We only had time for a brief discussion in class today, but we started to touch on some issues brought up in William Rothman's article "The Filmmaker as Hunter" regarding the film's relative authenticity and accuracy. For example, one student mentioned the portrayal of some of the hunting scenes being "staged" to reflect a method of hunting that had largely fallen out of use at the time of filming.
As well, the idea of ways in which Nanook and his family were portrayed in overly-sentimental or even childlike ways are present in Rothman's critique.
While I find I do not agree with many of Rothman's main points regarding the film in this essay (I find some of his assumptions to be fairly conjectured), certainly these criticisms have been applied to the film by other scholars.(One example is here) Do you agree that the question of the representation of reality is of paramount importance here? Do the staged segments weaken the film's overall impact? What about the motivations or cultural assumptions behind such "staging" efforts?
Feel free to respond to any of these points or bring up your own...or other ideas from Rothman's essay.
It's just that the fronts as a depiction of the true Inuit lifestyle. It meant to give the rest of the world a real visual view of how these people live. But when a documentary's staged, it's no longer a documentary. It's untrue. There is no Nanook, that's not his family, and they weren't that primitive. How is that an adequate depiction of a culture. It just seems like bullshit to me. Like an episode of some crappy reality TV show. It's staged, plain and simple. Whether or not it's a documentary is irrelevant at this point. With all the time he spent, maybe he could have created some kind of narrative. Sure there were a few conflicts and resolutions, but comeon...
ReplyDeleteRachel Kilimnik
ReplyDeletePersonally, I do not believe the staged segments weaken the impact of the film. If anything, I think they made the impact stronger. The entire film (staged or not) amazed me. All the hardships and obstacles that Nanook and his family went through, whether they were planned or natural, had to be endured either way. Even if there were staged moments throughout the film, I do not think it alters the reality of the characters and their living situation. Thus, I do not think that the representation of reality is of paramount importance. Real or staged situations, the characters are incredibly impressive.
In addition, when we discussed in class reasons to stage bits of the film, I can easily understand why it may have been necessary. Not only was the crew in harsh conditions they did not know how to survive in, but there were other real obstacles that could have influenced their decisions. With Flaherty losing a lot of his film, I could imagine that he would contrive a situation as to re-record a particular moment (that may have occurred naturally the first time around) to contribute to the impact and story.
Also, I thought the music really helped tell the story (even if it did tend to dramatize the film). Music is an important part of any film to bring in the viewer's emotional response without them (most of the time) realizing it. I think sound (or even pure silence) is a clever and necessary component to all filmmaking. Just as music can produce strong emotions, silence can do the same.
Although having staged scenes and portraying a false lifestyle alters the reality of the documentary, I do not think it holds a great deal of paramount importance. It does alter what one would consider a "true" documentary, however, considering the time and how long film had been around I think the director wanted to portray a lifestyle that the Inuits once lived even if that was not how they were living at the exact time of being filmed. The lifestyle shown in Nanook of The North was not made up or fictional it was simply outdated.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the above comment regarding music; I agree that music sparks a viewers emotions and the films use of music, although over dramatized at times, added an additional element to the film we would not have gotten if it had just been silent.
Stephan Petryczka
ReplyDeleteAccording to Google, the definition which pertains to the film sort of documentary is a movie which provides a factual record or report. I thought this might have helped me in my search for justice in the dilemma that the class has raised over the film. I was impressed with viewing the footage prior to having the secret unveiled. It's not the sort of film that frequently appears on screens in contemporary times, although there of course are fashionable tributes to it. For example, one of the headlining nominees at this year's Golden Globe was a silent black and white flick, The Artist.
Although it dismays me, I guess I'd have to argue that this still constitutes as a documentary. According to the notes that Professor Aloi provided in class, reality television, which is often very staged and scripted, gets grouped in under the umbrella documentation.
