Directed by Robert J. Flaherty

Position on the list (at time of viewing): 169

This is a difficult movie to review from a modern perspective. It is a movie of huge historical significance that, ironically, suffers greatly under historic observation and criticism. The short version of the story is that this movie is famous for being the first real documentary feature, but later came under significant criticism for the accuracy of its documentary elements, casting a shadow posthumously over the career of Flaherty that lasts to this day.

The longer version of the story is that Flaherty basically faked the entire film. The native he got to play Nanook was actually named Allakariallak, and the women presented as Nanook’s wives were actually just native women with whom Flaherty himself was sleeping at the time. Flaherty also made his actors and extras use harpoons as opposed to the rifles they were used to in the hunting scenes in order to make things appear more “authentic” in his opinion. The list of “documentary offenses” goes on and on. The igloo was actually a set designed to provide camera access. Flaherty deliberately made his actors act ignorant and stupid for comedic effect in a scene trading with white men. He lied about what happened to these people after filming was over. He was confronted with these inaccuracies while still alive and was absolutely unapologetic. He didn’t seem to care about how much he had distorted reality in order to preserve his own idea of how the Inuit lived. He legitimately never saw the issue with whether or not that idea was accurate or realistic at all.

So it’s easy to see the difficulty in assessing this movie for an informed contemporary viewer. Do you focus more on the film in and of itself, or does historical criticism have the greater emphasis? In looking at the film itself, it’s easy to call it a masterpiece. Not only is it the first feature length film attempting to cover a non-fiction topic, it’s also filled with visual and narrative genius. Some of the shots are more kinetic and exciting than anything we’ve seen before. The rapid editing of the hunting segments, the intimacy of the igloo family scenes, the desperation of the drive for survival in the brutal climate. I love the dogsledding scenes–they’re fast-paced and technically impressive. It’s easy to see the allure of this film and why it was praised so universally by critics at the time, viewed already as a masterpiece. The romance and mystique of a disappearing way of life in such a remote region is enchanting. Flaherty was a great salesman, and he sells this vision of desperation and ingenuity on the very edges of civilization.

I suppose it’s really a matter of how easily the viewer can separate the art from the artist. Flaherty pretty clearly wasn’t a very nice guy in some situations (more on that in some later reviews), but he unquestionably made one of the most beautiful works of the twenties and also one of the most influential films of all time. The vast majority of documentaries in general owe a great debt to this movie. It’s hard to hold Flaherty accountable, as well. It’s not as if there were a bunch of codified rules at the time (as there are today) for how documentary film should be made, or of lines that shouldn’t be crossed. He was defining the rules of the genre as he created it, and even though any modern documentary filmmaker would believe that he defined them poorly, it’s hard to be too judgmental. The only scene that remains really damning is the one about trading with white men, where Flaherty (according to some accounts) basically tricked his native actors into looking like idiots who had no idea what technology was. One particular scene with Nanook biting on a record (when the actor knew full well what a phonograph was) was particularly cringe-worthy. Some of the other stuff might be more forgivable, but actively playing into the “ignorant savage” stereotype seems to me at least to be a step too far, even for the time.

That being said, this is absolutely the kind of movie that every film buff should see at some point in their life, but that really isn’t all that essential for anyone else. If you’re the kind of person who will be impressed by the technical excellence of Flaherty’s work among early film, then this would receive a strong recommendation. If, on the other hand, you watch documentaries to actually learn things, or just aren’t that into the history of film, this can probably be a pass. You aren’t going to learn pretty much anything accurate about Inuit life in the 1920’s, so that only really leaves the technical elements to enjoy. Even if you are an amateur film historian, I don’t really see returning to this one too regularly. Once you’ve seen what it has to offer, you’re pretty much done. This is one you won’t be bored with and won’t want to turn off, but not one that I will be revisiting with any regularity.

Overall: