NANOOK OF THE NORTH

The opening text cards of the film gives some insight into what Flaherty was thinking when he made Nanook Of The North. After being turned down by Paramount, the documentary was picked up and distributed by Pathe. It was premiered in New York City in 1922 and became an instant success. It ultimately played in theaters world wide.
JRM

I love classic films. This was my first time watching a silent documentary. I was very open about watching it, unlike others. I enjoyed the film from beginning to end.
This shows many filmmakers that we don’t have to have all the technology available to be able to shoot a good film.

i definitely agree on this. Classic films are the best. and i dont really watch documentary films very often but i was impressed by this one. i noticed that the silence in the film made me pay attention to the smaller details more and thats definitely a good thing.

I am very happy this film was shown in class. I have heard about it in classes before, hoping to watch it and very satisfied that I did. I think this piece will and should be remembered forever. A lifestyle without grocery stores and restaurants, really gives a glimpse of how our ancestors survived in a harsh wildlife atmosphere.

I agree with you about being happy that this was showed in class. I never heard of it before, and had no idea what we were going to be watching in class until it was presented. I didn’t think I would enjoy this documentary when it first started to play but throughout the movie I couldn’t help but to keep interest in what was going on. The film itself is very eye opening and fascinating from beginning to end.

Nanook Of The North is an incredible piece of history in documentary film making. I really enjoyed watching the unique way of life that these people live and story that Flaherty was able to share with his audience. Thanks for sharing this piece of art.

This is where it all began, the pioneer of documentaries. I appreciate the hard work and dedication that went into this film. It was beautifully done and I can see how this film paved the way for aspiring documentarians. It is a shame that some of the actions are staged because if more time was taken, they might not have had to be staged.

I really loved this documentary, all though the quality had a lot of Issues that could have been fixed without taking in consideration the year like the lighting or framing.
But considering where the story took place, the severe temperatures and Flaherty’s background in film I think did a transcending job. He really sacrificed himself for the making of this film. Over all I think it was really good.

I know that “Nanook of the North” has received controversial press. Although I don’t entirely agree with all of his methods, I do understand having to take creative liberties in order to complete a film. Which proses the question if this is truly a documentary. There was some staging, there was some interpretation, and there was some flat out lies that went into this. I look at it being the first reality show and without it, would we really know how the Inuits used to live? Flaherty had to overcome a lot to film this and in this case, I don’t fault him for taking those liberties. After all, he did his best to paint an accurate portrait of what was like for the Inuit.

I really enjoyed this documentary and I did not think it would be as amazing as it was. I learned a lot about watching how the Eskimos live, hunt, eat, and survive in the arctic cold. For as old as it was, it kept my attention the entire time. It was really interesting. I really liked it!

This is a great piece and stands with an elite few of the most inspirational films for documentary filmmakers.

I really enjoyed the film more than I thought I would. It educated me on how to build an igloo if I ever need one (= Its always nice to see history, this is the very first of its kind. Awesome stuff

This was a compelling and interesting work that speaks for itself as to why documentaries sprung from this film.

well even if some part are staged I think the Doc is ahead of his time. is always good to see the journey of the man against the nature. the film capture very well the duality of the man as social entity(the father/husband) and the man as a primal animal looking for survival. (food)

I was no less than blown away at some of the things Nanook was able to accomplish either by himself, or with little help from those around him. He built the entire igloo in the middle of the documentary in under an hour. I would have thought it would take at least three to complete it. (Then he built another for the smaller dogs.) Then with getting ahold of the walrus through a hole the size of a quarter. This was definitely a compelling documentary, let alone the first one ever.

One of the interesting aspects is learning how Nanook and the Inuit hunted and survived for thousands of years.
JRM

I was mesmerized by the film Nanook of the North. Even though Flaherty took the freedom to tweak some specifics to be able to best show the world (for most it would be the first time) the Eskimos, I applaud how he captured their essence among all the doing. I could sense how he came to respect and love the very subjects he was filming in the way he told their story. Even if they no longer hunted with harpoons, they knew how and were willing to let the rest of the world see. It is a documentary with great heart. It’s no wonder it has withstood the test of time.

Good Insights.
JRM

I thought this film was groundbreaking. I have heard a lot about it over the years, but actually seeing it was an entirely different story. It makes the Full Sail classrooms look like a sauna!

This is a master piece in my opinion. Being able to capture and deliver this level of emotion on screen, with the type of equipments Flaherty had during that period in time is just simply remarkable. Even though he has been criticized for staging some of the scenes, hence, disqualifying this piece as a full documentary; one can not question Flaherty ‘s ingenuity. He was a man truly ahead of his time. “Art is a hammer”, and Flaherty totally nailed this one.

This movie was great, and it was the start of a lot more documentaries to hit the road!

I had to take this in again, to see if it left me with the same feeling as before and it did. There is a personality living inside this documentary that allows me to understand a culture I truly had no idea about. I believe Flaherty knew what he had to do in order to convey this experience to the world and was willing to take it on the chin by his peers to do so successfully. He might not have followed the rules of a full documentary but the ending result was right on!

Flaherty spent a lot of time with the Inuit and wanted to share their culture with everyone. However some think that he was condescending and romanticized the Inuit and their lives.
JRM

I was surprised how well Nanook of the North flowed considering it’s a a silent documentary. I figured it would have a lot of problems with pacing. However, I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed the film.

I had to watch “Nanook of the North” again, seeing it just once in class was not enough to take it all in. I really admired Flaherty’s dogged efforts to capture the fascinating lives of the Eskimo people, particularly Nanook and his “family.” despite how arduous the weather and conditions must have been for him and his team.
Most interesting to me was the creative freedom he had to reshoot some scenes to capture the raw essence of their lives.
This was a very fitting introduction to documentary class, it was way ahead of its time, portraying the lengths a filmmaker/historian would go to record and document a very important group of people and the fact that he didn’t stray so close to traditional documentary filmmaking, made it even better.
I’m not sure if the music was recorded way after the release or during, but I felt it gave an extra dimension to the documentary, it really emphasized how well paced the film was and well edited. For a film so old, I’m amazed how well it captured my attention and makes me want to study more about this great culture and people.
I can’t imagine the pain and discomfort Flaherty must have felt to capture the stunning footage of the snow dogs during the snowstorm but it added great depth to the documentary and made a fitting close. It goes to show how determined a filmmaker he was and something all artists of the trade can take into consideration.

I believe there was an original score written for the film. The current music may be based on the original score and/or updated. You are correct regarding the role of the music. In fact you could consider it third party narration.
JRM

The fact that this movie was released in 1922 and can still hold the attention of a room full of 20 somethings says so much in regards to the quality of this film. This movie connects you to Nanook and you find yourself cheering him on in times of hardship and awed when he accomplishes things that were thought to be impossible. This movie helped forge a path in feature length documentaries and proved that the learning process can still interest any mind that is willing to take it all in.

Good observation regarding the fact that this documentary communicates to us after 88 years!
JRM

This is an awesome documentary for its time. For it shows that you do not need words to know how the Eskimos lived.

I thoroughly enjoyed this historical feature. “Nanook of the North” is beautiful.

Nanook of the North is a beautifully composed documentary that provides insight into a culture that is not widely covered in media. I enjoyed learning about the Inuk and the hardships and struggle in the harsh terrain.

Thanks everyone for your thoughtful comments and interesting insights.

JRM

I really liked this documentary but I read on a web site that apparently Flaherty staged everything for it and the eskimos involved were actors…
Is this true?

Adrian

Adrian,
I’ve seen a number of varying reports of what was staged and what wasn’t. According to Erik Barnouw – History of Nonfiction Film, the scenes in the igloo were staged, but hunting scenes like the hunting the walrus was not. Also the family that Nanook appears to part of is not entirely an actual family. But they are not actors.
One thing I believe Flarherty had the opportunity to do is shoot what we would call “B” roll, so he could put together shots and scenes around an event in editing to make it appear spontaneous.

Thanks for your comment.

Jim

Nanook of the North blazed the trail for the documentaries of today. Flaherty told us a story that is still interesting after more than 80 years. The film provides historical documentation of a culture that might have otherwise been forgotten. I really enjoyed watching the film and learning about the Inuits and was surprised at how relevant the film still is.

You bring up a valid idea in that Flaherty did “blaze the trail for future feature length documentaries. His work has given us a look at the Inuit at a transitional time in their history.

Thanks for your comment.

Jim

Hello.. Could provide me with the ethnographic model of representing reality which is used in Nanook of the north documentary ???

In all probability there was no “ethnographic model” used in the making of Nanook. However, the film does preserve certain cultural and ethnographic aspects of the Inuit people after contact with Europeans. For example the Inuit were hunting with rifles when Nanook was made but the film director showed them hunting in a traditional way. Flaherty, the director, did not set out to make an ethnographic documentary. He made the film for theatrical release.

I think Nanook of the North is truly remarkable. Filming a documentary in such harsh conditions in a very technologically primitive era when the documentary genre had only just been established was a very difficult and courageous task to accomplish. As we learned, he did have many problems in bringing this about, but did in fact succeed upon trying a second time.

Although parts of this doc were staged, the time that this all took place in, and the goal of Flaherty make it a true documentary. His goal was to show the traditional lifestyle and ways of the Eskimo. This, I believe, he accomplished. Also, it was not possible for him to film his documentary as we do in modern days. He couldn’t just pick up the camera and go easily from one place to another like we can today. It was much more necessary for him to stage parts in order to capture what he needed to capture, otherwise, he may have missed very important details and footage.

I really enjoyed this documentary. Even though I am an animal sympathizer and feel bad for the walrus and the dogs, I can definitely understand that for the Eskimos, this was a necessity to kill these creatures to survive. Food, clothing, and trade were all provided through the death of these animals.

It definitely shows the struggle of a life in the frigid cold. Flaherty set out to accomplish what he had hoped to, and in the context of the time, this was not an easy feat and should respected.

A very insightful comment on the subject. Excellent points regarding Flaherty and his technique which were totally innovative for his day.

JRM

I have made attempts to go beyond your book’s sumirization of the documentation of the story of, “How Nanook was filmed.” This did turn up some interesting information.

Just to point out a few, it is known that Nanook’s real name was not Nanook but it is also believed that he died while out hunting. Contrary reports state that he died from TB at his home.

Also, the women in the film playing Nanook’s wives were not his. A similar report states that the women were common law wives of Flaherty, Wikipedia.com

I found this very interesting.

Good that you mention these ideas. One good source for information regarding Nanook is Erik Barnouw’s “History of Nonfiction Film.” It is interesting that there’s so much conflicting and negative information out there about Nanook and Flaherty. He became controversial for a number of reasons, that Barnouw goes into. I am aware of the things you mention. However, not everything on Wikipedia is verifiable. Thanks for your comments.
jrm

Even though there appears to be the presence of “artificial situations” in Nanook, I believe that as long as Flaherty presented what could be viewed among the Inuits as normal and culturally acceptable it validates the film as an anthropological documentary to a certain degree. I imagine it would be very difficult to document a people, trying to get footage of unique situations that may not arise quickly enough for the shooting dates, and to not ask them to recreate certain situations that they have done before for the sake of informing the audience. As long as there is sufficient footage that shows events that occur naturally then I believe critics should deem this anthropologically acceptable.

You make some good points regarding trying to convey cultural norms and life style despite some staging of events.

Nanook of the North was an interesting and engaging story. For the time, it had groundbreaking footage that, before that time, nobody would have dreamed of filming. It had elements of each type of documentary style to it. I can only guess at the hardship and the amount of effort that was put into the making of this film. when all is said and done it is an interesting piece of work.

It was a very difficult process for Flaherty and he had to go back and reshoot everything after the fire.

Because the documentary is a silent film, I was at frist concerned I would not enjoy nor be able to remain attentive of the information being presented. I am both pleased and grateful to say that not only did this anthropological piece keep my interest, but was very efficient in providing me with an efficient idea of the lives of eskimos in the 1920s.

For its time period I feel like “Nanook of the North” captured emotion without the normal “Hollywood” frill and lace romantic and musical pieces. It reminded audiences that adventures, love and action are found first in the simple lives of our world. I felt the camera angles captured the Eskimos bleak yet determined place of survival in the arctic land, as well as the music which accompanied it beautifully drove the story forwards.

This film is very well put together and thought out. It is very inspirational documentary. I can’t image how cold it would have been trying to operate the camera in such extreme low temperatures. Because it was so well done, today people still refer to it as an example and for history documentation.

I feel that “Nanook of the North” did its best to capture the life of a people without being overly aggressive in doing so. This yielded a film that was somewhat groundbreaking in its own time. It has also aged extremely well, keeping with standard storytelling techniques.

At first I didn’t think I would actually enjoy this movie because there was no dialogue and it wasn’t really something I was interested in, but about half way through it really started catching my attention. I really like how Flaherty showed their life’s up close and personal and how he showed their struggle to survive.

“Nanook of the North” is a great documentary considering the time and setting it was made in. Even though it is controversial due to the fact that it is not known for certain if the Eskimos were staged or not, it is still a an amazing historical and ethnographic documentary.
Some of today’s viewers might find it slow or boring because it is in black and white, there is no dialogue, and it is accompanied by orchestrated music, but it is worth watching. Flaherty gives an insight on these people and portrays their day-to-day lives in ways that have to be seen to be fully understood.
This film is quite a ride, and almost every film, history, and/or documentary fanatic will find it appealing.

this is really good documentary! even tho is unknown if it was staged or not, if it was they made a really good job because it actually looks real!

Only a couple things are actually staged, like the interior igloo scenes, and Nanook’s little family. Everything else is actuality in the sense that this is how they lived.

I’m not usually into films that are older than me, but this documentary held my interest and really kept me thinking throughout.

Although Nanook of the North is becoming quite dated in terms of entertainment and the quality of filmmaking, the film still provides great historical insight into the lives of the Inuits and to the styles of filmmaking from the the early 1900s.

No rules were set for filming documentaries leading Robert Flaherty to stage some of the events, but only to provide more knowledge about the natives’ traditional lifestyle before becoming westernized.

Even though the film is black and white and silent, the images and music provide even more information about the time period and the birth of filmmaking.

Great article on a great documentary. Its amazing to see footage of a time so long ago.

Nanook of the North, for its time, captures and hybridizes elements of anthropological, historical, and ethnographic studies. Because it was at the forefront of documentary filmmaking, there were no established benchmarks for it to adhere to. Therefore, it is acceptable that aspects of the film bend or break the rules we follow today in order to document and convey a (mostly) accurate depiction of the Inuit people.

For its time, this film was ground breaking. Without dialogue, it kept my attention… for the most part. Getting an inside look of how the eskimos lived in the 1920s was definitely interesting. It definitely played a part in paving the way for future documentaries, essentially laying the bricks for all docs to come.

I previously had doubts about the film but after watching it I was amazed. Such a simple picture, yet it’s affected such a wide range of audiences over the passage of time. Just the fact that it is still this entertaining up to date is incredible. I can’t even begin to imagine how mind blowing it must have been when it was first released.

I was a little apprehensive at first about watching “Nanook of the North”, being that I am not a big fan of silent films, however once I began to watch it, it captured my attention. Some of the actual events that took place in the film were mind-boggling. Even though a lot of the footage was staged, it was still clear and conscise enough for viewers to understand what was happening in this period and time, and to witness the experiences and the lifestyle that people lived in this area. It was a good documentary.

Nanook of the North is a pioneer of documentaries. It explores the first ever documentary and how/what made it successful. Although this film is in black and white and with no sound it still has a certain quality to it that makes this documentary pop out amongst most. For that time, this documentary must have been extremely hard to make and I applaud them on their fantastic job.

This movie really bridged the gap between documentaries, and films. Nanook of the North basically established the ground rules of documentary, and gave it life. Even though it did break some of the rules of modern day documentaries it was a learning experience for the future of this genre.

Nanook of the North, was a great documentary.

Nanook of the North was a great documentary. Yes some of it was staged, but at the time of when this film was made, it was very well done. This documentary showed the way to other documentaries, that are made now-a-days how it is done.

Nanook of the North, though it may have been staged for some scenes, was still a very educational film about the lives of a family of Eskimos and how they go about their day in the frozen lands. I greatly enjoyed this piece

I think it was a very unique documentary. It captured a way of life not known to the human perspective, and with these men venturing out into the wilderness to do that; I give them much props for. I think all around it was very interesting, and compelling.

Nanook of the North is a piece that is definitely before its time. As a piece for entertainment the editing was great, lots of cooky punchlines that gave comic relief during the film. To me that was awesome because it wasn’t a film just about the inuit struggles, it was also about life in general, family, and togetherness that all cultures can relate to.

In my opinion, this is a groundbreaking masterpiece. Though it may have been criticized for partly being staged, capturing the things that Flaherty did with the ‘equipment’ he had at the time was truly amazing! Flaherty was a groundbreaking documentary film maker for his time!

Despite the criticism given about Nanook of the North, for Flaherty’s staging during filming, I feel as if the piece was altogether a success in documentary filmmaking for its time. Flaherty had to work with what he was given, and if in order to fully capture the culture and way of life of the inuits, Flaherty had to stage a few shots, then so be it. The audience learned from the documentary, and I feel that is the main purpose of documentaries, so this was clearly a success.

I agree. There were no rules at the time and while a few scenes are staged the majority of the footage is “actuality.” This is the way they lived and they are not actors.

It was advanced for its time and I can clearly see this as starting Documentary filmmaking. However, I am not willing to accept this as a true documentary. To much of it was staged, names where changed. If anything this is more of a Historical Fiction that shows life before the settlers and traders came.

Most of this documentary was not staged. There are controversial aspects to Flaherty’s methods. At the time there were no rules for documentary. However there are some critics who feel that this documentary has flaws.

I find the whole controversy around Nanook of the North very interesting. I think this is an amazing piece of work especially since it was the first of its kind. Even though it seemed to have been made more for entertainment as oppose to strictly informing, it is still a very informative film. It defiantly gives insight to the way of life of the local Inuits. I have enjoyed learning about this and watching it.

Astute observation!

I was a little disappointed knowing that different parts of the film were staged, and that the woman playing his wife wasn’t really his wife, but after seeing the whole film and taking it for what Flaherty wanted to show his audience. I think it was a very well put together movie that told a almost true and very interesting story. For its day in age no wonder it became so popular. Great story telling.

There are some constructs but as you mention the bottom line is a story that is based in actuality.

I don’t mind that the director recreated a few events. I mean they still were the actual events, but just done again. Its for the sake of the viewers, and we don’t even notice. The one thing I disliked was how fast the title cards went near the end. I thought they were a little fast. But maybe I’m just a slow reader.

I found ‘Nanook of the North’ to be very interesting. I liked the fact that the audience was able to have a look in the life of people that live in that environment and how they survive. There were may have been parts of the documentary that was staged but all in all it was informative as well as entertaining. I understand why the documentary was very successful.

This is the only visual record of a people who’s way of life is changed forever.

I had been looking forward to watching this documentary for some time now and after finally seeing it I am thoroughly pleased. I would however like to see a modern recreation of this piece. Not a remake in the sense of bettering it with the advancement of this day and age but a work of similar basis done in with the same steps and processes done in Robert Flatherys original release. It would be interesting to see the contrast between two works of the same nature along with the advancement documentaries have made since their “official” establishment.

I though the film was really good. For it time for a silent documentary was shocking to me. It actually told a story and who these people are. The most interesting thing to me was the music. The music would match the theme of the movie and motivate to watch more. Yes some of the stuff were staged but it was hard to tell which one were. In the end it was meant to be a documentary and it was successful at doing so.

Just because a film is almost a hundred years old, black and white, and a little slow, doesn’t mean it can’t be appreciated. I loved this documentary for what it was. This was the first documentary! And it showcased some brutal climate, as well as a dangerous terrain and species. Some parts moved slow I will say, but others, especially the walrus section, had me at the edge of my seat. This is an amazing task accomplished by filmmaker Flaherty, and I truly believe that this was a successful project.

Decent documentary for being the first feature length, but didn’t really like the large jumpy text in between shots, made it hard to read. There were some interesting parts but overall i was kind of bored.

