Nanook of the North

source: Nanook of the North

This is one of the highlights in touching cinema IMO. Flaherty showed the world a harsh environment in a time when Cinema , radio and other ways of spreading the news was hardly available. he shows us a pure way of living , just touching the modern wonders of industrial civilization.Nannook , and his happy-go-lucky family manage barely to stay alive in their harsh conditions.still enjoying all things human.they laugh when having fun , they depend on each other , they make the best of live... Unbelievable how they can survive in an environment , without wood , metal , wool or whatever. they totally depend on animal harvest. in the DVD i saw there was a part in which Flaherty's wife explained the impact this film had in the 20-ies when it hit the world cinema's.... she also tells us that in the end Nannok did not survive nature....he died of hunger some time after the film was released , and when news of his death reached civilization , from Tokyo the Paris , people where grieving the death of this 'fellow-human being that so warmly touched the hearts of men.

Affectionately remembered as "the first real documentary" since the work of the Lumière brothers as well as arguably the first feature length film, Robert Flaherty's Nanook of the North marks a remarkable fusion of intrepid anthropological chronicling of a way of life unknown to the general public at the time of its release, yet tweaked with shrewd cinematic manipulation. Whittling countless hours of footage into a compact 80 minutes, Flaherty cobbles together his footage (both real and staged) into a loose narrative following the hardships and rewarding moments of Inuit life, as focalized through chosen protagonist 'Nanook'. Flaherty's unobtrusive style is so engrossing and convincing that it is easy to overlook the recognition that real life would hardly 'flow' in such a conveniently paced Hollywood style narrative, thus educating mass audiences on unfamiliar material in a more familiar, palatable fashion. What is surprising is, rather than depicting Nanook and his family as savages in a spirit more keeping with his time, Flaherty goes to great pains to stress the gentleness, resourcefulness and humour of the Inuit. Introducing Nanook and his family through heroic close-ups of them beaming at the camera, Flaherty instantly commands the support and sympathies of the audience, further garnering it through subjecting them to the series of perilous natural challenges undergone regularly by Nanook and his family. Through crafty yet subtle editing, Flaherty turns potentially dreary footage into exhilarating and captivating, with particular standouts being Nanook, talked up as a singular hero, undergoing devastatingly cinematic walrus and seal hunts and the horrifyingly beautiful spectacle of ferocious winds ravaging plains of snow at dusk in an exquisite, lingering long shot, still gripping even more than eighty years after the fact. Equally, Flaherty draws particular focus on the moments of levity crystallizing across the film, his cameras drinking up Nanook's children sliding down icy hills on their bellies, a husky puppy being hidden in a parka to keep it warm and even enjoying a surrogate domestic scene while keeping warm inside an igloo. While such conventions may be increasingly commonplace in the field of contemporary documentaries and news, when even the most allegedly 'objective' footage can be assumed to have a thesis, in 1922, forging a film with humour, excitement, beauty and seeping sorrow out of an anthropological study was a work of largely unprecedented genius. Nanook of the North still brims with an unmistakable earnest energy to this day, and, unbound authenticity aside, the craftsmanship and tender affections of Flaherty's work (even ending the film in Inuit, "Tia Mak", in lieu of "The End") still cementing it as a foundational classic of the silent era. -9/10

This is not fully a documentary, since Robert J. Flaherty had to forcefully put in some staged elements. Also the characters in the movie did not really lived that way as seen in this movie and they weren't even related in fact, just put together for this movie. Nevertheless the movie still gives a interesting and detailed look into the lives of the Inuit people. You also have to watch this movie in perspective, back in 1922, really nobody was really familiar with how people lived on the Artic. In that regard "Nanook of the North" is a really insightful and interesting movie for its time, that I bet was watched with great interested at the time of its release. It's of course not the earliest 'documentary', since in the early days of cinema, the medium was almost entirely purely used for documenting events, such as the building of a skyscraper. But this however without doubt is one of the earliest- if not earliest, full length featured 'documentary'. All the more reason why the movie is a sort of significant and essential movie. The movie concentrates on a family of Eskimo's (Inuit) and their everyday live. Basically their entire life is about one thing; finding food for the day, for survival. Everything they do evolves around food. Quite ironic actually that months after this movie was finished Nanook (Allakariallal) died of starvation. The movie flows well and features some interesting sequences. It's actually hard to believe that they really followed the family for a year, since the eventual end result looks like it also could had been shot in one month or even less. The movie concentrates on the most interesting aspects of their life, though I definitely wouldn't want to trade with them. The movie is very well put together and since it's a silent movie, it allows its images to tell the entire story. It in a way certainly makes this movie all the more powerful and effective to watch. the landscapes are dull and cold but in this movie they're made to look as lively and warm. Despite that it's over 80 years old already, the movie is still perfectly good and informative to watch. 8/10 http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