To be honest, I really enjoyed "Nanook of the North" and was really upset to hear after watching it that some of it was staged and made up. Especially when someone in class mentioned that the filmmaker made Nanook and his family look more primitive than they actually were. However, I can understand both sides of the argument. I am upset that some activities in the film were staged, but at the same time, the filmmaker wanted his viewers to truly understand what families like Nanook's go through living in such tundra. And to do so, he had to exaggerate certain aspects of their life. He isn't necessarily exploiting Nanook and his family because they are not even slightly effected by the outcome of this documentary; they are simply the subject of the film. Nanook, his family, or anyone in that region of the world wouldn't of seen it, therefore it has no impact on them; they most likely wouldn't of cared if the filmmaker asked them to use a more primitive technique than what they are used to in order to depict how their ancestors survived.
ReplyDeleteAfter learning that some of the shots in this movie were staged and that names were changed and relationships were staged, i really didnt feel like i was in any way "dooped" at all. Yes, documentaries are supposed to tell the true story behind a situation, but calling the main character "Nanook" rather than his real name Allakariallak was im sure a hell of a lot easier for the audience and i think it was a smart decision made by the director. I think the story the director was trying to portray was still fairly accurate for a lot of Inuits and i dont think it was made to "fool us" into believing people that this is really what EVERY group of Inuits goes through. Plus the fact that the director who shot this did lose a lot of his earlier footage, staging some of the scenes was im sure more economical and easier for him as well.
ReplyDeleteWhen viewing Robert Flaherty's "Nanook of the North," I thought it gave an accurate depiction of what daily life might be like for the "happy-go-lucky" eskimo. The film seemed to be well produced and got its point across to its audience. However, after learning that some of the parts were staged and that some of the characters' names were changed, I was disappointed. Throughout the movie I almost felt I was part of the action with Nanook and his family. The word "documentary" meant something when viewing the film. It meant that someone could be a part of the action of hunting down a walrus for food, or even building an igloo for warmth and shelter. But after learning that some of these parts of the film may not have been true I felt like what I was seeing didn't really exist, that real eskimos were very different from what I was watching.
ReplyDeleteStaging a film does not offer a sense of reality. When producing a documentary, you want the audience to be able to distinguish between fantasy and what is real. In fact, realism is important when making documentaries because it gives the audience a glance at the truth. Although we may catch a glimpse of the "happy-go-lucky" eskimo, it is obvious that "Nanook of the North" is not accurate because of our lost sense of reality and truth.
I found "Nanook of the North" entertaining for the most part, i think the last twenty minutes or so could have been cut for it dragged toward the end of the film. When it comes to the fact that some of the scenes were staged and "Nanook" and his family were not real, i dont think it made an insurmountable difference on the quality of the film. The main message trying to be portrayed, which was that shit was rough back then and times were as rough as they can come (in terms of survival with hunger and freezing to death being concerns) is present throughout. I received that message loud and clear. Sure it compromises the authenticity of the film, but the underlying idea being depicted is there. Also, the filmmaker lost some of the original footage from his first journey with the eskimos, so he put forth a valiant effort to transpire events the way they may have originally took place
ReplyDeleteI dont think that using staged scenes hurt the film at all. In my opinion the point of the documentary was to show how drastically different the lifestyles of these people are compared to people in the United States. It definitely succeeded in doing that as well. Whether some scenes were staged or exaggerated made no difference to me. There's no law stating that documentaries have to be 100% accurate so the directors can really do whatever they want. Also the director has to aim to entertain his or her audience so that also plays a role in how they make a film. I found the film entertaining and I don't worry too much about whether its perfectly accurate or not.
ReplyDeleteI think that the film was visually stunning given the quality of the equipment available at the time. In some respects, I can understand why certain events may have been staged. The harsh filming conditions would have made it difficult to capture usable footage of everything the director may have wanted. I think it really all depends on the context of the staged footage. Did he have to stage scenes due to logistical problems, or to present a fabricated image of this group of people? And how close to the actual events were these staged scenes? It becomes an ethical question about the respect this person has for Nanook and his family. Even though these people would probably never know what the rest of the world thought of them, it's really the principal of the issue. It's almost perpetuating the Western concept of native peoples as savages. As a documentarian he should have set out to give the clearest picture of this group of people at this time, and if he was trying to show them as they would have been in previous generations then that should have been made clear in his intentions.