I found it entertaining and somewhat cinematic in style. Then finding out that a lot of it was prompted, it made sense, but it didn’t take anything away from it.

Great film, glad to have seen it. 🙂

In high school I had studied this documentary a little but never got to the chance to watch, and after watching it I was unsure about how I felt about it. I’m unsure because I didn’t really like the of killing the seal and walrus and fox but that is purely just my opinion on animals and cruelty to animals. But at the time period that this was filmed, it was for their survival so I understand why it was shown and because of that my opinion changed to like the documentary. It did a very good job at showing what they go through and how they live. It’s very interesting to see a different culture and a different era of how people lived. And because of that, I enjoyed it very much!

They had no farming or place to grow anything. The Inuit hunted for food and never killed anything for pleasure or just for a trophy.

All I can say is those kids are TROOPERS.
Correction, they all are.
I am blown away by the distances they travel, the brutal weather they face, and the applause worthy hunting skills they’ve acquired.
The best part is the glee on his face when watching his ‘voice be canned’

I like that Flaherty got input from the natives of the land. I also really like how he had the curtsy to play back the footage for the natives.
As for being camera man, he sure put himself in some risky situations.

This documentary has a natural quality because it was real and only slightly staged for other shooting angles. You get to see the Eskimo life as it happens, and we learn a lot about their culture.

Went ahead and watched it again, I found it is something you should double back on and to understand what it took to make this documentary at that time. Though people do not like the fact that some of the scenes were staged is something no one should even try to argue about. It was a one of a kind that had situations that needed to be staged to show the facts of who these people were at the time, especially when you are in a fast changing world.
That is why I found Flaherty to be a pioneer into seeing that we should document history through out our lives to share with the present and the future.

Excellent point!

Jim,

I think the staging of the scenes in the film still show what the eskimo’s did and how they lived. Regardless of how and when it was shot, the eskimo’s were going to hunt and sleep all the same the way we saw in the film at some point or another. I think it’s ridiculous for people to criticize such points, especially on a piece that has reserved a part of history like Nanook Of The North has.

I agree.

For the most part, I really enjoyed this documentary. It was crazy watching and thinking about how cold they all must be–and at times, Nanook wasn’t wearing gloves. It was a kind of culture shock to see people living so comfortably in an environment that is so unknown to me. It was fascinating.
Even if it was “staged” or recreated slightly in order to get different angles, like everyone else has said, it doesn’t change history. And the reactions of Nanook and the Inuits are genuine.

Getting a first hand look at life of the eskimos in Nanook of the North was very eye opening. It is always interesting to see life from another culture’s perspective, but the fact that it is a silent documentary make its watching experience stand out. Different from a narrative film, I truly feel like a silent Documentary jumped leaps and bounds when it came to “putting you in the action”.

Flaherty is not a quitter. First of all, the conditions to make this movie must have been very harsh. Second, much of the footage was burned in a fire so he had to go back and do it all over again. That shows real dedication and passion to the project which I think is one of the main reasons it turned out so well. Quentin Tarantino’s first independent film burned in a fire and he never went back to finish it. If you look it up you can only watch the first 30 minutes of. It’s called “My Best Friends Birthday”.

Nanook of the North is an exquisite documentary, and different from anything out there in the form that it portrays real people. I know some of the scenes were staged, but that doesn’t bother me. Because every scene shown in this documentary portrays REAL people in a GENUINE way. I remember vividly the scene where the family goes to the market, and just the way everyone communicates with each other, and plays with the dog, it just goes to show that, even almost a hundred years ago, people were still people. I extremely enjoyed it, especially because this was what founded the category of documentary.

Even with parts being staged, Flaherty clearly tells the story of the traditional way of life for the Inuits. His goal was to show how they lived prior to the imposition of Europeans and he accomplished this marvelously.

Correct, a way of life that would be lost forever were it not for this film.

DFM 1105

This film depicted the life on the Inuits in a way that will never be seen again. A beautiful story that will live on in the film for ages.

DFM 1105

This film was amazing. A beautiful story about beautiful people.

DFM 1105

This film depicted the way of life of these wonderful people in a way that will never be seen again. This story will live on through the ages because of this film.

Not only is this film a great pioneer of documentary film making but to think of what Flaherty had to do to get the footage he did in that time period is pretty amazing. He had real guts to take on a task as daunting as filming in such harsh conditions. Even though they had access to guns it was very interesting to see a walrus caught by a spear and some rope through a hole in the ice. It makes you think about how easy we have it now compared to the difficult lifestyle of the Eskimos.

Although Flaherty captured almost every aspect of the inuits life style. A camera can only do so much to make viewers truly understand the hardships of living this type of lifestyle.

This documentary is extremely unique and entertaining. Its a masterpiece that I found to be very enjoyable. It is a wonderful insight into the harsh life of the stubborn eskimo. I gained much respect for eskimo’s from this film, and I greatly enjoyed learning about them.

I really enjoyed this documentary, it depicts the life of some of the original inuits. Even though Inuits of the time of this film were using western technologies, such as guns, I like how Flaherty portrayed their traditional life styles. It is a great piece of history.

For one of the first full lengths documentaries Nanook of the North was able to convey and tell a story quite well.

Nanook of the North was by far the best full length documentary I have ever seen. It gives me inspiration for my upcoming documentary and now I look forward to making plenty.

Nanook of the North, while at sometimes hard to watch, turned out to be an inspirational look into many different facets of film making. Almost over 100 years old, it holds up by illustrating multiple camera angles, staged scenarios to use in the edit, and actual acting. What’s ever so amazing is the people being filmed knew nothing about the technology being pointed at them, or how to do any of what was being asked of them, but learned all the same. Flaherty achieved an unachievable feat in film and it will live forever.

Despite some portions of Nanook of the North being staged, it still stands on its own two feet as a remarkable documentary. Equipment of the time wasn’t exactly portable, so certainly some of the shots would’ve required pre-planning and positioning. Is it really all that different from modern documentaries? In my opinion, it’s safe to say that most modern documentaries omit and distort facts and truths to their own end.

Nanook of the North was very interesting for me to watch. Flaherty was able to turn a desolate and icy tundra seem like a fun wnd whimsical world filled with this happy family of eskimos. He showed the fun and festive culture of these snowmen, while completely avoiding the depressingly truth that they were being wiped out by European trade and food shortages. I can’t complain that he staged some scenes here and there; it wasn’t the point of the film to be 100% true. His goal was to show the life these people lived, lives that the general public were not aware of. He worked around the hardships and was able to creatively deceive the audience that was being shown was actually true. And the truth is, he did portray the truth. He just massaged a few bits here and there. For its time, I feel that this “documentary” was a landmark film that opened doors for many to follow in its footsteps. Hell, it was able to keep my attention.

So, Nanook of the North becomes our first deliberate attempt at documentary filmmaking. Nearly 100 years later I can see how strong of a film piece this is and it strongly stands against many documentaries of our time today. Despite the staging of the igloo and reenactments, etc., which I feel were necessary to capture the hearts of the Inuit people before European civilization, I consider this an inspiring documentary. I am intrigued by the fact Flaherty used the assistance of the local Inuit’s as his crew. I am also intrigued by how emotionally captured I was during the entire documentary. Some of the same techniques used in documentary filmmaking in regards to the storytelling are being used today in many films. I am surprised at how the way we tell stories has not changed much in 100 years, when you think it would. Current films may have evolved differently through visual effects, special effects, audio, editing, etc., but that fundamental core of capturing a story is there and similar, whether it has been 100 years ago, yesterday or today.

For a documentary I find it funny that Flaherty had them do acts over and over again. I understand wanting different angles but after the first time I feel the realism is gone. While watching it I could almost see the times that were done the 2nd or 3rd time because the eskimos would look at the camera with this proud look on their faces. Almost like a dog thinking “look I did it right”. Despite this I found the documentary interesting although it was hard to watch the killing and skinning of animals.

Nanook was a very inspirational film, but it became very difficult to watch at times. It is amazing how a man back in that time period was able to film that much footage and put it all together, but it just wasn’t my type of film.

Not knowing any previous information on it, I enjoyed watching Nanook of The North. Some scenes had me smiling and some scenes held my interest. Finding out the information of some of it being staged did bring some of the credibility down and made it a big downside because documentaries are meant to be real and raw. Besides all of that, I was glad to learn something else in the history of both documentaries and the core that is film.

I really admired Flaherty’s work in “Nanook of the North” because it captured the traditions and customs of the Inuits. Despite the fact that some of the events were staged and had to be recreated to depict the passing lifestyle of the Inuits, I feel that the documentary did a successful job at documenting that society’s customs.

Saw this whole film, it was great.

I really enjoyed the film. Though a lot of things were staged, they were real eskimos doing real things. Though staged, the family story made me care about them and what they were doing. I think the point was to document traditions, not a specific band of people.

As you mention some things were staged but at the time there were no “documentary rules” and he was able to preserve a way of life that we would not be able to see today had he not shot the film.

I thought what Flaherty did with “Nanook of the North” great for the time period. He may have staged some things but it still did what all media is suppose to do and that is entertain. This film made me glade to live in the time that I do and also where I live. I respect those who don’t have the technology that we have now days. I just can’t imaging that all you do all day is look for food in very cold weather. I really enjoyed this film a lot.

Good observations. Flaherty was using a hand cranked Bell and Howel in sub freezing conditions much of the time. He trained the Inuit (Eskimos) to help him as crew.

I found information online that says he started with a Bell-Howell camera, but when he returned to film Nanook of the North he filmed with two Akeley cameras. This was on a website that is basically a document that Flaherty wrote talking about how he filmed Nanook.

http://www.cinemaweb.com/silentfilm/bookshelf/23_rf1_2.htm

It is about a quarter of the way down.

Robert Flaherty did amazing job at creating something that did not exist as an art form at that time. Having really no guidelines to follow, he pursued a topic that interested him and i really respect that. I think the film showcased (in essence) what the lifestyle was of the inuit people of that time. I think it is an amazing piece of work!

I really enjoyed Flaherty’s Nanook of the North. He really showed how difficult it was for the Inuit and all they had to do to survive. Even though all the stuff was technically staged; I dont think that this film would have been nearly as powerful if Flaherty didn’t do the things he did. It was a great piece of work.

I think the reason behind Flaherty’s brilliant success is the fact that it was his second go at the project, so he knew what to do, how to do it and more importantly, what not to do. This practice lead to a near perfect execution and explains why none of his other documentaries were never as successful, since they were all done in one try.

Flaherty was extremely creative in the way he filmed “Nanook Of The North” because of the lack of resources he had. This proofs that he own an amazing talent. this documentary will always be remember like one of the best.

Robert Flaherty was a revolutionary in his time, combining what he learned from experience as well as his creativity he created a one of a kind documentary. his use of visual storytelling and prolonged cuts gave a window into the life of a unique culture that had not been seen before.

I very much enjoyed the Doc and I thought Flaherty portrayed all emotional sides of this particular Eskimo family, very well. It made it seem like you were part of the tribe and Nanook himself was teaching you.

I really enjoyed watching the documentary. It opened a whole new world of entertainment for its time, and its exciting to learn the conditions Flaherty went through to get the footage he needed. Regardless of whether shots we staged, he gathered the footage he needed to convey the story of their everyday life.

This film is looked down upon by many people out in the world because Flaherty staged some shots. To me, this does matter. I found this film to be entertaining and informative. It showed me how people lived in different coulters during different time periods. I knew nothing about how Inuits (Eskimos) went about everyday life. So seeing things like how people would fish before the inventions of fishing poles was an awesome thing to witness.

This was my first time watching this Documentary Nanook of The North and I have to say I really enjoyed it. Even though you have to read the entire the film I still stayed interested in it. I really enjoyed watching their life styles and the diffrent things they would do to stay alive. Even though it was kinda staged it really was an amazing film, Loved it.

Thanks for all the excellent comments in June 2011.

A number of comments mention staged scenes in Nanook of The North. As far as actual events that were constructed the main one is the igloo scene where an igloo without a roof and only 3 sides was constructed. Flaherty apparently put together a typical family and had them recreate going to bed and getting up. This scene demonstrates a part of their life that was real. Other scenes were along the lines of “show us how you build an igloo or how you hunt.” Flaherty had no lights so he had few choices on how to show life inside and igloo!

Even though Nanook and other members of the tribe had rifles at that time it is obvious that they still knew how to hunt the way they had before the Europeans came to the area.

Today Nanook of the North is the only record we have of how the Inuit, part of a people who inhabited a vast area from Hudson Bay to Alaska.

It is a powerful documentary that has stood the test of time.

JRM

I was so surprised when I watched this documentary. My eyes were stuck on the screen the whole time and I didn’t notice as many laptops out. Thank you for showing it in class and I’m really glad I watched it.

While I was researching online for the answers to our homework, I ran across a lot of thoughts regarding how much ‘reality’ was actually present in the film. Some of the websites say the ‘wives’ of Nanook were actually common-law wives of Flaherty. They also said that the seal struggle was staged with off-screen ‘actors’.

To me it feels as though if he would have only staged scenes he wasn’t quite able to capture, that would be fine. However, he staged the walrus hunt in that they no longer hunted Walrus with harpoons. If he would have mentioned that fact I think it would have fit, but I feel as though that it making something fantastical for the sake of a reaction.

At the same time, film is about the fantastical. But it makes it difficult to trust documentaries, because who knows what the filmmakers are staging.

These things are out there but many scholars dispute these accusations. For example Flaherty was married. According to Erik Barnouw, a noted documentary historian (History of Nonfiction film) It was Nanook who asked to hunt traditionally and who asked to do so for the Walrus hunt.
I think there is a lot of speculation on certain things.
Bottom line, real Eskimos. And it looked like Nanook wrestling with that seal through the ice hole.

You are correct some films today pretend to be documentaries but they are pretty easy to spot. Staging things does spoil it for everyone and make it hard to trust though, like you mention.

I felt the movie was excellent, although obviously staged at certain moments. I think Flaherty should have documented rifle hunting after the European influence as well as the traditional methods. Either way, Flaherty did an amazing job capturing his footage and conveying the story.

I liked it alot, great all-round. its showed that Flaherty had a great deal of dedication to the project and caught every side about the Nanook’s culture, from the hard working, emotional to the playful side. I enjoyed it alot and glad I had the opportunity to watch it in DFM.

The film set a standard for future documentaries. The best response is a natural one, even if it isn’t caught on film the first time. The approach is capturing said natural responses, and showcasing the reality of situations and leaving the audience with their own reactions.

I like how close he kept it to they way they actually lived. I do wish that I hadn’t known the family was hired actors though, that almost ruined it for me. Like everyone else has said though, for its time, it really is amazing.

I’ve heard this idea that they were “hired actors” before, but that idea is not supported by other sources. The family was, according to most sources, not a real family, but assembled from actual Inuit Eskimos who were part of that group. There were no “hired actors” used in the documentary as far as I know. My source is Erik Barnouw, History of Nonfiction film.

The narrative was strong enough to carry the film but at times I felt the characters lacked dynamism and that made some scenes play out like a children’s book with flat characters and simple text. All in all I give it two thumbs up, fun for the whole family, (Unless your one of those ultra liberal PETA families, some animals were slaughtered during this production.)

I enjoyed most of the film. I thought some of the scenes were funny and I thought it was pretty remarkable how Flaherty was able to film all this. Although about half way through the movie I lost interest, my guess is the music got on my nerves and was putting me to sleep. Other than that what I did pay attention to I liked and was really impressed.

It’s impressive to see the Eskimos survive happily under such harsh conditions and I’m glad Flaherty was willing to show it to the world, but I was not completely interested. I was bored after awhile and the music started to annoy me, causing me to lose even more interest.

I found Nanook extremely interesting and practically timeless. Flaherty’s filmmaking techniques and style seem to consistently influence the best of modern documentary filmmakers. The feature 180º South seems reminiscent of Nanook of the North to me. Thanks for showing us this great and highly influential film.

The documentary really showed the simplest details of the days of the Inuit in the 1920s. Very pleased with knowing even back then, art is Art.

It’s a great first documentary and gives us a brief glimpse into what life may have been like at the time for them. The documentary kept me interested and made me want to know more about Nanook and the Inuit. Some documentaries to day get too off track of the idea of documenting something and are more opinionated views of what they think people should believe about something. In short great work, I hope my documentary can keep with the idea first originated by Flaherty.

I enjoyed watching Nanook of the North documentary. However I wished the text portion were little longer. I think it was entertaining at the same time it sticked with reality. I don’t know whether or not the rumors about some of the shots were staged but if it was I think, those shots completely worked for the overall aspect of the documentary. Along with that, it looked real to me, the movie overall sold it to me as a classic documentary movie.

This would be the second time I’ve seen this. Observing this film all over again gives me a chance to look at other aspects of the film I didn’t notice the first time such as, editing style. I notice there being a lot of jump cuts and how the music helps in certain scenes to present a mood to the audience of how certain situations may feel. For example, while traveling long distances in harsh weather conditions, the music becomes slow and droning, giving the feeling of worry and uncertainty. And in the happy parts like discovering food and listening to a record player for the first time, the music is delightful and uplifting.

Overall, there’s no doubt this film is a kind of its own and I enjoyed watching it again with a different look this time.

Nanook of the North is a great documentary. I didn’t think I would like it but then I watched it and was very moved by the Inuit Family showcased. With all the work put in and emotion put into the shots it really moves a person and lets them know how hardcore these Inuits really are. The fact that this film single handedly brought docs into the mix is amazing and adds to its greatness. Definitely one that has to be seen before anyone gets into documentary filmmaking.

I think the film was an interesting portrayal of how the Inuit people lived. To think this was almost 100 years ago definitely shows it has endured the test of time. I am really curious to see how life has changed from then to how they lead their lives today.

I enjoyed watching Nanook of the North, it really gave me an in depth look at what life as an eskimo is really all about. The things we take for granted in our lives such as food and water, is an everyday struggle for the life of an eskimo. Its amazing how these people survive everyday in the kind of conditions they are forced to live in.

I enjoyed this documentary film as it very finely brought to life the tradition and hardship of this dying culture. Their culture went through many challenges and overall prevailed to seek out what was necessary to survive. I believe this documentary dived deep into the lives of a small population and how well they worked together as a whole to endure everyday.

I thought this piece was extremely well put together for the time and period. It is def a pioneer piece of art for us filmmakers and it ultimately teaches us the basicality of film making.

I thought this piece was very informative and entertaining. Whether Flaherty scripted the actions of the Inuits or not his film completed the task of what a documentary is supposed do, which is educate.

Nanook of the North is very inspiring! It’s so interesting to look into the lives of these people. Without this piece of artwork, these people would go unknown to the world. It is important to gain other perspectives and this film does just that. You get an insight on the starvation and hardships that these people went through, while enjoying a pleasant story of a family. As a filmmaker, I will forever keep this in my memory as a film I learned from and will recommend for upcoming filmmakers and others for the future!

I really enjoyed Nanook of the north. I could never imagine living each day as they do. I think people were being to hard on Flaherty and how he did things like taking the roof off to allow light in for the shoot. I feel that he did everything he could without actually changing much. Capturing the inside of the igloo was the selling point for me in this film, I was an important, meaningful shot and in order to allow light in for the camera to capture you would have had to alter the igloo regardless and I think he did this the best way possible.

Even tho Flaherty had many critics, little support, and a project that had already gone up in flames, he still had the persistence to make this documentary. That shows the amount of dedication that he had for this film. There was no standard at the time for documentaries, so he had no guidelines to go by. The fact that he staged some events can not be held against him, he had a story to tell and he told it the in the most effective way he could. He was taking a huge risk with this project, and with great risk comes great reward. Cheers.

I enjoyed watching the intuit life style for that era, but after dissecting this film and questioning certain shots that this filmmaker used I started to wonder if this documentary was scripted are not. Some shots of “Nanook” paddling down the river looked to planned out, but then after reading the movie and learning how he had lost the footage due to a fire and went back to “Recreate” the movie, I was very disappointed with this documentary. To me I would not call this a “True documentary film.”