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

Apparently, Flaherty's working method was to shoot a lot of footage, then piece together a scenario back in the cutting room. That clearly has to be an oversimplification. Regardless, he did a remarkable job of showing the daily drama in the lives of these people -- ordinary within their own society, and impervious to cold by the standards of ours -- and treating them with great warmth and humour. Nanook is really quite a dashing and self-effacing hero. Flaherty subsequently had trouble finding backing, and in any collaboration with another director, his influence is said to be the lesser of the two. Did he ever recapture quite this quality of mood? Perhaps he came closest with the delightful Sabu, in "Elephant Boy" (1937), collaborating with Zoltan Korda on that occasion. Some people believe he did in "Man of Aran" (1934). At the moment, I remain unconvinced, although I have not had the opportunity to see that one projected on a proper screen. If "Nanook" does not come to life for you at home, it will in a theatrical setting.

The ending of this flick has a weird, existentialist feeling to it. Anyone else get a weird vibe from the ending? The wind is blowing snow around the igloo. Everyone is safe inside the igloo, except the dog, which is curled up outside. The wind howls and the snow blows in dim half-light....

From a historical standpoint, this film really established the role of the documentary. While most of the scenes were set up and what-not, this is still an interesting tales to ponder. The whole idea of this film was to display the world of the Inuit, in all of its harshness. The cinematography was excellent, and the shot at the end is both haunting and breathless.

Directed by Robert J. Flaherty, this moving feature about the hardships faced by an Inuit family is one of the seminal films of the silent era and brought about his reputation as "the father of the documentary". Although only having spent a few weeks out in the icy wilderness, Flaherty presents us with a series of beautiful vignettes that capture the absolute essence of the daily struggles for survival that Nanook and his people face. The audiences follows them on their long treks in the constant search for food; picking their way over floes and towers of ice in order to catch a fish or hunt seal and walrus. Yet amongst the hardships and privations, Flaherty also allows glimpses of the tenderness and love within the family. The joy of a meal, the warmth of a shelter, the fascinating communal construction of an igloo. The humanity of the Inuits is rendered with heartwarming affection. However, often setting his subjects against the bleak yet stunning vistas of unending snow, Flaherty leaves the audience in no doubt that the environment is as much the star. Some critics argue that Nanook is not a true documentary as Flaherty staged some scenes and directed his subjects. However, these critics are wildly missing the point. Nanook Of the North is as much about the barren landscape that Nanook and his clan wander. At its centre, this film is the age old tale of the battle between man and nature. This is none more evident of the films wonderful final scenes. Caught in a blizzard, the family are forced to find refuge in an abandoned igloo. A happy respite together from the wild storm outside. This scene has been given extra poignancy with the tragic knowledge that Nanook and his family perished in such a blizzard a few months after the film was released. It's a sad footnote to a tremendous film. A masterpiece of film making that inspires and enthrals and, most importantly, celebrates nature, life and humanity.

"Nanook of the North" is a film that shows the life of Nanook and his family back in 1920 in the frozen North of Canada. Most of the film shows Nanook hunting and fishing--most other activities are not seen. I'll be honest about this one--"Nanook of the North" is NOT a film for everyone. It's a semi-documentary with very limited appeal. I am not surprised that it was released as part of the ultra-artsy Criterion Collection. After all, how many people want to see a film about the life of the Inuit in Northern Canada?! However, for fans of documentaries, it's well worth seeing, as it's one of the very early ones. But you might have noticed that I called it a 'semi-documentary'--a term that should be used more often. That's because a true documentary shows what is--not a fictional account of what is. And, while what you see is typical in some ways about the Inuit, it was NOT typical of the Inuit in 1920. These folks no longer hunted and lived like they did in this film due to their contact with the outside world. And so, what you see is more like the Inuit BEFORE they made contact with the modern world. Apparently, in 1920, these folks were using guns and other modern bits of technology that are not shown in the film. Additionally, the filmmaker staged much of the film. For example, Nannok's wife in the film really isn't his wife! But with all these problems, is the film worthless? Certainly not!! It's fascinating from start to finish and is more like a recreation of ancient Inuit life--and in this sense, it's an invaluable record--but one most people probably don't care much about today--mostly it's a film for academicians and film historians.