1) On page 305 of Rony's article, the author discusses the ways in which "genocide is made erotic" in the trading post scene of "Nanook of the North." What does this mean? Do you agree that this happens in representations of Indians, why are why not? Support your answer with visual examples from the two movies we have watched and our readings.
2) IMDB.com, a popular website for movie information, describes "Nanook of the North" in this way :
"Documents one year in the life of Nanook, an Eskimo (Inuit) and his family. Describes the trading, hunting, fishing and migrations of a group barely touched by industrial technology. Nanook of the North was widely shown and praised as the first full-length, anthropological documentary in cinematographic history."
Using the articles to support your answer, do you feel it is correct to classify the film as a documentary? Why or why not? What are the possible implications, if there are any, of doing so in regards to attitudes towards Inuit people and Indians in general?
Lauren Scheller
The concept of “genocide made erotic” refers to the romantic racism many Americans have for Native Americans. Specifically such false ideals as the view of the Native American way of life as being savage but noble, in tune with nature but far inferior to Euro-American ways as well as the belief, most pointedly notable in the “Opera House Picture Show”, that the Indian was doomed to die out. The perverted reverence that soon came for the Indian was the result of Americans’ guilt at slaughtering a people, but only it was sure the Indian no longer had any impact on “American life”.
“Nanook of the North”, and many other documentary films like it, showcases the dying way of the Indian. The film’s representation of the imminent tragedy of Inuit lifestyle becoming obsolete fed into the romantic racism of moviegoers and as further proof of the superiority of the American lifestyle. Nanook is portrayed not only as primitive, but also exceedingly simple. The film focuses on his daily struggle to obtain food, rarely on his skill he had for building a boat or clothes and never shows him expressing feelings of love to his family. How is a smile supposed to convey such emotions? It really does not, but Flathery tricks his audience into believing it does, but convincing them that Nanook is much too simple to express his emotions otherwise.
Jenny Burnett
answer to question 2:
I feel that the film “Nanook of the North” is most definitely not a documentary. It portrays the Inuit people inaccurately and romanticizes them as a people. It shows the Inuit as unintelligent according to western civilization and Rony says it shows the Inuit as lacking a culture and primitive. The film is made to look like a documentary, as Rony explains in the article; the film was looked at, and still is looked at, as anthropologic and ethnographic. The fact remains that according to the Webster’s dictionary “a documentary contains no fictional elements and is factually accurate.” “Nanook of the North” definitely was not all factual. The part I found most fascinating is that the film portrays the Inuit as unintelligent when it comes to western technology; this is shown by Nanook biting the record and not knowing where the sound was coming from, yet Flaherty’s film crew were the Inuit people themselves. Also, the fact that the film was setup as how the Inuit “used to be” is still inaccurate because if you are portraying them how they used to be then you can't include modern technology that makes them look stupid. Because this movie was looked at as a documentary there is an uncountable number of people who have the wrong idea of what it entails to be Inuit. Many people think of Inuit people in the way that Flaherty wanted them to think and it is not the correct way. This happened to many other Indigenous Peoples not only in America, but around the world.
-Brian Wegleitner
In response to question #2:
A few moments into “Nanook of the North” I made a correlation to a present-day Discovery Channel favorite of mine: “Meerkat Manor”. The show “documents” the lives of two feuding meerkat groups as almost tribal in nature. It is hard to believe that less than 100 years ago humans were filmed in this same way. In sum, since the actions, scenery, and names of the characters in Nanook of the North, much like Meerkat Manor, are somewhat to entirely posed, Nanook of the North cannot be thought of as a documentary; at least, not a credible documentary by today’s standards.
In her chapter, “The Politics of Taxidermy and Romantic Ethnography”, Fatimah Tobing Rony takes issue with the fact that Robert Flaherty chose not to use the real name of the Inuit man he filmed (Rony 320). Flaherty instead chose the more “marketable” name Nanook to appeal to the masses. Additionally, the name Nanook, which means bear, imposes a certain cuddly factor upon Allakariallak. Had Flaherty wanted to make a true documentary, instead of a quick buck, he probably would have called Nanook Allakariallak instead (Rony 307).
Also of concern in “Nanook” is Flaherty’s use of pseudo-narrative. In our previous week’s readings, Dippie observed, “Whether the photographer worked in a studio or outdoors, however, hobble savagery and a belief in the Indian’s imminent disappearance shaped his vision surely as the painter’s” (133). Considering the time period for which Dippie wrote, this analysis seems to fit the sort of production which Flaherty made. Again, even though “Nanook” fit the requirements of its time for a documentary, it seems that Flaherty’s view of a documentary is skewed by the possibility of a large profit. A more realistic approach might have been taken had money not been an issue.
Rochelle Rogers
A documentary is a piece of work created by someone with the purpose of attempting to record reality. With this definition in mind, I do not think that “Nanook of the North” should be classified as a documentary. Although Flaherty deserves some credit for his attempt to capture a culture that many had not been exposed to, his film should not be identified as a documentary. In Rony’s article, Flaherty is quoted as saying “One often has to distort a thing to catch its true spirit” (304). Documentaries are not created by warping the reality and presenting it as something more enjoyable and entertaining. One example of altering the reality of “Nanook of the North” and turning it into something more entertaining is the introduction of the “cast” of the movie in the beginning of the film. Nanook, his wife Nyla and all the children are presented in a manor not unlike the opening credits of a movie when the actors in the film are introduced. At this point it is obvious that they would be the actors throughout the movie instead of the movie documenting their reality. Although Flaherty was praised by others for being “a “real” filmmaker, untainted by commercial concerns” (Rony, 301), I do not think this was the case. The need for recreating and giving new life to a “vanishing culture” (Rony, 304) was his motivation for the film, not depicting the Inuit people for who they truly are. Due to his tainting of the Inuit culture and his complete failure to show the reality of Nanook and his family, I do not think Flaherty’s film should be considered a documentary, simply a movie with a purpose to entertain.
inga