This was an amazing film (fiction or not). It was an enjoyable hour depicting a reality that most people will never see and sadly never think about. The fact that Flaherty lived in these conditions just to film it is an amazing example of the devotion behind documentary filmmakers.

I found the documentary a great insight into Nanook and his people. I really enjoyed watching them carry out their everyday chores and routines and how they had developed tools and techniques to increase their chances of survival. The documentary really allowed its audience to personally meet Nanook and his people. The story was interesting to follow and the documentary did a great job of taking its audience somewhere they would have never thought to look.

This was an interesting Documentary, showing a historical ethnographic of an unknown people of the time its amazing how one man video footage can show how much more of the world can be shown, even though they thought the film was going to flop it did great, the reason being in my opinion is because people are interesting in learning more of there surroundings.

Great film! Seen it many times, wonderful documentary through and through.

Nanook of the North was a fascinating approach to capture a peice of history. It kept me interested for the entire length of the film, which doesn’t happen to often with black and white documentaries.

I Found the Nanook of the North very interesting because of the difference in the times (1914 & 2011). The meaning that it had in the past, is now completely different at the present. It is all your perspective.
The individual POV that he projected was awesome, even if some stages were fake, it was still nice work for being 1914.
It is a Beautiful piece of work that shook me. The way that he captured rough images of the Inuits during what was supposed to be a normal day.
It is a great piece of knowledge; thanks to Mr. Flaherty

It was very interesting looking at a relatively unknown culture from nearly a century ago. This was a great work, and the fact that it can tell a story to modern audiences is impressive. I don’t doubt that it will continue to stand the test of time.

I’m usually very amused with how people pull off silent film documentaries and I think this one is definitely one of the best. It was very entertaining and spoke knowledge about the particular culture during its time and continues to speak to the audience this day in age.

Couldn’t keep my eyes off of it and got me curious to research on how some of the environments were staged. Glad to have seen it!

The movie was defiantly interesting in the way that Flaherty captured the life style of the people along with trials they had to face. It was also cool how there didn’t need to be any talking or ambient noise from them to be able to connect with them in a way and have a sense of understanding.

Watching such a film gives me a better understanding on what to capture in a documentary as well as what the inuits went through during a day to day basis. Very groundbreaking because nobody had captured such a thing to show audiences before nanook. Great documentary.

Documentaries are usually not something I am entertained while watching. This film definitely provides information that keeps you interested. As a person who has grown up in America with shelter, food, a comfortable life seeing a documentary on the complete opposite emotionally tugs at the hearts of the very blessed lifestyle. The approach is excellent as is the documentary.

I really enjoyed Nanook. I found it entertaining and informative. As we were watching it, I was thinking of the TV show Survivor. I am wondering if Nanook was the inspiration for that show.

I think I’m the only person who didn’t like this film (after perusing a few of the comments left on this site). While it was great to see another way of living and just what they had to endure on a daily basis, I feel like pieces were missing. And I feel like Flaherty tampered too much with it for it to be an actual “documentary”. I don’t feel like he needed to “create” a family for “Nanook”. I don’t feel like he needed to redo actions in order to get a different angle for the shot. That to me kind of negates the point of a documentary b/c you’re not filming it as it happens. That’s what we do in a “normal” film. If he wanted different angles, he should have gotten a second camera (no, I don’t know how much that would have changed his budget…). As far as the story goes, I didn’t see enough struggle. For us, since most of us don’t live that way (hence the classes reaction when they were killing the walrus and eating it raw vs. realizing that when you’re hungry you’ll do what you need to to survive), it’s laced with hardship and toil. But for the Eskimos in the film, this is how they lived so they were used to it. I expected to see when they were down and what that was like for them. And there was too much on the title cards. I think Flaherty relied too much on them vs. other storytelling means. Just my two cents.

Your feelings are understandable, however, your opinions are based on your “feelings” and not relative to a film shot in 1916 – released in 1922. Unfortunately you cannot compare Nanook of The North to another feature length documentary of the day because there were none.
This was not made as a documentary, it was only later that the term started to be used do describe nonfiction actuality films.
Obviously you would not make a documentary film the same way today. Think about what you would do out on the ice in sub freezing conditions, with a hand cranked camera trying to depict a way of life that was on its way out.
As far as the title cards go, there was no sound. People had to read what we would have as voice over today.
The film is very innovative for its day and does have drama, conflict and survival in the story.

Title cards were a necessary evil in 1922. Subtitles hadn’t been invented yet and of course there was no sound. In many venues an orchestra or a piano would accompany the screening. Like the music the text is a form of third party commentary.

I love Nanook of the north. It is a great documentary and i will pass it on to many of my friends. (Thumbs up)

I thoroughly enjoyed watching this classic documentary. For its time, it was brilliant. It is also amazing that it has lasted throughout the ages and is still considered revolutionary. I feel that when a movie survives this long with the advancements in this field, it definitely means it is worth watching. I have learned a lot from this movie, and I hope that it continues to be as timeless as it is today.

I enjoy documentaries and I thought that Nanook was a very interesting piece. When looking at the time that this film was done, it is a great piece, and I was entertained throughout the film. However, reading the comments that some of my classmates have put I would have to agree with what Ty said, I agree that it seemed as though Flaherty relied too much on the title cards rather than other forms of storytelling. There was one time when I looked down for a second, and because of that I missed one of the cards, and did not get to read it fully. When that happened I then felt like I was missing a piece of the story. Overall, I think the piece is great. There were some parts though that was hard for me to watch, such as the killing of the walrus and eating the meat raw. However, that part was also interesting to me, because it was showing me a type of lifestyle I have never witnessed and I like how it showed how the Eskimos live and how they survive. From the Eskimos hunting for their food during the day, to then them making their igloos at night so they have a place to sleep. Overall I really enjoyed the documentary.

I liked watching this documentary. I know they didn’t have sound equipment but I think I like it better without dialogue. I think the dialogue would have brought a sense of boredom to me. I enjoy the music and that it is shot in such a way to show how the Inuits once lived but in a way that brings enlightenment!

I would say I’m pretty impressed with what Flaherty did with Nanook of the north. After watching it and reading countless commentaries about it, I still do feel that he has hit the right notes; staging scenes to carry his narrative.

I guess the part that stuck with me most is how he portrayed the human relationship between the Inuits. How positive they were even when times are hard and they are on the verge of starvation.

Also impressive is the film’s ominous lyricism, its precisely-wrought imagery and the rhythm of its storytelling.It’s timelessness make it worth considering as an introduction for children to either documentary or silent film.

Nanook was a very good documentary especially for its time. I am not usually one to enjoy documentaries but I found this one to be more exciting and involving. Of course, I learned about Flaherty’s staging of events and what not which explains the excitement, but I also found a lot of humor and fun in the old school lifestyle that the eskimo lived. Overall a very good enjoyable film.

The documentary of Nanook of the north was very interesting. At first i was not expecting it to be a silent documentary and on top of that to be in black & white. Over all Nanook of the north was very entertaining, educational and i was amused oh how it turned out. I enjoyed it!

Nanook of the North was very entertaining.

Nanook of the North

Nanook of the North is an extremely clever film. Flaherty documented how the Inuit lived before the European arrival to the area. He captured Nanook performing activities the traditional way, such as hunting or constructing. Flaherty was more worried about telling his own idea of the Inuits rather than shooting their reality. The film does a great job to engage and tell a story that we cannot tell if is true or false unless the public has knowledge about that culture.

I enjoyed how this film told the story of the Inuit with the footage, typed words and music. I really felt like I was there, experiencing their everyday life.

I really liked this documentary, I really enjoyed seeing what this tribe of hunters had to do in order to survive . then after reading and learning what the director had to do in order to capture theses moments showed his dedication and passion in order to tell the story he was trying to tell . And while some of the methods he used may have been meet with controversy, I think if he had not done some of those things I think the film would have lost some of the impact that it had .

Even though this film was not shot as a documentary, it became a staple in this genre of films. I was amazed by how smooth the story was told because the film described the reality of life-and-death struggle for survival. It was interesting to see how eskimos adapted to an unforgiven land and conquered it. Even though some scenes were staged, it doesn’t take away from the story. I enjoy watching other cultures and “Nanook of the North” really opened my mind to something new. I am sure it must have been amazing for people in 1922 to be expose to that.

Te sensibilities of the audiences during the time of the release of Nanook are different than modern audiences. Back then, people saw animals being slaughtered in real life. Today, we don’t see that. I feel that there’s a shock factor for modern audiences to the hunting scenes that back in the day seemed routine.

I found this documentary compelling and quite graphic at some point with the killing the walrus scenes.

I really liked the way Flaherty captured the innocence of Nanook when he first heard the phonograph. I also liked how the music went along with emotions that were playing out in the scene. I did not like how they showed the killings of the animals and the cutting up of them, could have done with out that. However overall it was a really good documentary and I would definitely suggest it to future film makers to see.

If it wouldn’t have been for Documentary class I would of never have been interested in watching Nanook of the north. It really captured my attention from the moment it started. I was blown away on how the Inuits gave complete access into their lives Flaherty. What really caught me off guard was the fact that the Inuits were always fighting hunger and moving around finding ways on how to survive. It was really an experience and I recommend for everyone to watch.

I was amazed by the effort undertaken with “Nanook of the North.” It was incredible the steps taken to make this great documentary, twice!

I personally enjoyed the video because I got a sense of what its like despite the fact they were given rifles. They still didn’t have modern technology and had to do everything with only whats around them and hunt for food. This is a great documentary and I fully enjoyed it.

The movie was entertaining and educational.

I first heard about this film in HMA class but it didn’t catch my attention at all. But after watching it I was amazed at the story and how powerful this silent film really is. Some parts made me laugh out loud, especially after Nanook cut open an entrance to the igloo, poked his head out, and laughed for like 20 seconds.

I found myself getting into the characters just like I would with any other film. It’s impressive that Flaherty was able to show an eskimo’s normal everyday life and get that kind of response from people.

This was most certainly an interesting film. I have to admit, I never really had and intreats in this film, but now that i have seen it, I’m surprised. Manly at the fact that a quarter of the way through, i had forgotten that the film was silent and in black and white. It felt as thorough I was simply watching a regular documentary. Thumbs up.

Even though there was no narraration or sound to the film that the text provided sufficient information for what was happening on screen. The soundtrack really helped with describing the action as well. It is interesting that this subject material can be interesting even till this day.

This Documentary show people the insight in what a film maker can achieve by thinking outside the box. It was interesting and informational. Flaherty also used all his resources that he had to get this document. He wanted to show people the aspects of what they are not living in that way of the Nanook society. If people good open up there eyes and literally be put in someone shoes to see how long people would last. Hope everyone watches this document.

This movie started out some what Interesting, but towards the end of the film my attention wasn’t focused on the movie any longer. I didn’t really feel like there was a proper ending to this documentary.

I felt like this documentary really had me captivated from beginning title cards, to final credits. I usually do not like documentaries, but I love history and film, and this let me see a very personal look into a page of the history books that most people overlook (the ways of the Eskimos).

This film was well done, I enjoyed it. It gives a really good insight to the life they have and the struggles they go through to survive. I think the ending could have been better but overall it was good.

Flaherty inspired me as well as informed me with this marvelous Documentary. Although some of his shots weren’t caught in the actual moment, i still feel the Inuit had to do what they had to do regardless. The language barrier that the director and the subject shared insures that the shot couldn’t have been to staged. I believe this is a well representation of capturing an inside look at the life of Eskimo, especially by using the Inuit people as his crew. I love this movie and the puppy in it. I recommend this movie to anyone that wants to learn something new and interesting.

This documentary is truly a masterpiece!! I myself am a big history person and this actually shows real history as it happened, which is something that a lot of documentaries lack. Out of all the documentaries I have seen this one truly does represent actuality.

I really enjoyed Nanook of the North, it was a beautiful film. Although it may face speculation for being a documentary, due to the fact that it told a specific “premeditated” story, it was a beautiful depiction of the Inuit tradition and culture. The true beauty in documentary filmmaking is capturing true moments, which I think Flaherty did wonderfully.

Hello Mr. Martin,

Thank you very much for sharing this wonderful film with the class.

It really was a romantic movie, as Mr. John Grierson might said, BUT I enjoyed it anyways.

Would that make me a romantic???

Best wishes, HAPPY NEW YEAR!

J.F.T. ~ Filmmaker

AMOR Y PAZ

I enjoyed Nanook of the North a lot more than i thought I would. I enjoy historical documentaries and this one has both the historical aspect and still has a little bit of humor. I know it is said that some parts were made up or dramatized for the film but either way it goes it is still part of their history.

My first impression of Nanook of the North was that it was going to be boring. As I watched it, I actually began to feel “involved” in the documentary. I felt like the showed us inside the lives of the Inuit. It was eye opening to experience a totally different culture than my own.

Nanook of the North is an interesting documentary not simply for its historical significance in Film history. It is a captivating representation of the human spirit. The film illustrates the Inuit people’s ability to survive in the harshest conditions. You can not help but respect their ingenuity and determination to create a life in such a challenging environment.

Watching Nanook in the film I was impressed by how much joy I saw in his mannerisms, and facial expression. Obviously he has had a hard life, but through the documentary I got a sense of how proud he was, and how much he enjoyed sharing his culture.

It was a fun documentary that really illustrates what is possible with our own projects.

Hello There,
In the beginning i honestly thought the film would be boring. With it being black and white and having to read of off the film as well. As the film progressed i found that the audience as myself found the reading interesting and kept me awake. They should make more films like this in today’s world, it would defiantly be different!

Nanook is a film about survival. Whether parts are staged or not, it’s all real. The Inuit people really fought the land for every ounce of sustenance. They did not fight with the determination of an athlete, because athletes have little to lose, but much to gain. The Inuit people had everything to lose and so fought for their lives, their families, and their traditions. The film itself was almost taken in a fire, but survives to teach us about the essence of human nature.

…and we think we have it tough.

Nanook of the North is an interesting documentary. At first, I, like many in the class, thought it would be boring; however, by the end I found it to be enlightening. I learned a lot about how the Inuit people lived and what they had to do to survive.
I like the fact that when on the hunt, the Inuit people had to capture the walrus themselves. To have gained help from the “white people” would not show an accurate documentary and may have ruined it, in my opinion.

And I agree with Jordan’s comment about the false pretense we have about living in the rough.

Nanook of the North is a great documentary. I like the film a lot because I like how raw it is. The film is very informative and I learned a lot from it. At first it was kind of hard to get into the film because its basically a silent documentary with text cards but but Flaherty does a great job to getting you captured in the film. Nanook of the North is an awesome way to start of Documentary class!

I think this documentary is very well done. At first I thought it was going to be poor in its content, but I am amazed how Flaherty put a lot of Nanook experiences together in one lovely film. It shows the way Inuit people used to live. Although, I need to admit, I was disappointed in finding out that most of it was staged. I understand it is still a Documentary though.

I think the film is all of the three of them, the film talks about the survival of a man (anthropological), the ethnics of this group of people and of course, it is part of history.

I could not stop watching Nanook of the North it was a lot more entertaining than i thought I would be. Even know some shots were “cheated” or staged I still believe this to be one of the most accurate documentaries of the Inuk in the Canadian Arctic.

This movie is great… It really shows me how to use strong audio and great capturing angles to tell stories. My first impression was not to great because of not having dialogue and being black and white. But as I continued to watch i came to see that this film was an eye opener. Everything is worth trying and now i want to make a silent. While the work is cut out for me. “Nanook” really showed me a thing or two.

The music was composed to help tell the story. IN some venues it was performed with the screening. The title cards also help tell the story, but both music and cards are basically third party narration. JR

I think the documentary is extremely vital for today’s society; to understand the nature of humanity and the value of our diversity as people, to appreciate the presence of each other. My final view is to achieve the reality of an objective documentary, which is to use whatever is available that the story itself has to offer during production.

I’ve seen this documentary before at a local documentary film festival. At the time, I was told that Flaherty staged a lot of the scenes to capture the image he wanted, which made a negative impression on me. Now that I’ve seen it more than several times, I grew more appreciative toward the time, energy and passion behind it. Overall, the documentary is another importance piece of our history.

I enjoyed this film quite a bit.
I had never seen a silent documentary, so that was a new experience for me.
The film is important and interesting on a number of different levels. Obviously it is significant because it is the first feature length documentary film. It’s historical impact is immeasurable.
I was fascinated with the story behind the film: Nanook suggesting things that would be interesting to audiences, Flaherty losing the footage due to a fire and having to reshoot, Flaherty developing his footage on location, and so forth.
I also find it fascinating to analyze the film and its impact in sociological way. The film presents actuality, but some of it had to be staged due to lighting restrictions and other obstacles. Also, the idea of Nanoook watching the footage as it was developed and suggesting things that Flaherty should film is an interesting thought. I think that this would merit some crew position for Nanook, that of a writer or producer.
The film is a great historical document on the early non-fiction film, and it brings up some interesting debates and discussions.

This film opened my eyes as to the way that the Inuit lived. I was not familiar with their traditions or customs before watching the film. I must say that I am extremely grateful that I don’t have to live that way.

The story was quite captivating because it was a raw human experience. While watching “Nanook of the North”, I remember thinking about the daily struggle to survive. Nanook literally lived each day so that he and his family could survive just one more day.

I had, to rewrite, needed to edit. I pressed submit before I could edit. I really enjoyed this documentary. One of those films you wanted to know what happend after it ended. What Nanook’s family did and how did they press on after what we consider hardship, was everyday life, and being raised on a farm, it makes me thankful for what we have today.

Shot in the 1920′s it dose capture the feel of a good story and being a silent film, it gave the audience a the opportunity to really follow the story.
I appreciate a good story.

Although there is much controversy surrounding the film and its credibility, the real fact is it did accomplish what it was set out to. The indigenous inuit people’s culture, traditions, and way of life were documented for the world to see and in 1922 it would have been astounding to see such lifestyles come to life on the big screen.

Although it may not be considered a true documentary, it was still entertaining and extremely informative, He may have done somethings that ruined it from being a documentary but he also tried not to interfere to unless it was done to make a better quality video.

This film was very interesting and amazing for the first documentary ever made. The most amazing thing I learned from this film was that I am so happy to have not lived like the Nanook.

I really enjoyed the film and found it very interesting considering how long ago it was shot.

I think this doc is very well done and as objective as possible. It is an inspiration to all who watch it because if they can survive in a desolate frozen wasteland then so can we in our decadent concrete jungles.

I really liked how dedicated and committed the Inuit people were. It shows that they did what they needed to in order to survive. It was endearing to see how well they worked together as well as how they always helped each other in whatever task needed to get done.

I really enjoyed watching Nanook of the North, it was my first silent documentary and to be honest I wasn’t too excited on watching it. However once the music started, which played with the story extremely well, it caught my interest. It was entertaining and I enjoyed very moment of it.

I thought that this documentary was going to be a lot different than it turned out to be. I was anticipating a boring, silent, black and white historical documentary. After watching it I liked it. This film is definitely transcendental and I understand why it has been so popular for so many years, world wide. My interest was easily maintained with comedy, action, and drama. All in all I’m glad I watched it, and that I was able to learn more about this particular culture.

I thought this film was very interesting. It was very simple but was very interesting. I thought it was amazing some of the things that they did in this film, like building the igloo. I loved how the music came into play on some of the parts of the film. I understand why it is so popular and it is a shame how it got negative publicity on how he shot the movie. Overall it was a great documentary.

Coming into watching this documentary, I was expecting it to be a boring film. In reality I was thoroughly surprised how interesting it was. It was able to keep 60 20-something year olds occupied and kept their interest throughout, even being almost 100 years old. I found it really cool the way Flaherty shot the Walrus Hunt scene and the story behind it. It definitely is a film I will watch again in the future. Thanks for showing it to us in class.

I really enjoyed watching this film again. I was actually more entertained this time than the previous times I have seen it. I look forward to everything else that is yet to come in this course.