ReplyDeleteThe staged segments do not weaken the film at all, in my opinion. Even though it might not have shown how these people really lived at that point in time, it represented how Inuits of the past survived. I think that made it even more entertaining. If anything, the staged segments strengthened the film. I feel that Nanook and his family would not care if this represented reality or not. There is a huge separation of culture that they probably would not be phased by it. Struggling to survive in brutal conditions and the family working together as a unit are what I caught from this documentary, and no matter how authentic it was, the film's impact is still strong.
ReplyDeleteWatching "Nanook of the North" I found the film to be quite enjoyable while portraying the hardships of that lifestyle. When it comes to the staged scenes I found that information to be irrelevant since it isn't knowledge that I had prior to viewing the film and if it hadn't been brought up in class I would have been none the wiser. It was also said that the methods of hunting used were outdated by this point in history I believe that didn't take away from the film either because the way they survived must have been like that at one point so we still gain an insight in what they once had to do to survive. Overall the film was entertaining and the final product came out very well considering the hardships the film crew had to face as well.
ReplyDeleteI suppose there is some controversy in the way Nanook and his family were portrayed. While it does seem rather child-like, I actually found it charming how the characters came across as simple, happy people. I agree that the integrity of the documentary was compromised due to staged scenes, etc. however, before I was told of such tactics, I would have had no clue. The film may have shown outdated forms of hunting, and fabricated some minor scenes of the movie, but I don't think it took away from the raw points that the scenes were trying to make: that the Inuits live a very different life from us. Regardless if the scenes were exaggerated or inaccurate, the film still made an impact. I guess the bottom line for me was that those scenes did not compromise the film's overall effect, but rather compromised the claim of the film to be a documentary.
ReplyDeleteI found the film to be charming and entertaining. Charming because, here is this primitive family in relatively modern times, who are completely cut off from society and the luxuries it provides. Yet, Nanook still has an almost child- like smile on his face at times. His shock from the seeing "talking box" was like watching a kid open gifts on christmas morning. Sheer joy. Also, in spite of the hardships that he and his family face everyday, he still manages to provide for them. For example, the way he made the igloo was absolutely fascinating. He made it look as easy as putting ice cubes into a glass of water. I know he didn't build it as a kind gesture to them; that it was more a necessity of survival, but It's interesting how even in his secluded lifestyle, the father is the one that provides for his family. What I found most entertaining about this movie was their eating habits. In America, there are certain ways in-which a man can carry themselves to present them as "macho". However, nothing that American men do can compare to the raw brutality of spearing a seal in the head, cutting off it's skin, and eating it raw- right there on the ice, with nothing but dirty hands and a buck knife. Such is life, to Nanook and his family. The absolute primitivity of there means of survival is incredibly fascinating to me.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the film not being genuine and containing "staged" scenes, It honestly doesn't matter to me. The content of the film was entertaining enough that I didn't have to wonder what was real, and what was fake. The fact is, it's all real. Everything I saw in that movie definitely happened. Maybe some of it wasn't Nanook and his family, but I understand that from the directors point of view. If I shot a whole film, and shortly after ALL of my footage was destroyed, I'd probably be looking for some short- cuts too. Irregardless, the point of the movie is to show how challenging the lifestyle of an eskimo is. I think he definitely accomplished that.
I found "Nanook of the North" an intriguing film to look at. While it was staged in certain ways, this is still the first commercially released documentary and a milestone in film history. Documentaries are always going to have some sort of fabrication to it, because the way the films are edited is in the eye of the film maker. For example, the film producer may take a soundbyte from one interview subject, but have it represent something that the subject may not have had in mind. Despite this, the film still does a good job of educating what Eskimo life is like, which the average American had no idea about.
ReplyDeleteAs a Media Production student, I am used to documentaries centering around dialogue via interview subjects, so to see a silent film documentary was very different than what I am used to. The use of music for setting the mood and action was brilliantly used and it did suck me in. It made me feel like I was actually with the Eskimos and could see how much of a struggle their lives were.
"Nanook of the North" is a wonderful film that has been a large influence for documentaries and films in the future. Although a few aspects of the film may have been staged, I do not think this takes away from the film itself. To try and portray the life or an Eskimo is like, some scenes can may have needed to be created because they would have not taken place during shooting naturally. They may be scenes that represent crucial parts of the subjects lives. Scenes may be altered to make the audience sympathetic with the subject as well. Rothman made a good point when discussing "Nanook of the North" in our textbook. He stated, "Reality plays an essential role in all films, but no film does reality simply play the role of being documented.
