Nanook of the North (1922)

Country: USA

Released: June 11th, 1922

Genre: Documentary

Directed by: Robert J. Flaherty

Produced by: Robert J. Flaherty

Written by: Robert J. Flaherty

As I watched the last few minutes of Nanook of the North I was reminded of the Disney film Snow Dogs starring Cuba Gooding Jr. You remember, right? Its the one about a dentist who finds out he's adopted and travels to Alaska to find his parents only to get roped into the annual dog sledding race. It was the movie that revolutionized the talking animal genre of children's films and led to such other cinematic classics as Kangaroo Jack. I used to love that movie as a kid, I must have watched it at least three or four times.

Man, kids are stupid.

Nanook of the North presents a bit of a quandary when discussing. The film was released and presented to audiences as a documentary but in the subsequent years following its released it's become well known that many of the scenes were staged by the director. Hell, even Nanook's name is fake; the guy was called Allakariallak. So how should one approach this film, as a work of fiction or as a documentary? Personally I would argue that Nuktuk of the South is best tackled as a fictitious representation of inuit life, with actors playing characters, rather than as a piece of cinéma vérité. Still to avoid confusion and to honour the badass protagonist that the movie celebrates I will be referring to Nanook as his real name Allakariallak.

Nunchuck of the East follows Allakariallak and his "family" (his wife in the movie was apparently not actually his wife) as they... well... live. There isn't a plot to speak of. You really just watch these people go through their lives, hunting, building igloos, and just goofing around with their children. That's really it.

Which is not to say that the film is boring by any means. Watching Allakariallak and his fellow inuit hunt seal and just chill (pun very intended) is highly entertaining and the kids are cute. One scene in particularly where one of the squirts tied his tiny sled to a puppy and tried riding around made my heart freakin' melt. Seriously, they're so damn CUTE! The little puppies ride around in their hoods and, and they cuddle with them, and they yawn with their widdle teeth, and sleep in their own tiny igloos and it's bloody adorable! 

As mentioned though everything should be taken with a big ol' grain of salt. I'm not gonna list all the inaccuracies or staged scenes (those can be found here), but its worth mentioning that by this point inuit had been in contact with Western cultures for long enough to have guns and western clothes. Scenes where Allakariallak hunts with spears or where he sees a gramophone for the first time and tries to eat the record are all staged (he knew what a gramophone was).

That being said as many have pointed out there is an authenticity that should be respected. All the animals hunted on screen are genuine kills even if the weapons are obsolete, and many believe that what's shown in the movie is an accurate approximation to how inuit lived before making contact with the West. Plus we shouldn't forget that Flaherty filmed on location. The guy lugged a huge camera to the arctic circle and just started filming shit: the blizzards, the desolate landscape, and the massive icebergs are all genuine, and the dedication shows. You got to respect the man, he really went above and beyond what most would be willing to endure to portray the Inuit culture.

Lastly I suppose it's worth mentioning race since I don't want to break the habit. Some have criticized the film for its use of the word Eskimo and for a racist portrayal of the subject matter. While I'm not going to deny that there is defiantly a "nobel savage" attitude permeating the piece (see: Gramophone scene above) I genuinely think Flaherty had the best intentions when filming the inuit. You really get the sense that he respects Allakariallak and his culture, and that he wants to share his experiences with western audiences. Plus I can't really vilify him for using the term "Eskimo" since that was the accepted vernacular at the time, and complaining about it feels both snobbish and redundant. All in all I guess maybe I'd label it... a respectful, yet clumsy, misstep forward? Let's just say it's not as racist as it could have been, which is good enough.

Overall I liked Nano Nano of the West. Aside from a few staged scenes everything felt... human. Like these were real people carving out the best life they could. While it may not be the best documentary, as psuedo non-fiction its hella interesting, and when I finished watching I had the urge to learn more about the Inuit and their culture which is worth something. Besides even if it isn't one-hundred percent accurate at least it ain't Snow Dogs.