A great film. You can really see where every documentary since has pulled from. I’m still on the fence about considering it a true documentary, but nonetheless it’s a great example of non-fiction storytelling. I have a really good idea of how I plan on approaching my documentary projects.

This film utilizes narrative storytelling to motivate the informative action. It’s exciting to see a variety of scenes and shots, from hunting to family love, that develop a wide range of content for the film. Despite being “silent,” Nanook’s various elements maintain interest while broadening the horizons of the viewer to survival in a harsh environment.

This was the first time I watched “Nanook” and I really enjoyed it. Not only as a future film maker, but also as someone who had little knowledge of the Inuit and their ways. What really impressed me, was how Flaherty shot it and the fact of going over there and experience himself the life and tribulations of the Inuit; making a real documentary.

However, now that i’ve done research about him and “Nanook”, i’ve found out it was not that “real” and most of the things Flaherty shot, portraying the life of the indigenous group was “staged”.

I still feel it represents a landmark of paramount importance not only for all documentaries to come after it, but also to the History of Motion pictures.

There is a lot of controversial info out there about what Flaherty did out there; what he staged and didn’t stage. But those were real Inuit people showing us how they lived and hunted. All filmed with equipment that was relatively as primitive as what was being filmed.

I really enjoyed watching this film. I thought it was going to be a boring historical film but as it turned out it was fun to watch. I thought it was really good of Flaherty to incorporate how the inuits used to hunt for food back in the day, even though when he filmed they were already using rifles to hunt. The movie kept my attention throughout its entirety, can’t wait to watch more documentaries in this class.

I can honestly say that I rather enjoyed watching this documentary. It was a nice taste in the life of Nanook, but then I did my research for this class and I can’t help but have my opinion of it change completely. I felt like I’ve been lied to. They just made their lives harder during the documetary. They could have easily grabbed a rifle and shoot their kill. My whole perception of what’s real and what’s not is gone.

It’s understandable that you might feel cheated a bit. However, Nanook suggested to Flaherty that they be allowed to show how they hunted before they got rifles. Obviously they still knew how.
In the Walrus scene they asked Flaherty to shoo the Walrus with the rifle he had with him,but he pretended he didn’t understand them and kept filming.
By the way I don’t think they used rifles for fishing and harpooning a seal through the ice so there was some authenticity there.

My opinion on whether it’s a documentary or if it’s not is this, just because he opened an igloo so they could get light in it for shooting, doesn’t mean that he didn’t ask them to go through the same “normal” routine they’d normally follow so he could capture it on film. I mean seriously, he wanted light!!! We all know how difficult it is to shoot TODAY with low light, so why bitch slap a guy for modifying a location to get a decent shot. I can agree with what Crystal had to say though. If you shoot your prey with a gun, then show it, don’t make it all prehistoric and crap! However, if it was on the cusp of “learning a new way or style” of hunting, then sure. It certainly helped make it more interesting. Particularly when they were eating raw meat with no concern in the world. Crazy stuff!

I really enjoyed watching this film. It let me know that even without verbal talking it could still come out great!

Flaherty was revolutionary for his day. The fact that he thought to document such an interesting culture was brillient, because remember people back then never saw or talked or made contact with people 100 miles away let alone on the other side of the continent. I can only imagine an overwhelming response from a person from those days getting to see real life, half a world away.

I found this film entertaining and enlightening. I was a little concerned at first at the thought of a silent documentary, but the use of music completely won me over. The music acted as narration, using fast-paced action music for scenes like the walrus hunting scene and peaceful, sweet music when the family was safe in the igloo. I understand everyone’s complaints that Flaherty set up scenes instead of letting natural events occur, but at the same time I feel he did accomplish his primary goal: to show real Inuits living together. The people may have done things slightly differently, but things like the walrus hunt were very real. They may have done it in a traditional manner that was no longer the main practice, but Flaherty documented a walrus hunt, plain and simple. I respect him for his choices, and though his methods were not strictly cinéma vérité, I still feel the film teaches us a lot about the Inuits and how they lived.

Before watching the film, I had heard of Nanook of the North as a documentary but had never seen it or even knew that much about eskimos for that matter. It was pretty interesting, mostly for the fact that there was a lot of things I didn’t know about eskimos (the most interesting part being how he pulled his entire family out of what was basically a normal sized canoe!)

I really enjoyed Nanook for what it was. At the time I’m sure this completely wowed audiences because most people in the states were not living like this. It was very well shot and it was just a simple story about a man trying to find enough food to keep his family alive. It really put you in Nanook’s shoes making you think to yourself if you could have lived like him. It was a great film and very enjoyable.

I LOOOOOOVED this guy worrier skills man, he was always providing for his family, not once did he have a look on his face saying” No” or ” i don’t feel like hunting seal today” , he knew what he had to do and went and did it.
Also when they had to travel they went as a family, but was amusing to see Nanook, his wife, three to four kids, aunty, the baby and a puppy get out of that canoe, it made me think that those canoes back then held way more people the these cars today, terrible!
I really enjoed this documentary alot, and learned some ways on how to be a provider and a worrier for my family..

I loved it. I think that despite parts of it being staged that it still did justice to the life style of the inuits. Certain parts that I really enjoyed were Nanook’s reaction to the record player, I loved seeing how he became obsessed with it from trying to find the trick behind it to even biting the record. The only part that was saddening was watching this, knowing before hand, that Nanook had died due to starvation shortly after the film was completed. Overall I think this is a great film, especially due to the fact that even today people can enjoy it.

This movie was really interesting, if it wasn’t for fast food restaurants and other ways of getting our food and stuff today we’d be doing the same stuff as nanook. We as humans have came a long way, and Nanook was very good at what he did back so many years ago. he provided and protected his family. We should all strive to be like Nanook and his family and never give up just because living conditions and othing things and life can be tough to get through.

Even as a silent documentary, I found it to be very interesting and humorous at times. I found myself saying, “No way. That’s crazy!” And if a documentary can get a reaction like that from someone today, I can’t even imagine the reactions it got when it was first released.

This documentary I found to be very enlightening about the Eskimo way of life. Before seeing it I thought of Eskimos not negatively, but differently. I always thought “Man, how would you even survive in that cold weather, under harsh conditions, and why would you choose to live that sort of life instead of the norm?” It was after I watched it that I look at Eskimos differently.

They may live their life under harsher conditions where they have to constantly be on the watch more than say your average human, but they get through it and truly enjoy their way of life. Nanook I found to be a really likeable character in that through everything he always put his family first, and in many situations these days, the average human living under not so straining conditions fails to do that, so that was really neat to see. Point being, Eskimos are still people, they are still a part of humanity, even a greater part with the way they get through their life style, but they work together, they get through it and maybe that’s why they are so fascinating, because despite those harsh conditions they live under, they stick together and show the human race that we are possible of greater things.

I also

I felt in watching the video and then learning more about how things where done that in it’s day it was a way to be able to show how the Inuit’s lived but also how hard it was for them before they started using guns and gunpowder.
Finding out that Nanook and the family not being a true family really made me sad that Mr. Flaherty did that.
Maybe in it’s time it was ok, but today I know for sure that it would go from any form of a documentary to a filmed movie.
This being said I enjoyed the film and learning somethings that I didn’t know about the Inuits and how really hard it was for most of their early years of life before gunpowder and guns!

I’m not normally a fan of documentaries, but I must say Nanook was an enjoyable film. Regardless of things being staged, it was just a portrayal of a man doing whatever he could to support his family through the harshest of conditions, and that is a story that most anyone can love. Always amazing when a film can inspire people to root for someone for so many years.

For a documentary that was made almost a hundred years ago it was pretty entertaining and informational. It wasn’t until I read the book that I found that they were using guns instead of harpoons but overall it was still enjoyable.

It was nice to see how an old documentary is filmed compared to the way today’s documentaries are filmed.

I am very happy this film was shown in class. I have heard about it in classes before, hoping to watch it and very satisfied that I did. I think this piece will and should be remembered forever. A lifestyle without grocery stores and restaurants, really gives a glimpse of how our ancestors survived in a harsh, wild atmosphere. The lack of rules and regulations in such a society is truly memorizing.

Watching this film- was different. It truly is a window into another world. Not just into another lifestyle- but another time entirely. The facial expressions, movements, routines, and processes of their daily life, shown in such a personal way, is both interesting and touching. The physical reactions to this story (laughter, scoffs, surprise) from a contemporary class full of students who have perhaps become jaded by modern effects (explosions and nudity and general boundary pushing) even further reinforces the relevance and significance of this piece in the vast world of film. It still inspires reaction, makes viewers think, discuss, critique. And isn’t that the point?

I thought Nanook of the North was great. I found it to be amazing that a film like this can still hold up against any other Documentary out there and how such an old film can still keep you wanting more. I think its quite amusing as well that John Flaherty apparently had an affair with the woman who played Nanooks wife who then had a child who he wanted to have nothing do with and organized this whole “real” Inuit family together. The times might change but certain things always stay the same. All in all I really enjoyed learning about John Flaherty and watching Nanook of the North.

I think for it’s day this movie was pretty ground-breaking. Yes, we now know that a lot of it was staged but only because some of the older methods the Inuits used were no longer practiced. I don’t think it took away from the story and it didn’t skew the historical accuracy. I did find it rather boring to be honest and slow, but if I were to watch it in 1922 I would have found it more interesting. All in all I do believe it depicted their lives well.

I was quite impressed with this documentary considering the era it was filmed. Flaherty, being the amateur he was, did quite well in his filming techniques. He not only captured a specific Inuit family in their daily life but really encapsulated the human spirit as a whole. The documentary really represents the pursuit of life with all its struggles and yet also, its lighter, comedic side. I believe this is a wonderful documentary to recommend to anyone interested in making one of their own.

Flaherty was way ahead of his time when he shot Nanook of the North. Like Harriett said, it’s definitely ground breaking. The methodology he used, where he may have stretched the truth a bit, is a lot like reality and documentary series of today, whether it be the whole truth or not, it’s still engaging and we can al learn from it. I think it’s more interesting to us now because it’s historical. At the same time, I think documentaries are sought out by those who are interested in the topics themselves, so it’s sort of a “to each his own” kind of thing. For example, I really like documentaries about film, some people like documentaries about art etc. This is definitely a combination of anthropological, historical and ethnographic though, like on the handout in class.

Nanook of the North is a ground breaking film although Flaherty was critized for staging much of this film. I found it to be compelling and inspiring. This film gave a look at a people whom were not known to the general public. Even though this flm did not show the current lifestyle of his subjects it gave people a reason to want to learn more about them.

Nanook of the North, directed by Robert FIaherty was both inspiring and motivating to watch because of its originality and innovativeness. Flaherty’s aim to shoot a film to entertain his audience and educate them on the Inuit Eskimo life was a success. The fact that Flaherty didn’t know he was creating an anthropological documentary and he was a pioneer in his day is fascinating. Many critics, such as John Grierson, have spoken negatively on Flaherty’s use of reenactments and talent direction to tell the story, but people should realize that he didn’t know that he was creating the first documentary. I feel as though he was just doing what felt natural to him in order to captivate his audience. Watching Nanook of the North just inspires me to be creative and to think outside the box as I’m creating my documentaries and movies. And as long as I’m content with my work, in the end that is what matters the most.

I didn’t get a chance to actually watch this documentary but from what I’ve read it seems really interesting. It seems to be very interesting and to me inspiring. It really make me think of how I would want my future documentaries to be like. Even though Flaherty was criticized for staging some of his work, but in the end I believe this to be a really groundbreaking documentary and I’m really excited to sit down and watch it.

I really thought this was an interesting documentary on eskimos. For it’s time it must have been amazing for people to see what it is like on another side of the world. I enjoyed this film and even though it shows it’s age. It is still a good documentary.

While parts of the film were staged I still really enjoyed how the film showed Inuit life. Many of the event (staged or not) showed how the Inuit really lived their lives and I think that this up close look painted an interesting and educational picture of a culture that largely doesn’t exist anymore.

i thought this film was very interesting and just amazes me that this was the first documentary recorded and i do se some issues where people would think it was”faked” or “staged” but i choose to believe that it was indeed a sincere documentary.

I am very impressed with what Flaherty was able to do with so little experience and crew. I understand why many things were staged. If I was in his situation I would probably do the same thing.

This was my first time watching “Nanook of the North” and I must say it does have its good areas where you’re genuinely hooked into the story of Nanook. However there were times where I would be bored from the overload of different angles of the same shot. It felt as if it was becoming scripted or was from the beginning which took me out of the film. Along with that the ending felt a little anti-climactic for me. Other than that it was still a good film. There were a few comedic areas that kept you going. Overall not too bad of a film.

This was the first time that I have seen “Nanook Of The North”. Like many older movies that I have watched I could not help but have the preconceived feeling that the movie was going to be boring and hard to watch. I did not have this experience with this historical documentary. The movie, though old, was vibrant and told a compelling story about the Inuit people. Even though many of the scenes may have been staged I believe It was a necessity under the circumstances and the times. Overall I believe the film was excellent and will continue to stand the test of time.

This was the first time that I have seen “Nanook Of The North”. Like many older movies that I have watched I could not help but have the preconceived feeling that the movie was going to be boring and hard to watch. I did not have this experience with this historical documentary. The movie, though old, was vibrant and told a compelling story about the Inuit people. Even though many of the scenes may have been staged I believe it was a necessity under the circumstances and the times. overall I believe the film was excellent and will continue to stand the test of time.

I was a little apprehensive at first about this film, knowing that it had parts that were staged. Overall though, I ended up being impressed by this piece despite that. I was able to be a bit more forgiving knowing that this was made so long ago and that it really set the groundwork for the documentary films to come. I found that I was genuinely entertained by this film, and I have an appreciation for the hard work that went into making it. It offered an interesting look into a world and culture that would normally remain unseen by many.

An informative insight on the life and culture of the Inuit tribe, very amazing how hunting is captured. Clearly parts are staged but still amazing to see the act ocuring.

The film was very interesting and also showed how different their life was compared to ours. I still find it amazing they can build a house for themselves and the puppies in under an hour.

Like many of my peers, I thought this documentary was going to be the most boring longest hour of my life. Instead I was surprised and amazed with an extraordinary intriguing piece. It made me wonder so many things about this culture for example, why they didn’t cook they’re food among so many other things. Other questions that made me watch this again was how despite all odds, weather, electricity and time, they capture this in camera.
Stage or not, it had to be hard just to capture each event so great.

Like many of my peers, I thought this documentary was going to be the most boring longest hour of my life. Instead I was surprised and amazed with an extraordinary intriguing piece. It made me wonder so many things about this culture for example, why they didn’t cook they’re food among so many other things. Other questions that made me watch this again was how despite all odds, weather, electricity and time, they capture this in camera.
Stage or not, it had to be hard just to capture each event so great..

When I first started watching “Nanook of the North” I thought it would be a struggle to go through more than 1 hour with those grainy and very dark footage. After the first 5 minutes I was immersed in such an interesting story and could not stop thinking how incredible it was to follow the steps of the unique Eskimos’ culture represented by a brave man called Nanook. This documentary takes the audience to the almost uninhabited lands of the Arctic Circle where families struggle to survive between the freezing temperatures, the wild animals and the starvation that follows their lives. I found it amazing to see rare moments such as the hunting of a walrus and the construction of an igloo. I would recommend this documentary for anyone interested in the lives of disparate cultures; it serves as an anthropological study as well as a life inspiration.

this was a great insight on the eskimo life. even though some of it was staged and out of date tactics of the eskimo’s way of life, but still give us example, and they lived.

To be honest I found the film very difficult to follow due to the poor quality of the film and the lack of light in many scenes. I understand that the film itself was old and in poor quality before it was transferred to another media and I also understand that at the time of filming proper equipment was not ready for that climate nor could it be afforded. Overall I was impressed with Flaherty’s job creating this improvised documentary. I don’t agree with the film being classified as a documentary due to the drastic changes of the way the inuits hunted and Nanooks legitimacy.

Overall I was impressed with the overall product of the film but I did not enjoy it.

At first I was skeptical that a silent documentary of that time era could entertain me and keep me focused. But it proved that I was wrong, I really liked it.

I enjoyed this movie despite its age. Watching it kinda reminded me of Charlie Chaplin. It is very fast paced. And knowing that they choose to make it in the old way the local inuits used to live is a very way to show the truism of the culture.

1 approved
rockinm@fullsail.edu
50.88.253.98
Submitted by Maria Wolstencroft on 2012/08/31 at 4:52 pm (moved from previous location)

I really enjoyed watching Nanook of the North. I found it very interesting because of the cold and wondering how it must have affected the camera of the time. How did he develop the film on site as there was no dark room available and what did he eat, was he also almost starving? It was extremely well done for its time. I would watch it again.

Submitted by Maria Wolstencroft
1 approved

With help from the Inuit crew he trained, Flaherty shot with a Bell and Howell camera that was hand cranked. He developed his film and made prints on location. He melted ice for fresh water to use in the developing process. He also made prints from the negative by cutting a 35mmm size slot and letting sunlight shine through gauze that exposed the negative onto the print stock then developed that. I guess he built a dark room to do all this work. He actually showed dailies to the Inuit and got their opinions. I don’t have any information on what he was eating but I would imagine that he had his own supplies.
Jim

I believe this movie is quite good for its time. Even with the ‘staged’ events. It marks a historical and ethnographical part in human history. Given the technology in the early 1900’s it was a beautifully crafted piece of film.

This only downside in my opinion is that the staged events remind me of today’s ‘reality TV. They are altered to increase the suspense and excitement while simultaneously decreases authenticity.
In a way this shows how Flaherty was way ahead of his time.

I don’t quite no how I feel about how he changed so much of this film. I don’t know if I would consider it a documentary, but I do know that if he hadn’t done it the way he did that I would never have seen this culture and it would be forever lost.

I don’t agree with all the things he did, but I enjoyed the movie. It shows a time when humans took only what they needed from nature and didn’t waste things as we do now. Sometimes we think that uncivilized cultures did not love and laugh as we do, but this film shows they even with in their circumstances they love deeply, laughed truly and enjoyed life.

I like how he shows the baby playing with the puppies, something to link them to us through time.

All in all this is a memorable film.

Understand the concerns, but he didn’t change things as much as stage a few scenes of the Inuit doing what they would normally do. But today we don’t do that. Then there were no rules.

Though it was simple, I think it’s safe to say that Flaherty’s “Nanook of the North” has become a legendary documentary; it was a hit with audiences all the way back in 1922. He was able to display what life was like for people who had little possessions living in the bitter cold along the Hudson Bay. An Anthropological documentary for its time, I believe the film has become a lesson of historic and ethnic significance. It’s interesting to study how people lived and survived nearly a century ago, exploring their customs and traditions, and compare that to modern day.

Though “Nanook of the North” is considered a true documentary by many, I’m tempted to question the validity of this, as some events were staged. However, these staged events do come through seamlessly in the film, so how strong of an argument could one really make that this film is not a true documentary?

As I mentioned earlier, “Nanook of the North” is rather simple yet interesting at the same time. The film has successfully survived the past 100 years, and I don’t see why it wouldn’t last for another 100.

First time watching this documentary, i have to say a really enjoyed it. Even though there where a few parts that where staged i believe that Flaherty managed to show the world how different the skimp culture was back then from the rest of the world.

I fall asleep through modern day Hollywood films, but old pieces such as this keep me wide awake. I really loved it. Despite the changes Flaherty made, i think it shows us pretty much to the dot how the Inuits lived. Most filmmakers don’t put as much effort and as much of their life into their projects. I feel like this dedication alone is proof enough that he did his absolute best to give the best depiection of the culture. He worked around his limited gear to capture the culture, and i don’t think he should be at fault for that.

The film was intriguing, graphic and enjoyable. It gave me knowledge as to how different cultures survive and opened my eyes to what actually can be the norm for people. The film overall delivered a great deal of different emotions and perspectives which blend well and intrigued me right through.

I thought this was a really good film. It was informative on how the inuits lived. I think Mr. Flaherty was ahead of his time era.