ReplyDeleteI personally find it disappointing that a documentary would manipulate the truth as much as those involved with Nanook of the North. Yes, an entertainment factor is important, but documentaries are supposed to display the truth. Staging scenes and portraying the Eskimos as less advanced than they really are is only going to reinforce stereotypes. The people viewing the film have little to no knowledge about the Eskimo people. They are accepting everything stated as fact.
ReplyDeleteThe most heart breaking parts of the film were when they were fighting their dinner for the night. To find out that those exact scenes aren't accurate to the Eskimo story of that time makes me question the integrity of the entire film.
There is nothing wrong with telling a story in a documentary film. Blatantly lying is another story.
For me the purpose of a documentary is to tell us the true story of its subject. The staging of events and the creation of a fictional family read more like a work of fiction than a documentary. Why not create an accurate portrayal of the Inuit people? I feel as though Flaherty was pandering to the primitive stereotype of indigenous people. Watching the film for the first time without having done any research I did find it somewhat compelling but after learning much of it was staged and that was not a proper portrayal of the Inuit at the time, I felt betrayed by the filmmaker.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, a documentary should try to capture the REAL aspects of the person/persons who are being documented. I thought the documentary did just that by capturing Nanook and his family doing their typical routines until it was revealed that some of the scenes were staged. In this regard, I think the documentary becomes a film. There is no reality in putting people in front of the camera, a director saying action and filming a "scene," and calling it a documentary. I don't think these scenes weaken the film as a whole but I do believe it takes away from the films reality. I feel that in a documentary like "Nanook of the North," the filmmakers should be as uninvolved in their subjects lives as possible, while still capturing the reality of their (the subjects) world.
ReplyDeleteAs for how the Inuit people were portrayed, I feel that that may have been one of the few truthful aspects of the culture. Although some scenes may have been staged, they were at the very least filmed in the environment that these people are accustomed to and live in.
Diaz
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that documentaries should be as real as possible.. that’s why it’s called a documentary. “Scenes” where the director purposely directs or tells the people how to act is going against the purpose of a documentary. I was disappointed when I learned that many scenes were staged in the documentary in order to, let’s see, “entertain” the audience. I thought I had genuinely learned about the Eskimo people, and to have it be revealed that some scenes were staged is somewhat off-putting. I understand that directors feel the need to entertain people as well as inform them, especially after original footage was essentially destroyed, but I do not agree in depicting the Inuit people in such a primitive light. Despite this one but pretty big problem, the film was intriguing. Because the movie lacked actual dialogue, it was interesting and vital to pay full attention to the cinematography and written word dialogues. I think that despite the staging, the movie captured what it intended to, and it helped people sort of understand the arduous lifestyles of Eskimos.
Everybody has this idea that documentaries need to be nothing but the truth, but because filmmakers consciously make decisions about what to film, what music to use, how to light a shot, what scenes to use in the final film, etc, there simply is no possible way for anybody to make a completely objective documentary. With Nanook of the North, I think that Rothman did everything he could to show the Inuit way of life without showing his own opinions about it.
ReplyDeleteThere are documentaries about the civil war, but do we all not realize that most of those battle scenes are staged reenactments? In the beginning credits, it is said that Rothman had already filmed the Inuits and that all of his footage was lost in a fire. He must have been touched by what he had filmed enough to want to share it, so he filmed it again, but there were just some events that he wouldn't be able to recapture unless they were staged. I think that if he had just set up a camera and let the family go, it still would have been an interesting film, but I don't think it would have been as affective without the hunt scenes (which are the ones everyone seems to think were staged). In documentary, filmmakers live by the rule "show, don't tell," so if there is an opportunity for them to show something instead of have a talking head just relate it to the camera, that is what they are going to go with.
I think that the film was informative and interesting, and even though some of the scenes *might* have been staged, I don't think that takes away from the quality of the documentary. It may not be a true observational film, but it still does the job of documenting the way Nanook and his family lived.