Nanouk l'Esquimau

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

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

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.

Nanook of the North was a delight to watch from start to finish. What is captured on film is a priceless glimpse into an Eskimo family's life from the early days of film-making. Some people consider the film to be pejorative; particularly in the portrayal of Nanook as simple-minded enough to think little people live inside a phonograph speaker; or in the next frame where he is portrayed confusing a phonograph record with something to eat. I was not offended by this; conversely, considering when the film was made these scenes were endearing to me. Ultimately, what I like best about this film are the close-ups of Nanook and his family, particularly his children. The emotions expressed on their faces when they are happy and playful or sad and afraid reveal the universal link we all share as humans. It is a link that transcends the vast spaces of both cultural distance and time. The film is a masterpiece!

As a documentary turning point, Nanook of the North is undoubtedly one of if not the most significant work of the twentieth century. The story of Nanook and his family became the center of attention of the national media and virtually altered the perceptions the world had of film for documentary purposes. Flaherty may be to the documentary world what J.R.R. Tolkien is to the fantasy world. He is the giant of the genre. For its time, Nanook of the North was a masterpiece. Simple and profound, the story of Nanook was unique, and henceforth the foundation upon which the great documentarians of the 20th century created their works. However, through hindsight, the film falters. Most noticeable is the fact that Flaherty composed each of these sequences ahead of time and purposefully altered Nanook's life in order to make it seem harsher. In what is one of the most famous scenes, Nanook laughs at a phonograph and bites into a record as if he does not understand it. However, it was discovered later that not only had Nanook seen phonographs before, but he was a regular visitor to the trading post, owned a snowmobile and a rifle, and had probably seen a record player before. This fact puts into question the strength of this work as a documentary. Flaherty defended himself, claiming that some things need to be altered in order for the message to be seen. However, this is what we in the film world call "fiction". Plenty of fiction is based upon fact, but when you call something a documentary, it is held up to a different standard, one that Flaherty's work, although, good, fails to achieve.