I personally enjoyed the film. Although Flaherty received some criticism for staging much of the footage, I still think it serves a purpose of showing the audience how people once lived in that region. I would challenge any American today to live in those conditions with the little they had.

I think Nanook of the North was a great but risky achievement. This film is definitely worth watching for anyone interested in making documentaries.

Nanook of the North is the first silent documentary that I have ever watched. At first I was having trouble keeping an interest due to the slow start, but once the film got moving along I was drawn right in. It really gives you a good look at the lifestyle that the people had to live at that time. The most interesting thing for me is learning how the film was developed in the igloo. Overall I enjoyed the film, but I would not recommend that modern day documentaries switch over to silent film style, unless the director really has a great reason to do so.

It was particularly interesting to see how much Flaherty was able to capture and in such a cohesive manner despite the limitations of the technology at the time. Even taking the liberties that he did with the events in the film. Overall, it was a unique experience to see such a film.

I am glad you showed this project in class. I shoot with a 16mm Bell and Howell 240 and I was excited to see that this documentary was shot using the same type of camera I use to document my son growing up!

I watched “Nanook of the North” with an open mind, which I think one needs. I was concerned about the lack of dialogue prior to watching it, but I was surprised at the efficient flow and pace of the film. I thought the way he worked around the ineffectual lighting was ingenious. I expected to be slightly more revolted at the animal slaughtering, but I thought it was surprisingly tasteful…less gory than a modern horror movie. I thoroughly enjoyed this insightful documentary.

I remember hearing a little bit about “Nanook Of The North” in a previous class. I didn’t know what to expect. I watched “Nanook Of The North” and was pretty impressed on how it was shot considering he did not have the regular essential needed to film. I was also intrigued by how it actually had a story to it and wasn’t just footage put together. The documentary was entertaining, while teaching us the way they lived, giving you an appreciation for how we live today.

Nanook of the North is an interesting film to watch because of the ingenuity the film makers used in the cold northern environments. Although it may not be the same format we use today, much of what Flaherty did paved the way for documentary film makers for years to come.

I enjoyed this doc very much. The Insight into ones life has always been a great influence to me, and to see how the daily goings change constantly for Nanook and his family is something good to think about. I really enjoyed how he captured a lot of the family scenes within and did not try to make this documentary all about the pain or sufferings that the people were going through at the time. It brought out more of a love and relationship with the audience in my opinion.

This was my second time seeing ‘Nanook’ and it still holds up as one of the most important films ever made. Sure, the titles and borderline animal abuse date it a little bit, but like every film it’s a product of it’s time. And at the same time, there are shots that feel shockingly modern. A film doesn’t have to be great to be successful, but it does have to be great to have such a lasting legacy as this film has, and even pioneer what has become one of the strongest mediums of visual storytelling.

Nanok of the North was a very simple and well executed documentary of such a primitive, isolated life form. While I, like many others may not agree with the extent to which Flaherty exaggerated or staged certain actions and scenes, to be able to watch this in an open mind and appreciate the simplicity of life and gain insight into their environment opens and encapsulates the audience.

I was initially put off by the lack of dialogue and lack of creative flair within the shots, but it later came to intrigue me of how powerful a piece as simple as this has become. The relationship between the humans and nature was compelling.

I’ve heard of “Nanook of the North” in a previous class so I was interested in watching it and seeing what it was all about. It started out a bit slow, but it got the message across and the audience could really see the struggles of how these people lived and what they had to go through to survive. Considering the era, I was impressed with the way the film was produced and how it turned into a story of these peoples lives, instead of just a bunch of footage that was put together. I feel it gives people a greater appreciation for what they have today.

I first heard about “Nanook of the North” during my History of Motion Arts class. Ever since that class I have been interested in watching this documentary. I found the film to be very interesting. I have always enjoyed learning about history, and I thought that it was interesting to see the traditional way that the inuit people lived. One particular part that I found interesting was the walrus hunt. I found it intriguing to see how the intuits were able to sneak up and hold onto a one ton walrus.

I liked this movie very much, it was very educational and entertaining.

i like this movie because it was interesting and educational to learn about the way the Inuits lived and hunt.

For being the first of its kind and a silent film, I thought this pioneering documentary successfully portrayed the daily life of a man in the Inuit culture. Although some scenes were a little drawn out, this documentary is successful in showing the Inuit customs, traditions, and practices.

This was a very interesting film, and a good look at a family living in a harsh environment. For being made when it was is an amazing feat in itself, even if some of the scenes were staged. I enjoyed it very much.

To be considered the first documentary, Nanook of the North surely set the bar for it’s kind. Showing the interesting lifestyle of the Inuit people must have been a challenge alone, but what impressed me the most, is what Flaherty went through to accomplish this. This feature had some fun moments that were humorous, and some more intense moments, which was a nice blend. Overall, this was an interesting piece.

this was a very interesting documentary. Nook lifestyle was a day by day challenge and i enjoyed watching how the inuits people hunt.

After learning about this film in History of Motion Picture Arts, it was nice to actually see the film and piece together the history of this film to the actual film itself. I was impressed with the life style these people actually lived. I would like to see a documentary of a family like the Inuits in a modern take, (that is if people still live like this somewhere). All in all, the film was a lot of fun to watch and it is great to see some of the firsts. It is a great learning tool and I can’t wait to start making documentaries myself.

I enjoyed watching this movie. When I watched this movie it made me feel like everything that was going on was real. Even if the movie didn’t have any sound you are still able to follow the story and see they struggles they had to go through.

Nanook of the North is a great documentary that was captured in true essence like no other. These people have lived and survived like for thousands of years with barely any outside influences other then the changing times. It was very interesting to see how they lived and survived in their element.

I wasn’t looking forward to watching this film, but while watching it I thought this film was very interesting. I thought I was going to have a hard time staying focused and interested, but it was very entertaining. It truly showed the way the Inuit people lived.

Nanook of the north was a an amazing experience! after the movie was done, I couldn’t stop thinking on the making proceses. It is a almost 100 years old documentary that look as new as the feeling that we all had watching it. Even the lack of sound creates an atmosphere of suspense, and even the staged moments are as good as the natural ones. Flaherty passion gave him a masterpiece, and changed the industry for ever.

This documentary was a pleasure for me to watch. It gave me an insite on what it’s like living in a culture completely different from my own, away from modern society (ie. technology). It would have been nice if he had the opportunity to go back and see what they were up to 10 years from then.

It’s amazing to see that almost a century later this documentary still got laughs from our modern class audience. I had seen Nanook of the north years ago but I still enjoyed it and saw it from a different prospective.

This was a pretty interesting documentary even for how old fashioned it looks. Even though it is almost a century old, it still manages to portray the life of eskimos as realistically as it would have been possibly back in those days. Even though there are reports that the scenes were staged, it is still far more realistic than what would have been captured by any other people.

I enjoyed watching this documentary. It was really interesting and everything was real, felt like I was apart of it. I recommend every one watch this documentary.

I really like the film. I see a different style of life that I never thought that excited. It was funny, interested and very… different. It was a really good document, every one who want to do documentary film should own a copy.

I found this film very interesting. It shows a completely different culture and the struggles that they experienced. I could not imagine having to go from place to place in search of food. Not to mention the extremely cold conditions that they had to endure. I am glad that there are some great and powerful documentaries so that people are made aware of the struggles of their fellow Americans, and other cultures across the world.

Although I saw this film years ago, I still enjoyed the movie to this day and got to know more information about the film.

For its time this film actually made me laugh quite a bit. It was well shot and kept me enthralled throughout the story. It’s very interesting how these people used to live.
And who can forget those beautiful Husky puppies?

I loved it, but i don’t just see it as a documentary it feels more like an Anthropological piece now that i think about it i think the two go hand in hand but where he fall short is when he lets his subject tell him what to shoot other than that i think it’s well put together

Visual anthropology is an area included in the documentary category. Although by today’s standards Nanook of the North would be considered “salvage anthropology.” Still it is by default the first attempt at documenting a culture and its people.

Nanook Of The North is a beautifully composed and heartwarming story that is well crafted to be viewed by any audience. I thoroughly enjoyed watching this film from the perspective of Robert Flaherty himself. I was completely blown away by some of the shots that he was able to get, especially in arctic locations. Technology was no where near the magnitude that is has become in today’s society. I have a ton of respect for everyone involved in the making of this feature-length documentary film.

This was a great film, being Alaskan I have had the privilege of watching it several times as a kid. I feel this is a great documentary that breaks a few rules, the most important is that some of this was actually scripted and acted out. But for its day it was really innovative.

I loved watching this film! For me, I didn’t mind the fact that they “staged” a few of the scenes because they were still doing the same action in the same way that they would have, but being able to see it from different angles and views allowed me to better understand their ways and how they did things. It also got me more immersed in the documentary and their story.

I enjoyed the film, although dated.. It truly opened up my eyes to the pure ingeniousness of the inuits. Crazy to think that a pioneer in documentary film making was that motivated to create such a unique piece of art.

I have seen this documentary before in the past, but was never aware of the struggles Flaherty had making the film (i.e. his stock going up in flames, resulting in him having to reshoot a lot of the film). Even though parts were staged in “Nanook of the North”, Flaherty was still a pioneer in the film world. Showing people a society and a way of life that they may never even knew existed, or how they existed. I feel as though Flaherty giving the Inuits direction during the filming is easily forgiven by the great piece of film he came out with.

This was a great film. I could never live in that cold weather being a Floridian. I think that it is ok to stage some of the scenes as long as the Eskimos approved and poytrayed the true story. I also found it interesting how they hunted the walrus because it is very similar to hunting alligators to this day.

I liked this film very much, it was very entertaining to watch. I always enjoy watching anthropological films. There’s just something about learning the struggles of others and seeing them succeed that helps me respect them more.

This documentary is a great piece of film history. I can only imagine how difficult it must of been to film up in Alaska during the early twenties. I feel like, for back in the day, certain elements had to be staged (like the igloo with no roof), but even though certain things were staged it helped the audience get a glimpse into the life of an eskimo and his struggles. Its one of those classic pieces, that even though it may not be the best, it is still a revolutionary piece that brought about a new way to make movies.

I’m happy I’ve finally watched this as it was talked about in History of Motion Arts quite a lot. For what it was back in the day this film must have been phenomenal to be able to view another culture in a completely different environment the likes of which most of us will never ever experience or even view through our own eyes. After additional research it is a bit upsetting to know that one of the best documentaries in history is incredibly controversial based on its staging of certain scenes, however I admire Flaherty for all his work as he definitaly got the best he could and I sure would have given up after I dropped a cigarette on 30,000 feet of flammable footage. Maybe next time just don’t let it leak that not everything you shot happened naturally.

At times I found this documentary hard to watch, simply because I’m not comfortable watching animals be killed (though I know it was for survival), but the other parts of the film I did really like. I found the relationship between the family to be quite interesting to watch and it was very intriguing to see their culture and how different it is to ours here today.

I have to say, though I wasn’t dreading watching this film, I wasn’t overly excited because documentaries are usually not my first choice of something to watch. But I was very pleasantly surprised. Even though it was silent all the way through, it was incredibly engaging, probably because it was all action and (obviously) no interviews. Title cards were all that were used to help understand certain moments, and they weren’t overbearing or annoying in any way. The staging of certain scenes didn’t bother me at all because Flaherty wasn’t changing anything about their life and how they lived it, he just wanted to see things from every possible viewpoint. I was very impressed.

In all honesty I do not enjoy documentaries at all so I found it hard to watch. It all seemed sort of set up and boring. I got into film because I wanted to make something more exciting than reality and a documentary is reality.

This was my first ever documentary film that I watched that was silent. I was actually not expecting that, until I found out it was released 1922. It was very well done and the dedication to the director who went through all the research and waited 4 years or so and then started shooting. He used his resources and the staging was reasonable. He only did it because he really wanted to get the shot of what its like not how it is. Now that movie is off the checklist!

I have seen a few documentary films that had theatrical releases and this one was the best. I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it, it’s crazy what humans can endure to survive. It’s also amazing what the filmmaker had to endure to get this film made.

I don’t really like silent films, mostly because they don’t keep me entertained. This one was the exception because it was extremely raw and real, turning it into a window to the past.

Even thought this documentary is silent it is very informative about the way the Inuit live. For me it was really well done even thought if he staged some parts of the documentary. Overall I think Flaherty did a great research about the Inuit.

I appreciate this documentary for been so beautiful. It is not until Nanook of the North that i realize that the whole documentary was silent and only contained instrumental music. The way Flaherty capture the images, it extended a connected between them (nanooks) and us (the students).I was surprised with how much i enjoyed watching this documentary.

I think that the film stands up over time and was a great look into the past.

I enjoyed Nanook of the north. My favorite part is when the eskimo woman carves a window out of ice and installs it in her igloo. I thought it was very clever how she made a small wall of snow to bounce the sunlight into the window.

I really enjoyed this piece. However, at first I felt the piece had a condescending tone with how they made Nanook look “amazed” at the western technology and had a child like demeanor. But as the story progressed I truly began to feel for Nanook and his family. I really enjoyed how good the piece was and how much information that I was able to learn.

it is a good doc just not one i would would watch

Why is that??

I find it amazing that this film has such an impact. While in class today, people would laugh and be disgusted. I believe that this is an Anthropological piece because of how they are showing how the inuits lived, sure some of it had to be reenacted after he had lost his footage but that doesn’t change the fact that it is their culture and traditions.

Today this type of documentary is called “salvage Documentary,” in that it does show authentic life and is the actual people who live this way.

Nankook of the North, what a compelling documentary. I really enjoyed the visual representation of anthropology. Flaherty is a great compelling director .

Nanook of the North was an extremely compelling documentary. I enjoyed learning about a different culture and seeing how Flaherty was able to achieve making a great documentary.

I found Nanook of the North to be an interesting film. I felt like I was right there freezing with the family and dogs, or maybe it was just the A.C. in Full Sail. I felt Flatherty dropped me into the Inuit culture and gave me the chance to empathize with their struggles. The film also made me really appreciate the modern convinces we have. I was a little disappointed to learn that some of the scenes were staged. Being a filmmaker I understand why Flatherty did some staging. I feel he stayed true to the spirit of the film and was successful. Losing footage can be a very depressing time; knowing Flatherty raised funds and returned to re-shoot his film, that’s very inspiring and shows he had a lot of dedication.

I loved Nanook of the North. I was a little unsure about whether or not I’d like it, because I didn’t think a documentary would be something I was interested in. I was definitely wrong! I was intrigued the entire time. The entire film was adorable. The story behind the film is inspiring as well. Flaherty faced so many challenges and was even hospitalized after losing all his footage, yet he went back again and made a masterpiece. That says a lot about his character and makes him an inspiration to me as well. The fact that a film from so long ago can still have such an impact is amazing, and it really sheds some light on just how spoiled we really are with our even our oldest technology. I don’t mind at all that some of the scenes were staged because I feel that in Flaherty’s circumstances, he had the right to make sure he had everything he wanted to show about the Inuit people. Also, nothing staged was anything super out of the ordinary, so the documentary still serves its purpose.

I don’t condemn Flaherty for recreating certain situations. He witnessed the Inuit hunting, building igloos, and trading, and simply wanted to show how they did those things. He in no way controlled or distorted the actual events and how they would happen, he just asked the inuit people to show him their way of life. Documentary filmmakers provoke their subjects all the time in today’s films. It’s just a way of getting the story out of your subject. I think it’s a little much to be changing the names of people and making up families of people who aren’t really related, but it doesn’t tarnish the validity of the inuit way of life Flaherty portrayed.

I will criticize Flaherty for one thing though. I found that although there were many parts that showed the unique way of life of the Inuit, much of the film consisted of them either riding the sled with the dogs, or them going to bed. I think once we see them get ready for bed once, that’s enough. The last what felt like 10-20 minutes of the film was just footage of them laying down and the dogs sleeping. We get it, they sleep in the igloo, we can move on now.

Other than that, I found it to be an interesting documentary that accomplished the goal it set out to – To show the world about a different way of life and the daily struggles of the inuit people. I wouldn’t call it a cinematic masterpiece, but it got its point across well.

Nanook of the north is an inspiring documentary, not just for its contents but it stands as a timeless example that no matter how many obstacles a true filmmaker such as Flaherty faced, he was still able to deliver a great piece of cinematic art.

The documantary was great! Having little to no equipment to work with and creating a film like this, that teaches and lets us learn about others and their way of life in different times is simply amazing.

I respect how determined Flaherty was to make this documentary from developing his film with melted ice to losing all his film in a fire, he never gave up his dream.

It doesn’t bother me that Flaherty set up some of the things that happened. I think he did what he needed in order to keep it true and entertaining at the same time. It truly is a wonderful documentary.

I love watching documentaries. The most exciting part is that it is real life. Nanook of the North is so amazing. Flaherty really captured all of this life with very limited equipment which for me makes it all the more powerful. I love seeing how much we have evolved as people and as a culture. This was a great document of the history and behavior of their culture.

I loved this documentary, it was so awesome. I’ve always heard about it but never actually seen it, so I am very glad that we got to watch it in this class.

This documentary was silence but it still made me laugh with their actions.

I enjoyed the film very much. though after looking it up and all the staged shots I feel like I was lied to. It’s very different to see him hunt with a spear rather than a gun. though it was interesting to know he could do both. Amazing how the first documentary can bring you into a silent film through sound.

Flaherty didn’t have much choice regarding the staged inside the igloo shots since he had no lights. It was Nanook himself who suggested hunting without rifles to show the traditional way they hunted. Flaherty agreed but said he wouldn’t help them with the rifle. Also pretended he didn’t hear them when they asked for help with the Walrus.

While it was extremely interesting seeing that the Inuits still knew how to hunt with harpoons and how they did so, I agree with several of the other students who posted here in saying that without doing extra research you would assume that they didn’t have an easier way of hunting, which is fairly misleading. Overall I enjoyed the documentary much more than I thought I would.

This is a very interesting documentary. I have seen it a few times now and love it. It doesn’t bother me that some of the footage was staged because it was staged to remain true to what the Inuit Eskimos traditionally had done, which was Flaherty’s plan from the beginning.

I appreciate documentaries greatly now after watching this feature, but in my opinion, one of the most difficult nuances of viewing them is that sometimes, the ones that are older, are harder to grasp and pay attention to. I feel this way because of the change of times. I absolutely adored watching “Nanook,” because it was as true to life as they could have captured with the equipment they had. Having said that, I felt it was rather hard to stay focused on watching the film. I understand why it is said now that Film for entertainment is a different beast than that of documentary; Film for entertainment is made to capture and contain the attention of it’s viewers and it has to change and progress with the attention span of its audience. With documentary, the subject is all that grabs you, and your attention isn’t caught by explosions and drama, but mostly emotion and the characters they are trying to portray. It was interesting to experience.

The staged portions, in my opinion, can be overlooked as the eskimos still had to go through hard work and struggle to capture their prey and build their shelter.

I found that Nanook of the North was an interesting piece. While it was not my favorite of documentaries, I did enjoy it for the historical aspects. Showing the Inuits and their traditional methods of survival back then, makes it a great piece to watch today. I am fascinated by the idea of Flaherty going by himself, without much camera experience, and coming out with this fine documentary.

I don’t disagree with Flaherty staging some of the scenes in the documentary because it still shows how the people live in their culture, regardless if the Eskimos were re-inacting it or not.

I loved the documentary. It taught me more about eskimo life and how hard it was to survive in the cold.

Like Courtney, I too do not disagree with Flaherty staging some of the scenes in the film mainly due to the time period of which this film came out and the extreme conditions and limitations under which Flaherty was under. I also would like to compliment Flaherty on making such a bold move as to create this feature-length documentary film during a time when films were still in their early youth and were looked upon primarily staged entertainment with actors and actresses.

It is amazing to see how different was life in two different parts of the world during this time and to think that it is still similar nowadays in different cultures. Great film!

I really enjoyed this documentary. It was very cool to see the lives of the Inuit people though some of them were stage still accurately portrayed their way of life. It was also pretty cool to see that Flaherty made a documentary like this during this time. And the fact he had to withstand the cold as well and make this film was pretty impressive.

