1) Rony's article focuses on Nanook of the North as a piece of visible anthropology and ethnography and discusses how it could be the archetypal film of such areas. This could be attributed to the addition of title cards detailing the trivial daily activity unfolding onscreen allotting for a more factual presentation of the images.
Keeping the same images in the same order how could changing the information on the title cards alter the message conveyed to the audience? For example, if the title cards followed a more Hollywood narrative style would the meaning of the images have changed? Would Nanook of the North still be viewed as a piece of ethnography or would it be just another film romanticizing the "first man". Think back to both the Dippie and Pinney readings from last week and bring it one step further with Rony.
2) Rony discusses how even though Nanook of the North follows Inuit daily life it still contains a "slight narrative". One could argue that it is difficult to portray a piece of documentary without a narrative that reflects the opinions of the filmmaker no matter how diligent they are. In Nanook's case this includes Rony's claim that Flaherty's films all contain the desire to portray the majesty of an untainted primitive way of life.
Keeping this in mind when thinking about Nanook of the North's musical track, how does the pairing of the images with the fluctuating music convey or impact the story the filmmaker wants you to see or the emotion the filmmaker wants you to feel? Does it glorify trivial daily activity like climbing to the top of a hill or is it simply a nice addition to an otherwise silent film?