is the building of the igloo. We watch Nanook build it with skilled precision, slab by slab, and even incorporate a window feature, in order to give the igloo some warmth, and a chunk of ice by the side of it to divert the sun's rays. With many Eskimos now adopting Western aspects into their livelihood, the film is definitely a window into the past (the Eskimos had in fact already done this, and even wore Western clothes, but Flaherty persuaded them to revert back in order to give the film more of a sense of wonder). For a film-maker who had only taken a three-week course in cinematography prior to Nanook, the film is rich with beautiful imagery. The scene that watches the family trudge into the distance as the mist blows over the snowy surface like fleeing ghosts, gives the film a gorgeous, eerie quality. If you can forgive the film's manipulations, then this is still one of the greatest documentaries features ever produced, and Nanook (real name Allakariallak) proves to be a charming protagonist.

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com