I was surprised at how well it held up today. It wasn’t the most intriguing documentary but I’m positive it was astounding back in it’s day. What made it even better were the Puppies! So cute!

This movie was great for the day it was made in, it really captured the essence of the documentary genre at the time. It followed the life and journeys of the Eskimos in an interesting and artistic way. It is not as entertaining as todays documentaries, but for it’s time it was a game changer.

I thought it was very well made for the time-period it was made. By having a viewfinder or any other way to check his footage, he truly was talented to film all of these incredible shots. Even if they were “faked”.

I really enjoyed this film, I saw it for my Documentary course and I enjoyed it. I’ve always enjoyed documentaries, but it’s always amazing to watch the works of those filmmakers that have made it possible for artists today.

This movie entertained me for being over 100 years old. Usually I don’t get a kick out of old movies like this, but it was soothing just to hear the music tie into the emotion of what was going on within the scene.

Nanook Of The North was not what I expected. I was expecting to be rather bored with the piece, but I found it to be quite the contrary! Many of the scenes kept me on the edge of my seat such as the walrus hunt and the fishing for seals. I didn’t know if the animals were going to get away or if the inuit were going to get injured. I think what also helped to add to this excitement was the fact that the music was very interesting and typically mysterious. It was nice to see that they kept the soundtrack reflective of the inuit culture instead of adding some other early 1900’s European influenced music.

I really enjoy watching older movies and seeing how they were made back then. Although this film gets a lot of criticism for not being realistic, I actually think it is more realistic than documentaries today in the fact that he didn’t use lighting or camera angles to get a certain effect. It just looked very natural in the way that he filmed it,

The documentary contains the elements of a good documentary. For it’s era, it was represented well. It shows the lifestyle of the people. Although some was staged , it still represents the time period and the people in it.

I thought Nanook of the North was a very interesting documentary. It was really interesting seeing that Eskimos were very smart people surviving out in the frozen wilderness with nothing but just ice and snow. You also couldn’t really tell if it was staged or not because the audience would be paying more attention to customs and history Eskimos.

Meant: the customs and history of the Eskimos

I love how Flaherty attended a three week course on cinematography before he started shooting major documentaries and went out and applied what he learned in the arctic! Yes, as we’ve all read and probably discussed, modern documentaries shine over this small candle that lights the character Nanook, but for its early time–what a masterpiece! Sure, some activities were staged, as with the fighting and struggling to hunt animals, but they still all live performances. If Flaherty had just documented non staged demonstrations of certain events that Nanook participated in, the film might have been boring or dull! Maybe that’s why the cigarette burned up the original footage!

I really found myself interested with the characters. That’s what I always look at most when I watch something, and I think that the reason that it holds up so well now is that people can find interest in Nanook. It’s very artistic and has a little bit of comedy to amuse people. I even find myself forgetting that it didn’t have any dialogue, that it was only title cards telling us what was going on. I’m sure that some people found it boring, and some parts did seem to drag on, but overall people can’t deny that it is somewhat interesting.

Nanook of The North was one of the most enjoyable documentaries I have viewed. Regardless of the repeated actions that were filmed, they were what molded this document into something memorable. I felt engaged with Nanook, his family, and the Inuit people with every scene from feeding the son medicine for his illness to Nanook struggling to catch food for his family and dogs. The story line did an excellent job highlighting Nanook’s character and the culture of the Inuit people.

This is a really great documentary, that captures the ways of Inuit life. Its really awesome to see footage from the time that these people did things they way they did and not to have reenactment.

I thought that the creation of this documentary like the documentary itself was really awesome and makes for a great story. I think it also says a lot that the documentary is still being shown now and can stand on its own feet the way it does.

This is an incredible documentary that was very much ahead of its time. It tells a fantastic story that was is very raw and uncensored for any particular audiences’ taste which is what makes it such a great piece. It is unbelievable that someone took the effort to make such a masterpiece especially under the conditions he was in such as the marsh climate and lack of food and shelter not to mention developing film in such conditions. In other words, I have mad respect for this documentary and its creator.

I’m inspired by how much courage, perseverance, resourcefulness and vision it took for this determined filmmaker to accomplish this, both in that time and under those conditions. Not to mention his salesmanship and level of persuasion to raise the money not once but twice for the same project, after a ridiculous cigarette debacle. I gotta quit smoking…

Nanook Of The North was a film that was very ground breaking to the point of where it not only established the pattern of documentary filmmaking BUT it gave total insight of what family and overall humanity should be founded upon. Wonderful Film! I enjoyed it!

I really loved watching this documentary. A lot of people today may criticize the way he had some things staged, but he was trying to stay true to the reality of the situation while still finding ways to make it entertaining. This was still a new concept then and I think he did the best he could without any real guidelines, like we have now, for making documentaries.

Even though this documentary was made long ago, it is still able to teach and captivate its audience in todays society. This piece is inspirational and entertaining to watch because of the isolated and dangerous feeling is has.

I always wondered how the animators for “Chilly Willy” knew how to draw an igloo for his home properly and can see now that it may have been because of this documentary. I know that it is a small possibility but for me that is what films inspire other art ideas. But overall it kept me interested on what would happen next.

Although this was made almost 100 years ago, the beauty of the film is definitely timeless. Paired with a beautiful soundtrack, it really gives the audience a feel for how this tribe lived.

Currently watching Nanook and can honestly say that though it may be a little hard to stay awake for if not in the mood, its definitely a remarkable film. It shows the potential documentary had back then and defines where todays style of documentary came from.

I thought the film was really well done for his time. It was a great film and great documentary. I especially how he included the dogs in the film.

Despite the criticism that it was staged, I still think it helped show insight into the lives of the Inuits. They may have advanced in their hunting and technologies, but you still got to see their spirit shine through. Nanook and his family led such simple lives, yet they all seemed so genuinely happy and interacted so well together. Flaherty definitely managed to capture the humanity of the people and I think that’s what really makes this documentary shine.

I didn’t know Flaherty was hospitalized in the 1916 incident. That’s like accidentally deleting your hard drive and being punched in the face in the process. Therefore I forgive him for staging some scenes. I felt that the scenes where he made the igloo with no roof only came about because he had limited technology. I felt that he achieved what he set out to do.

I feel the staging of certain activities Nanook did were done well. As a film student, and being told to look for them, was easy to spot. But as an average viewer they do not seem staged. It’s not like they were doing something they wouldn’t normally do anyway. Despite any of that, Flaherty still told a great story of the Inuit’s and Nanook’s family. He covered all of their daily activities and executed them well.

I enjoyed Nanook of the North, for what it is. I don’t mind documentaries, and I really liked how it was constructed, I’m just not a fan of silent documentaries, and having to read all the information. If it were to be a silent film let it be a silent film without the word slides and just letting the viewer have their own thoughts instead of being told whats going on as many times as it did. Nanook of the north was talked about a lot while I was in school and I was very excited to finally see it. My only thought was, it was talked up so much, my expectations were higher, which led to a slight disappointment. If my view was not swayed prior to watching the film I may have enjoyed it more.

I quickly noticed that Nanook was built with nearly all the fundamental aspects of any modern documentary. Regardless of the criticism Flaherty has received from his approaches in filming his documentary, such as “staging” and “readying” for scenes, those are formulas used my all episodic documentaries.

This film was an educational look into the lives of Nanook and his family, while showing what it was like to be in the documentary film career path, it was clear this project was a rigorous one and that it was difficult to say the least. Along with the visuals and being able to tell an interesting story with no actual dialogue the documentary did a good job bringing it all together to keep the audience captivated.

I enjoyed Nanook of the North. Given the technology and the time period it was in, I believe this movie to be very great. I think it teaches us about many important ideas. Given that Flaherty was basically a one man crew, I think he did a fa nominal job. I Personally like documentaries that are Ethnographic based. I enjoy learning about other cultures. Since most people wont travel to the Hudson Bay Area, this documentary takes you on a journey as if you were actually there.
Jim- I am not sure if you have seen the “Tribal Eye” series of documentaries. I love those and think Nanook of the North is closely similar in a way.

I thought Nanook was very good, especially for it’s age. It brought insight into a culture that nobody knew or understood and I believe that it still rings true to this day for the most part. Even though some wouldn’t consider it a “true” documentary because the staging of certain scenes, it is still very good and intriguing. One of those films that have been able to stand the test of time.

Nanook of the North was a very educational piece for me as I wish to be a documentarian. The first lesson was that pioneering is an important skill for any documentarian. To take on risks and challenges and do the unthinkable increases the chance of interest in a documentary. The documentary itself was far too long and repetitive, yet that was overlooked by many due to the insane challenges that were faced head on in making it. I have learnt through watching Nanook that a story can be told in less duration and that when a documentary is too long the audience losses interest. Other arguments spinning off Nanook were interesting. One argument that concerned me was the authenticity of characters. Documentary is expected to be fact and when things are staged the documentarian can face a large amount of criticism.

Nanook was the first feature length documentary. It was released to the public in 1922, a time when visual literacy was not the same as it is today. Most people of that day would not have been able to keep up with the fast paced films of 2013. For them the film would not have been to long.
Flaherty didn’t set out to make anything but what he felt was an entertaining exploration of the way the Inuit traditionally lived. He has been criticized in more recent times for various things for which there were no rules back then. All of the subjects were native Inuits who he probably picked for their ability to work with him.
While no one interested in making a serious anthropological or ethnographic documentary would stage anything today, Flaherty did not have much choice or rules to go by. With no lights the only way to show what went on inside an igloo was to build one without a roof.
According to Erik Barnouw in The History of Nonfiction film, it was Nanook who suggested they hunt in the traditional way, without their rifles.
Despite it’s flaws and the negative vibe that has materialized over the years this first attempt at documentary storytelling affords us the only visual record of the Inuit people at that time. It helped to create a genre that produces the modern documentary and nonfiction film.

I believe that Nanook of the North was very interesting for me and I can honestly say I was interested. I think it was able to cover it in a great way the lifestyle they lived in. Especially knowing that they had already began to change their way of living, but there seemed to have covered it in a great way how they lived before the white men had made contact with them. I think for what they had in equipment it was nicely made in my eyes.

Nanook of the North was a very educational piece. I enjoyed the attempt to show what life was like in a very different and possibly misunderstood culture. However I feel that it has not held up as well as many people say. In today’s society Nanook is simply something we have all seen and known about for a long time. On a technical note it has held up as a film. As far as the entertainment factor I feel that showing it to general audiences today would simply not go over well. That being said I do appreciate that it shows us a somewhat intimate look into a little known culture. Sadly I do not think that it is as intimate as it could be. I truly feel that it could get even closer and really get into depth about how Nanook feels about his culture and it’s place in the global community.

I think that this was an insightful documentary and Flaherty showed what he wanted to show in terms of who the Inuit were during the time. Even though he might have staged some of the shots, they were still true to the Inuit and did help to give exposition to his Documentary.

Nanook of the North was an enjoyable film. Although it received some criticism for staging some aspects of the project, its impact on history and the genre of documentary films is unmistakable. We have Flaherty to thank, even though he didn’t intend for this I’m sure, for starting off the world’s interest in documentary filmmaking. I’m glad we had the chance to watch this in class, it was a good experience.

Nanook of the North was a very interesting documentary to me. I thought it did a great job in showing the details of what life was like in that culture at that time. I also thought it was very well shot considering the equipment Flaherty had and the conditions he had to work in. As far as it being an anthropological documentary I would agree. It does visually show the exploration of indigenous people and their culture. Unlike historical documentaries which employ the use of photographs and archival footage and ethnographic documentaries which show stories about ethnic groups and their history and traditions. Overall I liked the documentary considering when it was shot, however, I don’t think it would stand up very well in today’s society. It is a very important piece of documentary history, however, for most people today it most likely wouldn’t be that entertaining or exciting.

There is no doubt in my mind that obtaining footage for this documentary had to be extremely dangerous and utterly challenging, especially for its time. Regardless of the speculations and factual “staged” shots, this documentary definitely shows an insight, I believe, far more to truth about this particular subject than anyone in our time can research, visually, today.

In Nanook of the North, what stuck out to me the most was that people said it was staged and criticized whether or not it should be considered a documentary. I believe it is as close to a documentary as one could get so early on. I have seen many pieces on the history or discovery channels that include reenactments and the like, which is essentially what Flaherty did with the Inuits. As you mentioned in the article above, he used people from the area, not even actors as they use today for such reenactments. Overall, I believe the entire “conspiracy” does not have sufficient reasoning.

Nanook of the North made me feel like I was out in the snow with the Eskimo’s. It was cool to see a living image of someone over 90 years ago and how they lived. The building of the igloo amazed me as well as the moral of the family. The temperature looked so cold and the children were playing with no worries, I guess when all you know is snow, it becomes your playground. The fishing was astonishing, i have enough trouble using a line and a pole. Flaherty had an image in mind and he went for it, after losing footage and going back years later to film it, he knew what he wanted. He persevered through the cold weather and the harsh conditions to get the shots he needed. True dedication.

Nanook of the North is a great documentary that follows the natives of Arctic Canada. While some parts were staged for better camera angles, it still showed what Nanook and his family went through to survive. Even now it still holds up to documentaries. This Documentary will be around for a long time.

Nanook of the North, is an interesting documentary that everyone should watch. The story is understandable without any dialogue, this one of the characteristics of a great piece of a storytelling media. For being the first featured documentary has a huge honor, this is without any doubt an important piece of story. The whole story is always enjoyable.

Even though Nanook of the North can be discredited for scenes being staged; It stands the test of time and acts as a catalyst and brought a new style of filmmaking to the masses. I feel very strongly that Flaherty is a pioneer filmmaker and his film film should be revered.

I think Nanook was a great documentary. I think the most interesting part of the whole thing to me was the hunting and how to survive aspect of it. Seeing the harsh conditions that were thrown at them I find it amazing they were able to survive. By “they” I mean the everybody over there not just Nanook and his family.

Nanook of the North is a great example of an anthropological documentary. the year 1922 was graced by the glory of this piece of art. although there are some things that are staged, how is that much different from a dramatization of some documentaries today? so i say don’t be so quick to judge.

I think it was a good film for people to watch who are interested in documentaries.

I believe Nanook of the North was a magnificent piece, it was the ideal documentary of its time. Having shot everything as it took place to bring out a different kind of film. Nanook is a must watch film with a great story showing the survival life of Nanook and his family

After watching this film in class I can see how it got its reputation, especially for the timing period that it was released. The music does help quite a bit in watching the film since there is no other sound. One thought that keeps repeating in my head is how Flaherty could stand the cold and the snow all those years.

Nanook of the North is a piece of history. its a true depiction of tribulations experienced in the arctic. documented for all to see. The thing that i like most about it is that he doesn’t tell you what to think or feel.

Thas’s a great insight regarding the film not telling you what to feel…

Although I liked this film (aside from the multiple animal deaths), I can understand why Grierson called him a romantic. This was definitely a lighthearted take on something that a lot of people could see as a tragedy. I appreciate the optimistic approach.

I can see how they would call him a romantic as well. I really enjoyed the black & White photography. My favorite scene is when the father is warming his sons hands with his face. I thought that was the most beautiful moment in the film.

very real interpretation, the look is about as honest as it gets and reveal the day to day life that goes on with the people of the north, it also caputres some beautiful nature shots that immerses the viewer in the experience that we are watching first hand, it becomes almost secondary to the learning experience.

im not sure if the music over the track was updated for the piece, because it sounds like it, and the information cards always came in when necessary and never became intrusive, only a couple shots were corny and you can tell what was re-shot for the camera.

overall this is a timeless piece, that has educational value.

I do agree with Grierson calling him a romantic, but I don’t see how that should be taken with a negative connotation. Flaherty documented what could have been a rather negative and depressing topic and gave some light to it. He focused on the positivity of the situation and that’s not a terrible thing. So much negativity comes from the telling of actual events (i.e. news, television etc.) that it’s good for audiences to get a break from that part of reality and focus on the positive side of it and that makes everyone happier about watching a documentary, when some positivity can be taken from it.

Although I am not a fan of documentary films, I really do enjoy watching this film. When I was young, I was so eager to know about Inuit. This documentary showed everything that I am curious about including the construction of Igloo. I am also really impressed with how passionate Flaherty was to make kind of challenging film in a freezing cold weather. Moreover, he made this film with tiny filmmaking knowledge. This really motivates me to be a better filmmaker.

I really enjoyed watching this documentary, it was very interesting to see the way these people lived their lives on a day to day basis. It captures a lot of emotion that can make the audience feel like they are with the eskimos living through their struggles. It is very impressive film making for the time period it was shot in. It was a very inspiration documentary and shot very beautifully.

For the first feature-length documentary ever made, it wasn’t too bad. The only thing that I didn’t particularly like was the length, and the fact that I thought it ended about three different times. The title cards I can understand, seeing as it was made before they had dialogue in films. I like that it was a good story too.

For the first time, I have enjoyed watching a feature length silent film. Even though Flaherty didn’t know anything about filmmaking. He went back and learn about cinematography and went to shot the film Nanook of The North. Interesting piece I dare say. It showed how the inuit people built an igloo with their bare hands and in a cold wintery days. Flaherty shots were to me, intimate. Like he wanted us to experience it with him as he lived with them and went out with nanook day to day.

In my opinion, Nanook Of the North is a wonderfull shocase of how a true documentary is supposed to be. Even though some scenes were staged, does not take away the true artistic freedom of the entire movie. Nanook Of the North is a true inspiration to all movie goes and movie makers alike. If it were not for Flaherty’s braveness and altered ego, we would not have a true masterpeice.

Nanook of the North was a great movie. The movie makes you feel like you traveled back in time, and discovered the inuit tribe. I believe it should be seen in anthropology classes. It shows a different view (other than reading about it) of how the tribe lived and went about their day.

Nanook of the North is indeed a documentary of its time, and one to watch. Although different when compared to today’s documentaries, Nanook of the North taught me a lot. Being a form of ethnographic documentary, the film taught me a lot about the eskimo culture. The documentary also confirmed through Flaherty’s making of the film, that documentary filmmaking is indeed subjective.

I thought that this movie was wonderfully made especially with all that happened with the fire, the environment, the igloo and everything else. I think that this film is a great way to show what a determined mind can accomplish. Even though there were things that were staged, I think that what Flaherty was trying to do was capture the Inuits traditional way of living.

I thought the film lived up to the expectations that publicity sets for it. I found it interested and even caught myself becoming enthralled in it at certain moments. Flaherty definitely set a high bar for documentaries (Even though much was staged). I enjoyed the greater portion of the film and found both the Inuit culture and Nanook (Allakariallak) fascinating in survival methods ranging from the igloo modeling to the uses of walrus and seal hide. My hat is off to the late Mr. Robert J. Flaherty.

I liked how the film was more than just a documentry, it showed the family value and friendship of all the eskimo people. It was cute and kept you entertained even though it had no dialouge!

For the time period it was released I’m for sure the Documentary was Brilliant. At times today i just simply get bored with drawn out scenes and repetitive classical music, but it was still facinating. My favorite takes would have to be the shots of the hungry wolves.You really have to put the flaws aside and appreciate the effort that was put into this feature length documentary. I surely know I could never go out in weather like that, not even for a couple of days. So much respect I have for Flaherty.

“Nanook of the North” became an important film in history because it paved the road to a new era of documentary filmmaking. Although the film was scrutinized for having been “staged”, I admire that it continued to portray actuality in that it shows a traditional way of life lived by the Inuits. Flaherty met his goal by documenting the culture and how they lived prior to contact with the Europeans. This documentary was inspiring to me, as a filmmaker, because I recognize the passion Flaherty had to take part in the struggles with his subjects in order to tell a story.

Given what we know now as film students, as I was watching this in class, I could easily pick apart what was staged, or what wasn’t necessarily reality. However, that still didn’t detract from me how monumental this film is! I thoroughly enjoyed it nonetheless and I appreciate what Flaherty accomplished with what equipment was available to him in that time. I still felt like I got a sense of what it was like for the Inuit people and I can appreciate the struggles they went through daily while living in such harsh environments.

I thought this was a great film. Its an amazing accomplishment considering the timeframe. And while it wasn’t high-tech and modern, it still has an exciting mood to it that just makes you keep watching. The part that really made it great is that he took a family, told us their names, and followed their struggles so it was much more personal than “watch the eskimo do this”

Months ago I watched the same Documentary and I believe it to be a big waste of time. I didn’t understand the impact that these stories could make on any one – whether it be informative, educational, etc. I believe that this piece definitely opened eyes to a new style of filmmaking, even if it was staged. It was still educational.

This movie takes a piece of time and captures it, only growing in value historically with each passing day. This is a very important piece.

I actually enjoyed watching this documentary. It is very interesting to watch eskimos and how they lived their day-to-day life. Although it has been said to be stage, I believe there was truth behind it. Thank you.

This Is a very interesting documentary, I’m not really one for these types documentaries, but i did find it quite compelling.

Very interesting to watch what many call the first documentary film. I only wish some of the scenes didn’t last as long as they did.

Nanook of the North was really interesting and groundbreaking. I thought I wouldn’t be entertained by it because it was so old, but it captured my attention very quickly. The way it was shot and the editing was probably only 10% of the reason I was entertained, but the rest of it was definitely the story. I never knew people lived that way.

Nanook of the North was so life changing because of its content. This piece is as close to the life on an inuit as many of us will get. The style may be a bit out dated and the equipment old but so what. Flaherty lived the life of the indigenous people of the north for a short time and because of him so can we.

this is a great documentary showing the life of the inuit in the north. even though the film is fairly old i found it quit interesting. i was as well blown away to find out prier to making this documentary Flaherty knew nothing about film and took a three-week course on cinematography to make this film. i feel this is great inspiration and really makes me look forward to the future.

Nanook of the North was an extremely informative and quite entertaining piece to watch. Just watching how the Nanooks functioned on a day to day basis was one of the magnificent sights I have witnessed. It definitely shows where Flaherty head was at while filming this documentary and how he capture them in their natural habitat. I was impressed throughout the entire film but I would have to say that hunting the walrus and building the igloo was to be the most fascinating part because I have never witness how either of them were handled. This documentary showcased the lives of other culture and made me feel appreciative for all that I have and not to take anything for granted.

Hello all, Jim Martin thank you for displaying this for my acknowledgement. I actually enjoyed the film I wasnt’ interested in silent things/film coming when I was younger but I am appreciating it more and what it’s worth, and the story it tells. This film kept my attention and I wanted to see their lives portrayed and how they lived. I think Nanook of the North is truly amazing and remarkable. Flaherty had really good techniques which were deviceful for this time and age. Nanook captures the emotion, has small romance, children, animals, adults in their living conditions, and very easy listening music (which helps tell the story). He captures the life of people with creative and cute close ups of children and very good angled shots from different perspectives which is much needed. Staged or not and without dialogue it was still very interesting to me. He captures their everyday lives, struggle for survival, and as for documentaries everyone has their own style and to me his making of it I don’t think was a flaw but a creative and unique piece of work/art.

I thought this documentary was very interesting to watch. I like how many different elements were incorporated into the film such as the story line, educational information and it opened up my eyes culturally.

I thought this film was nicely done. I’m not a huge fan of silent films but I am of documentaries and for it to be the pioneer of all, it’s a good example. The addition of the slow but almost comedic-like music made it entertaining. I love to learn about different cultures and to see how the Inuit people have evolved over time is fascinating.

My only critique is that it was a little hard to watch when the Eskimos were killing to survive. Other than that, Nanook Of The North really gave me a feel into the lives of the Eskimos in the Arctic at the time. Simple yet insightful, educational and interesting all at the same time.

This film gave a very good look into the life of the Inuits and their way of life. Given its age this film still stacks up to modern documentaries. It was a very entertaining watch to say the least.

I enjoyed watching this film. I’m glad I got to learn about a new culture and, more to that, the first film to ever be called a documentary. I liked how the music helped move the story along and how the narrative cards were told from a third party perspective.

This film is quite amazing for the time that it was released. It forever changed the way that filmmakers shot their documentary. It is quite amazing that they set out to live with the eskimo people and capture their way of life as well as show how amazing and tough these people are for surviving in the condition they survived in.

Even though controversies surrounds the film about staging and reenacting certain scenes, this film still gives a pretty in depth look into the lifestyle of an inuit tribe in the Canadian arctic in the early 1900’s. It also helped revolutionize the genre of documentary filmmaking that is still popular today.

This film is a shining example of not only where documentary film making has come, but also what true documentary film making is. The film shows the true lives and hardships of the Eskimos and gives viewers a glimpse into their lives as most people from that time and even today could never experience. This film will always remain a standard for what documentary film making is.

Although the film has received a lot of criticism regarding some staged situations, in my opinion, even if some actions were somehow staged, these were based on the real way that Nanook lived and therefore, these actions reflect the reality of the people that Flaherty wanted to document. I really liked the film and I value a lot the great job that Flaherty did by getting to a difficult environment to try to capture life as authentically as possible.

This documentary surprised me. I wasn’t enthusiastic about watching it at first, but I quickly changed my mind. I was engaged in the film after the first few minutes and remained interested until the final frames. I had no idea a culture like the Nanook still existed in the early 20th century. The fact that they lived day by day, building their shelter each night and hunting for their food whenever possible was really eye opening for me. The Nanook people were relentless and remained loving towards one another even through the difficult times. Robert Flaherty’s documentary really captured their way of life.
I also was really impressed on the filmmaking aspect. This was the first feature length documentary, but from the way Flaherty weaves this story together you would think he’d been making documentaries for years. He had an incredible understanding of pacing and of how music can bring out emotion in your audience. The music during the seal hunting mission made the scene tense and epic. The cinematography was incredibly dramatic for its time, the wide shots of the environment were lonely, desolate, and vast.
It is a great documentary, anyone studying film should definitely give it chance. It’s important to know the history of your craft.

This was my first time watching Nanook of The North and it was very inspiring. I say that because Flaherty only had a crank Bell and Howell camera and shot something no one has seen before and it was a success. He also had a lot of tricks up his sleeve to make the film that much better. For example the inside of the igloos at night were actually shot during the day with no roof on the igloos. That’s what it takes to be a film maker, doing things that wouldn’t be noticeable to the human eye while telling a story.

After having watched this documentary for I don’t know, the 30th time, I still found it very intriguing. I myself am an avid documentary lover. The fact that Flaherty had only his wits and himself when it came to filming this made it that much better. He truly captured the essence of what it is to live in the frozen tundra and have a responsibility over a group of people like Nanook had. The weather was vividly depicted in his shots and the scarcity of food was apparent in their conquests for seal, fish, and foxes. Flaherty’s way of filming was like no other. Yes, he had to recreate some situations in order to get the shots he got, but in an unforgiving place like the north, there was no way he would be able to just wait for the same situation to occur again in the time frame Flaherty had to film the doc. His ability to think outside the box and find a way to film within a dark igloo shows the determination and yearn for the great shots that made his documentary what it is. The cinematography in the documentary not only showed the situations the family faced every single long day but also showed the connections and relationships they had within the family and with the environment. He showed us how the family hunted and conquered the environment but also showed how much they respected and understood it as well. The flow of the story showed me how good Flaherty is at what he does. Having a wooden Bell and Howell he didn’t have the luxury many filmmakers have today which is sound and the fact that he still captured a strong and clear message puts him above many of the best documentarians today. Along with his primitive camera he was also able to process and project his footage on location which shows his tenacity and proficiency in his craft. A true renaissance man.

Going into this documentary, I had no idea what I was in for. I had only heard of it when I was young and I never had the opportunity to see it. After seeing Nanook Of The North however, I was fascinated. The opportunity to see what life was like for Nanook and his family was incredible and the fact that this one man followed this family around with a hand crank camera was absolutely amazing. There was obvious conflict as Nanook and his family searched for shelter, food, and safety. There was constantly a threat and it truly shows that life during these times was very dangerous. Everything about this film was truly inspiring as a documentary student. It opened my eyes to the possibilities of documentary filmmaking and gave me a greater appreciation for the art form.

I watched this whole film in class, and there wasn’t even one “Eskimo Kiss” I am very disappointed.

Regardless… I have never seen or had so much as an inkling about what Eskimo life was like; outside of the stereo-types. For him to shoot something like this on a hand crank camera is astounding… Even after losing all of his original footage in a fire, he still went back to shoot it again. Talk about overcoming obstacles.. Even for the times, I don’t think there is much out there that can show us what this life is like…. Thank you for showing it in class….

It is an amazing film.

I was thoroughly disappointed that there was ZERO eskimo kissing in this film.

That being said, I think that Nanook of the North couldn’t have taught us more about their life if it hadn’t been staged. It was fascinating. One question I have though… If they’re living out there in the remote regions of Alaska, How did Nanook meet his wife? Is there a conference that all Eskimos attend when they reach a certain age and they pick names from a hat?

There were groups, tribes I suppose. Nanook was part of a tribe of about 300 families that inhabited an area the size of England.

Also it wasn’t Alaska it was Hudson Bay area Canada, East Coast. The Inuit Tribes go from Nova Scotia, Canada all the way across the top of the world to Alaska.

Watching this documentary on the Inuit Eskimos and following the story of this film was great because of its historical nature and teaching of a culture of people living in the Arctic Circle. Also following Nanook and his family see what they do everyday was very informing for the seeing eyes.

I personally found this documentary to be very interesting, informative and well rounded. I personally don’t mind that some parts were “staged” because they really did happen for the most part and it would have been EXTREMELY difficult to capture them in the moment. The Walrus scene would have been impossible to know of ahead of time because it was so rare for them to get such large wildlife. The emotions were conveyed very well.

With the subject matter aside, one must applaud Flaherty for crafting a documentary that had so much heart, soul, and entertainment value despite Flaherty being almost ignorant of how any of that is accomplished on film during a time in which even the foundations of achieving such results were still being tested and tweaked by professionals. Nanook of the North kept me invested in a way that made the experiences palpable and I viewed the Inuit people in a light different than that of being ethnographic subjects. They were people and I got to see them overcome hardships and take joy in their achievements. It is a documentary that succeeds at creating a connection as well as being informative and suspenseful.

Good insights!

It is a great film and documentary. Learned some interesting things about the Eskimo life as well as the way the doc was shot. You can tell that the director had a certain vision he wanted for the doc and despite the weather conditions, he still pulled through and delivered a great and interesting doc. Overall, I learned a few things about the Eskimo life but more about how the doc was accomplished.

Nanook of the North was a delight to watch from start to finish. It’s a fascinating documentary film in the history. It’s a historically significant.

The cool thing about this documentary is that Flaherty went back to finish this film, which was simply supposed to document the film in the beginning but then became a passion project after the fire.

I thought the film was great but you could easily tell where the staged parts were in this movie.

I did enjoy the story of the film and gave a lot of insight into the struggles of Eskimo life.

I think the pacing was really great for a film as old as this one. I can understand why it went over so well with the public.

I meant to say in the first paragraph “Document the Lives of Eskimos in the beginning”

I had never before seen anything on eskimos and their culture, traditions, and way of living. This was fascinating to me, even though the eskimos already were hunting with rifles it doesnt matter, because it is an honorable feat to hunt to for your survival, and nannook was an excellent hunter. This documentary will forever stand the test of time and has become a part of historical documentation. I will spread this documentary with friends and family as it is just as entertaining as it is educational and eye opening.

I think this documentary was very interesting and Im glad I was able to see it. It was nice to see and learn about real “eskimos”. There were only two real negatives that I saw in this documentary. At times the light was rough. It was hard to see the eskimos and the scenery, but given the time that this was created there was nothing that could have been done about it. The other issue I had with the film was it was paced poorly. It started out strong but it slowly dragged on and on. But again for the time period it was created it was a really great documentary. I really learned a lot.

I thought this was a good documentary. I like how Flaherty was able to capture this footage and tell a story with it.

I really enjoyed this documentary. Even though many documentarians have had their reasons for disliking it, I appreciate any and everything that has paved the way for our industry today. I find it admirable that he went back to re-shoot the footage he lost because it reveals how important it was for him to tell this story. It was pretty admirable to also watch the Inuits and how they lived. It reminds me that no matter how much life knocks me down, it could be worse and there the Inuits were living the way they had. And although they might have complained at some point in life, it was all the life that they knew and clearly they made the best of it and as a result, they seemed happy.

It was very interesting to see how this community survived those incredibly hard conditions, and even though some of it was staged or somehow directed it is an incredible work. Also Flaherty was very brave going on several trips to film with that weather, its shows he was very passionate about his work.

The music played HUGE part in this film. Not only because it was silent, but it added much more emotion to the scenes than it would have just watching it with no audio. I’m sure that there was music composed for this specifically. String instruments while Nanook was walking on the ice, and the loud booming brass during hunting scenes made the experience much more enjoyable.

It was interesting to watch this film. I had conflicting feelings as I saw images that I instinctively viewed as staged. Some of the story telling was also questionable in regards as the way the film maker portrayed the subjects. with terms like “starving”. I also saw looped cuts of footage to emphasize a point and there were some cutaways use that were not necessarily relevant to or directly linked to the actual happening. Continuity also gave away some of the staging. Does that make it less of a documentary, that is debatable. What it did do is capture the life style of a people and bring awareness to the public of a culture and society. What I will say is that I enjoyed the film and understand and respect that mark that it made in film history.

I really enjoyed this documentary but I also see why Mr. Grierson called Mr. Flaherty a romantic. I also find it interesting that this film is not considered a biography of Nanook.

What intrigues me the most about the film has to be Flaherty’s abstractive ambition, the fact that he did not care about the ‘white business man’ that everyone was drawn to for such type of film. I also like that it depicts a lifestyle that is so abstract to that of an average everyday person we are all so accustomed to. Of course, you can’t watch this film without appreciating the difficulties that had to have been faced in production. If you want to talk about a skeleton crew, this is the film to talk about. It is so incredible that even after 92 years this production still withholds the power that it does to various audiences

I found this documentary to be very interesting seeing how old it was. Yes, although scenes were rigged to make the audience better understand and believe the reality Flaherty was trying to portray, it still stands to be a great historical and informative piece.

This documentary was very well delivered and showed a very realistic way of living in that time for their culture. I enjoyed the film, not only for these reasons, but also for the cinematography and Flaherty’s methods to getting the shot that he wanted.

In addition, I do feel that it is a documentary despite the fact that some of the sequences of the film may have been staged or re-staged, primarily because of how realistic these situations were. In the end, great film, especially for its time!

Nanook of the North was such an interesting film to watch. Though it was a silent film, the music definitely helped add emotion to the scenes. Great movie!

i think this documentary was very interesting. See how people survive in those extreme conditions, how they struggle to find food, and still for a no advanced civilization they develop all the techniques to hunt, build their houses and craft the cloths and tools. Also, the hard work required to do that documentary from the crew’s point of view.

I really enjoyed this film and I do believe it falls into an Ethnographic documentary area. Although, there were European settlers in that area, Flaherty decided to film an ethnic Eskimo society instead documenting their daily routines, customs, and traditions. One scene that I remember is when Nanook made an ice polar bear cub and teaching the young kid how to use the bow and arrow. Even though they currently hunted with rifles. That does not negate the fact that traditionally they used arrows and spears. I believe Flaherty captured their way of life perfectly for that time period.

Early on in the film, we see Nanook paddling his kayak to the shore and getting out. This scene was comic because the whole family were in the kayak. After Nanook got out of the kayak, another four members of his family and a dog emerged from inside the kayak. It was an interesting documentary, and it falls into historical, ethnographic and anthropological area.

I found this documentary to be very interesting, although some parts of it were staged, I feel it gave real insight into the lives of Eskimos of that time.

Carlos (Charlie) Paez
Comments:
Nanook of the north was in deed a thrilling journey of inuit hunters that surprised many in its time and i believe now in present day it holds to it’s past flame of to the traveling inuits that went through the tundra and this film that was reshoot more than once because it was destroy, it shows the bravado of a film as well as the film maker.

Nanook of the North is still a masterpiece to this day considering the time this documentary was made and what kind and quantity of equipments and resources Flaherty had to work with. This documentary covers the lives of the Eskimo’s in as much detail as Flaherty could reveal even though most people argue that most events were staged. Considering then, there were no standards as to what a documentary should portray, Flaherty tried as best to stick to the reality of what these brave clan of people faced on a day to day basis and I think that is what documentaries are all about. Being able to discover the truth and reality of certain situations despite the hardships and difficulties faced. This documentary is a classic today after 88 years because every time it is played for the first time to people of different age groups, its a marvel considering and comparing what was available then and now and people can relate to this cause it is a documented truth and I believe this was one of the first films to be selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress for being culturally, historically and aesthetically significant.

I completely agree that this documentary still holds up today. The subject matter was great yet simple. The story was on and off and a little loose and the ending dropped me off just a little but over I enjoyed the piece.

Most of this film was obviously pre-planned, but I feel the director did this with good intention and to show tradition. There were interesting things that I learned about Inuit Eskimo life. For me, the accompanying music is very a bit distracting a times. Overall, I thought, for the time period, this film was very well done.

I was surprised at how well Nanook of the North has stood up to the test of time. It is a testament to film and its power to capture and portray the human experience to others for over a century now. I do find it regrettable that Flaherty chose to stage some scenes as he did, despite the fact that there were no ethical standards for documentaries at the time, this being the first. Despite Flaherty’s will to portray Inuit society as it once was before European influence, it had to sacrifice some of the truth captured by the film in order to do so. Nonetheless, it was an intriguing film.

I liked Nanook of The North! It was well an amazing triumph for its day. I believe that it was definitely the beginning to man’s search for finding and learning about what’s outside of our comfort zone. Definitely a great historical documentary.

I feel that even though this is the first documentary, there are a lot of pacing problems. Numerous shots just linger in either under or over exposed lighting conditions. The documentary, however, did keep me entertained with its musical score and its insensitive usage of outdated terms towards the ‘natives’ and the ‘white man’. Also, I have to admit that the portrayal of the family and their bond was well done.

You make some valid points. One thing to consider is that this documentary was released in 1922, the culture of the US and Europe was much different then it is today. Also editing and pacing have changed since that time. Audiences today are visually literate and can read the screen much faster than they could in 1922.

I can not see my self the way they use to survive in such of environment. They leave, sleep, socialize, communicate, dress different. Nanook people its a good example of survival and how they do it when it has to come of helping of each other with their own diversity. The music of the documentary gave it tone to the film, and the dialogue from Creator give us teaching of how they did it in that time.

Very interesting and informative, kind of drawn out but clearly a standard of documentary filmmaking still in use today.

Really enjoyed this piece. I think it thoroughly showed what day to day life is for the Eskimos. Despite losing most of it during a fire and only salvaging a rough cut I think it still worked together into an understanding story. A thought that was concerning me was how the camera man was fairing out there in the cold and what were his arrangements out there in terms of food and shelter?

This is a very primitive/basic documentary. Still, as an film student, I learned a lot with the basics and the very pure shots. Even Though some scenes were staged we can still see the very heart of the approaching. We can see a very pure and still kicking as a documentary. We have a lot to learn from the basics with this documentary. We live in very modern and developed society. We couldn’t stand living in such a way if we were not used to it for a long time.

The props that flaherty didn’t have; The equipment and crew people he didn’t have; The language barrier he had to face and the terrible and freezing weather he had to survive to put it together. He was a hero. He captured the very heart of their culture, daily life and behaviors. The difficulties and limitations the Nanooks lived with was a lesson to all of us the live in a very spoiled society. The anthropological influence that Nanook have in our society it’s really relevant.

Taking a deeper look at this documentary we can tell that from something that made exactly a 100 years ago we have to realize that the Nanook’s behavior and way of living it’s pretty much parallel to the way we live today, the only difference is that we have access to different clothes, hot water and more efficient and better transportation, but we all have to hunt some way, some how to make sure we can provide to our families and ourselves. We all have to create a way of living that can make it a little more comfortable. We have to heat the water, we have to work and go hunt to meet the needs daily and monthly, we all have to take some type of transportation to move around.

My only question is: On which cost we do those things? Who pay the bill for us to have access to hot water and nice transportations nice food and fancy clothes…?? Sometimes, less means more. The Nanooks had a very basic/simple life, but they used to have a family that could eat together, that could play together, that could talk and things out with no distraction to disturb their precious time.

I believe that a good part of the documentary, Nanook of the North, was well planned out, and in my opinion it still stands up to the test of time even today. Nanook has proven to me that under any condition no matter how extreme, rain or shine it is possible to achieve any footage one desires. Nanook was brilliant in his day considering the date and time in which the documentary was filmed. With the technology that was available to him during his era, simply amazes me.

This documentary is a great example that you dont need a massive budget or film crew to accomplish a film, but more of a drive or passion to want to do it, nanook is awesome, he was a great demonstration of the inuits life and their traditions

I’d have to say I really liked this film, I wish the rest of it wouldn’t have gotten burned, it would have probably been not longer, but take more time and we’d see some more. I enjoyed the staged parts though, even though it wasn’t legitimate, it made a story.

I was originally dreading watching this film tonight, however it surprised me. My favorite part of film is the story and Flaherty did an amazing job portraying a family’s life. The way the music pushed the story along was inspiring, the hunting scenes where the music matched his motions actually made me laugh. It brings out the emotions of the audience which is exactly what a film is suppose to do.

Nanook of the North is revolutionary for its time. I think it definitely deserves being selected as one of the best documentaries of all time. It was, however difficult to watch at time. But for some one who took a three week cinematography course, and had to work with the gear and conditions he had, I believe Flaherty did great. It goes to show what we can do with a little effort as film makers!

I had mix feelings about this movie. I must say this was an excellent documentary. It shows the life’s of the Eskimos and the hardships that they have gone through. Also this movie shows that you don’t need a bug budget to show a documentary. I learned some things on how the Inuit Eskimos lived and what they do to achieve what they want. Great Film!

As the first feature length documentary, it’s a well-done and innovative excursion in filmmaking, but I feel like it would have definitely been a better production had it been filmed by a more professional crew; many of the shots were stringed together uninterestingly or have dull composition, and additionally, the amount of camera movements they can incorporate due to the old, cumbersome camera that was necessary to utilize during the production did little to help mitigate the mostly static and uninteresting camera work.

I feel as if it may have been nice to have a perspective in the documentary that did not make the Inuit tribe to appear so pristine and relatively untouched by external societies, save for trading. After all, they did actually use rifles by this point, so it feels more like a fictional account to use more primitive methods to hunt rather than the more modernized weapons they possessed. By removing some of the reality from the whole picture, however, I sort of lost interest. It is not necessarily something that hurts it as a film, for what it is, yet I believe it would be a more dynamic picture if it had some element of advocacy incorporated, or it may also have been a nice addition to have a greater abundance of quieter moments to balance out the hunting sequences. It, of course, did have such moments, yet they felt few and far between, usually just scenes of people meandering about on the ground.

It’s a nice influential effort that is relatively well made for its small budget, yet it is still extremely dated and I find myself disinterested in the lifestyle of those who are presented. The silent film often is not nearly as visual of a medium as it should have been, and with what was portrayed on screen, I feel like it may have been a stronger choice to just let the sequence of shots tell the story without the title cards. They added some info I was unaware of, but the essential elements of the story are clearly maintained, still.

Very well done film. I enjoyed how there was a story involved and no words were spoken by the main character. The music alone carried me on this journey. That just goes to show you how important a film score is for a film! For the director to have no film experience this simply gave me hope for my films in the future. It reminded me of my friend and I going out and filming in the frozen tundra of Minnesota with a cheap $50 camera. Very well done film and very inspirational to me.

I like the documentary no words just picture and sound it reminded me of a old cartoon show. It was cool to watch because to watch how Nanook work in all that ice and snow is hard work, I now know how to make and igloo. Watching him hunt for food was pretty cool to. It was also kinda funny I like it. I learned a lot about Eskimo people

I thought the documentary was good considering the circumstances. Personally, I got kind of bored because of the absence of sound. I thought learning about Nanook was interesting. Seeing how they hunt and how they were so hungry they just killed the fish by biting them and eating them on the spot was disgusting yet enlightening at the same time.

For this documentary to be shot in 1922. I was surprised on how much I enjoyed it. I can only imagine what it took to get the shots he was getting with limited sources of heat and shelter. Watching a documentary on how a group of people lives off the land in the most undesirable of places was very impressive. Very well done.

PS. I always wondered how they made igloos…

I really enjoyed the Nanook of The North. I was surprised that the documentary actually came out really good with limited resources and in such bone-chilling weather. A lot of people might argue that this documentary has lost the soul of being a real documentary as Flaherty actually staged the events such as the walrus hunt scene. For me, I think that is a really brilliant move to add in some historical element to complement the actuality in the documentary as a film is about ‘make believe’ and nevertheless it is really entertaining. Very good execution!

I really enjoyed the Nanook of The North. I was really surprised that the documentary came out really good with limited resources and in such bone chilling weather. A lot of people might argue that this documentary has lost the soul of a real documentary as some of the events were staged to showed on screen. However, it doesn’t bother me much. On the other hand, I think that ‘s quite a brilliant move to add in some historical element to complement the actuality in the documentary. Film is about ‘make believe’ and i think the Nanook of The North did a very good job on that and it’s really entertaining as well. Very good execution!

Documentary class was the first time I had seen this film, and I have to say I thought it was amazing. The idea that a hundred years ago, someone packed up that much camera equipment and hauled it all the way up there is mind blowing enough.
I enjoyed the film because it gave a whole different look at history. You can read all you want about the past, but it is another thing entirely to see it. I was shocked when Nanook and his family ate meat raw. Or how many people they packed into a canoe. There are just so many things you can’t visualize without film.

Nanook of the North gave a unique insight into the way of life of the Inuit people. For its time, this film was highly creative as well as informative. I do not believe Flaherty should be criticized for “staging” certain scenes because he was only trying to show the actuality of life there. Not only did this film pioneer a way of filmmaking, but the way a production can be held. Flaherty utilized the Inuit people and made them a part of this project. I believe this shows Flaherty’s true intentions. He didn’t only want to show the life of the Inuit people; he wanted the Inuit people to understand why people needed to know about their culture and lifestyle, which I think is truly amazing. This film was way ahead of its time and I loved it.

Great film. I didn’t think I would enjoy it but I was very surprised at how interesting and entertaining it was, especially considering the fact that there was no dialogue. I thought the soundtrack was very well done, it complimented the story wonderfully.

It is my opinion that although there was some manipulation in the documentary Nanook of the North, the director Robert J. Flaherty gave us a great look at a culture that had a very interesting and noble way of life. He accomplished what he set out to do document the way of life of this wonder fall people. This is a very good documentary and I am very glad a got to see it.

I believe that Flaherty knew that this was going to be a huge event. To show the way of life of the Inuit people, Flaherty knew that to show this to a worldwide audience would create a new genre.

Despite the controversy that Flaherty staged the scenes in order to get more camera angles. I believe Nanook of The North spearheaded the world of documentary. The challenges that Flaherty faced in filming the film were insurmountable in spite of this he was able to come up with something that will be considered, as one of the best documentaries made of all time, especially for its time.

I personally love silent films. I believe that they bring out the real soul and life in the story. There’s something about the lack of colors and audible dialogue that I find beautiful. I personally really liked the documentary and will personally recommend it to any of my fellow documentary lovers.

First of all, I really enjoyed watching “Nanook of the North”. As a documentary, It covered everything we wanted to see about Nanook’s life, like, how he and his family lived, how did they hunt, how did they travel from places to places, etc.
This documentary didn’t have any dialogues, so everything had to convey, especially emotions, through music. Because of this, I guess, director must have asked Nanook and his family to stage some actions to have more impact.

I thought this documentary was really interesting, I love learning about people, and this was an awareness to me knowing about that Nanook’s lives. How they survived was really interesting to know.

The Film is as entertaining as it was probably shocking when it was published. It looks like Flaherty was extremely determined . My only critic about the story is that he didn’t show what happened to the white little fox! We saw so much footage and emotions , from crowing to catch it to the playfulness of Nanook’s son . We all fall in-love and …nothing! This was the only bridge from wildness to Nanook and Flaherty didn’t show us . We saw in detail what happened to all other catches…
Overall I would watched it again, and again.

With what was available technology wise in the 1920s, I think the film did its best to show how about the Nanooks. I also had to forgive some techical aspects because of the limited technology, but other than that, it was a good documentary and interesting to those who want to watch documentary filmmaking’s early days.

This is an amazing film. I love it every time that i see it. For the 1920s it is beautiful. It was also vary risky to do something like this at the time. It make me happy every time that i see this film because if it had not been the success that it was we may not have some of the grate documentaries that we have today.

I thought that Nanook of the North was a really interesting documentary. Learning more about the inuits people culture and how they lived was really interesting. I also think that Flaherty made a great documentary for its time, considering that it’s almost 100 years old and the technology wasn’t very advanced as its today.

It’s a very entertaining documentary, without words Flaherty told his story with shots of Nanook smiling after a big catch, to shots of a freezing hungry pack of dogs. It’s amazing to me how he pulled if off with so many limitations, it really shows that when you don’t limit yourself or your ideas, anything is possible.

Even though Flaherty was spite of the limited amount of technology available at that time he did an amazing job. The film stands today as an important historical document. Absolutely one of the best documentaries I have ever seen.

I really like this documentary not just because of the effort Flaherty put into it, but also because of how he did it. I think this documentary takes you away because is actually going with the flow of what is happening in the present with the family as they travel and search for food. I think it was really well done in terms of filming in such a rough environment and the ideas Flaherty came with building an igloo without a roof so the film could see. Overall think is a good interesting documentary it was very well done to be by that time.

Wow! I really enjoyed this documentary. I can only imagine the difficulties that Flaherty faced while filming this in those kinds of conditions. It felt like I was watching an old home movie of my tribe. This really is an amazing work of art.

Nanook of the North is an interesting look back in time, both at documentary film making and at Inuit life. Thought this documentary is best thought of as a look back at how documentaries began rather than a standard to be set for future documentary makers. Nanook of the North really draws you into the Inuit lifestyle and connects you with the family.
It’s an intriguing idea and I’m not sure that it’s something that could be remade today.

I thought the documentary was pretty well made, especially for its time period. It was a little boring and slow but for its time it was incredible.

I really enjoyed Nanook of the North. I felt that it was such an honest and raw portrayal of a group of people that I wouldn’t have a chance to observe if not for this documentary. It was especially nice to travel so far back in time to see how things were done. It really made me think about how much we really need in life versus how much we want. They did so much with so little.

When I first saw this film, I wasn’t too impressed. I was impressed with the fact that Flaherty took as long as he did to actually capture the life of his main character though. However, upon reading more into Nanook of the North, I became less convinced it was a documentary and more convinced it was one of the first docu-dramas.

I thought the Nanook of the North was an amazing documentary. I thought it showed an honest portayal of the people that once lived there. There are a lot of mix opinions of this piece but I thought it was great

For a documentary piece from it’s day this was an amazing piece. It clearly showed the way these people lived and the pacing was really well done. The music matched along with the cards and the film and it was simply beautiful. Though it may not be the most interesting piece to watch in our day and age, it it still a timeless documentary classic for what they did with it.

.

Nanook of the North was a very good documentary and wether or not it was all real, it got what he wanted to get across to the audience. That was his goal the entire time. It does demote the success realizing that he faked it but I believe that it is forgivable.

It is amazing to me that this is one of the first documentaries ever made. It has so many similarities to present day feature documentaries. I found myself entertained throughout most of the film, which is surprising to me. I am easily bored with old black and white film, but knowing that the film is all real footage and actual events kept me glued to the screen. Truth can’t be outdated, but fictional narratives can be.

The film was not my favorite but it was very good in the sense of showing the people living the way they did. In rough conditions. It was shot in the 1900’s so I can understand why it was not something that I like. It was very informative though and had a lot of good important shots to portray the people.

“Nanook of the North” is a fantastic documentary, especially for its time. I bet Flaherty had many difficulties while filming it but I also bet it was a fun and awarding experience.

“Nanook of the North” was definitely an exceptional documentary of its time even though it was the first. I don’t blame Flaherty for also making the subjects re-act certain scenes so he can get different shots. I believe I would have done the same thing in that situation. I believe he was also ahead of his time in the film industry going out of his comfort zone to harsh climates to tell someone else’s story.

I love these kind of historic films, the whole story is being told by the visuals and the music. And even though there is no dialogue you really grab a good grasp of the film. The most incredible thing is that it was made in the 1900’s and is still being shown and talked about to this day.

I really love this film. It blows my mind that it’s almost 100 years old and it is still a filmic masterpiece of a documentary. Probably one of the best documentaries i’ve ever seen in my life. It had a really great pace and framing the entire time.

Nanook of the North is a gem captured in time. The fact that it still stands today shows the magnificent impact it made.

The film as a whole is outstanding, however there is one aspect that stands out to me. The beginning sequence, Nanook arriving in his kayak, caught me off guard. Watching Nanook and his entire family crawl out of the small vessel, to me, captures their perspective on life in an entirely unique way. Not only do they have different views on “safety”, their thought process seems to be in an entirely different direction.

Finding this extremely comical, reminding me of Chaplin’s comedy, I immediately knew that this film was going to be an interesting one. I was able to see right from the beginning that this family’s concerns goes beyond “potential risks” (what if the kayak capsized?). Instead they focus on the big picture, “We need food and shelter.” I wonder if Flaherty intended the beginning shot to portray that concept, or was it a mere coincidence?

From my point of view, Nanook of the North is one of the best old documentaries I’ve seen. As it was said in the review, this film stablished a new genre of documentary filmmaking. I personally loved it. It captures the essence of the Inuit people, and it explores their culture, traditions, and activities not only in a social matter, but in a historial context as well.

Although Flaherty was critiqued for “staging” some actions, considering the conditions he had to work under, the fact that he didn’t a professional crew, and he didn’t have professional actors, I honestly don’t see a problem with “staging” actions. I think it made the documentary a little more realistic and gave a great insight on these people’s lives.

Also, this documentary covers a the basic concepts of storytelling, it has a beginning, middle, and end; and it explores diverse human emotions. I found certain scenes really comical, and some others made me feel a little tense.

This was an interesting documentary to watch. I liked it. It educated me on how the family saw everything they did normal as for the survival part. Also I got impressed on how fast and easy they build the Igloo.

I have to admit I was judging this doc at first which is something I usually don’t’ do because I thought having to read everything would make it daunting. It turned out to be very interesting! I learned a lot and was amazed and sometimes grossed out by the way these people live focusing on this specific family, it was awesome!!

Nanook is a great film in my opinion. Regardless of how much of the whole film was just reenactments, the fact that Flaherty went out into the wilderness with just his camera and film is incredibly respectable to me. That is what documentary filmmaking means to me, just getting out there and capturing the moment.

I thought this movie was amazing. It like a looking glass into the past. If you grasp your head around it, it’s an amazing concept. This documentary happened over a 100 years ago! It’s mesmerizing to watch, it’s a bit of a surreal experience.

Although I would have liked to have seen what was originally shot before it caught on fire, I thought the second take of the film was rather good and focused well on a specific family in a tribe. It showed good insight on how they hunted and survived in the freezing terrain.

One of the best documentaries I’ve seen. Even tho it didn’t have any dialog it was very informative…You really felt like you were there, in the arctic with the people. The documentary is very thorough in showing the day to day life of the people.

Overall a very good documentary

-Brian Wool

Despite the controversy over this film being staged, it was still very interesting to watch, especially if you love history. And I understand having to stage certain parts so that it looks good and translates well on the screen, and for me, that didn’t at all take away from me learning more about the family’s way of life. Flaherty went to great lengths to tell this story, and I believe he succeeded.

Given the date that this was filmed, I was shocked to see how amazing it turned out. It was a great story and shot very well and creatively! I’m not much of a fan of silent films but this one pulled it off well and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Although, I don’t think this should be classified as a documentary because the whole film was staged.

I found this documentary really interesting, at times i lost myself but the picture always pulled me back. It’s hard for me to watch a silent film, but the act of nanook helping his family through struggles in the arctic drew my eyes back to the screen. Im a big fan of the cold arctic and i love the anthropology found in this documentary. I was surprised by this being the first doc ever made, I actually enjoyed it!

Really enjoyed this film. i agree with how Flaherty decided to go with the film, and he was really dedicated to finish it. It’s sentimental and really shows the spirit of the Inuits, even though they were being taken advantage of. Good film.

In my opinion Nanook is a great film. I think it was very informative and entertaining. I really love the story and how they make you feel you are actually part of it. I’m not a huge fan of silent movies but I really like this one. I definitely capture the essence of a whole culture.

I had a love/hate feel for Nanook of The North. The documentary was very interesting not only because it was one of the first documentaries done, but also because it was done on film. It showed some beautifully captured moments in history but it saddened me because it was all staged. As I was reading up on the film I had found out that it was fake. The people in the film were hired actors and everything was planned out… It was a bit of a disappointment to me when I had found that information out.

There is an unsubstantiated and erroneous story that this was actors etc. But the people in the film were not “actors” they were actual Inuit people asked to be in the film. The were real people doing what they do, not actors from somewhere pretending. While some things were staged to some extent, they subject were doing the real thing. There a large number of accounts about how this film was made. I believe the most reliable one is in a book called “The History of Nonfiction Film by Erik Barnouw.

Nanook’s life and struggles were no different or less difficult whether or not some of the footage was staged or fabricated like some seem to imply . He had to go incredible lengths and endure extreme hardship to keep his family alive year after year . This was an excellent documentary made in a time where a large amount of the world had no idea that Eskimos even existed.

Even though there was a bunch of controversy about this documentary, I myself enjoyed it very much. It still showed how Eskimos lived and survived back in the early 1900’s. I always wondered how they do survive the bitter frozen cold in The North every day and even in the harsh winters. Barely ever finding food, no beds besides snow, no actual houses. just everything they needed to survive was surrounded around them and they learned how to use the very resources they saw everyday. For instance I never would of thought that by licking the knife while cutting out snows blocks helps from keeping clumps on the knife. Another example is now if I ever get stuck in the or lost in the frozen North I’ll be able to survive for as long as I can.

I think this was a very interesting documentary and educational. I was impress on how this people survive and they happiness. What most impress me is the is was a non-dialogue and still keep my attention and suspense. I really enjoy it and recommend it.

Robert J. Flaherty, did an amazing job bringing the arctic to the world. He romantically documented a way of life that would be other wise be lost to time. Although Nanook died shortly after filming, He has been immortalized in the eyes of the world.

The fact that it is such an old documentary, I accept the fact that its a silent documentary. But I honestly didn’t like that we had to read all the dialogue. I don’t like the fact that it was mostly staged, thats not the point of a documentary. It was a very good documentary on the other hand and its very interesting learning something I never even thought about researching.

I feel as if this was a great documentary because it showed the ways of life, but was very intuitive because of how he developed the film and adapted to the igloo and all his surroundings. I liked it a lot and would suggest to others.

Despite the fact that a number of things in the film were staged, whether they were done out of necessity (the roofless igloo, for example) or for show, Nanook of The North still manages to be interesting and endearing over 90 years later.

It’s really incredible to see what a group of people can accomplish, and even more so to see what one person alone can pull off. While the documentary /does/ give a more “romantic” look at a way of life that was changing as it was being filmed, it still serves as a very interesting look into the life of the Inuit people.

I was actually quite surprised on how much Nanook of the North was able to accomplished. Sure there’s some things that bothered me, and then there was some amazing things the film happened to accomplished, especially for back then. It really makes me want to see more of Flaherty’s work.

I thought this film did well in trying to capture true moments with Nanook and his family even though some things were staged. Also, for having filmed for such a long time it was very well put together. In my personal opinion, however, I wasn’t too fond of it. I don’t personally like black and white silent films. Not to say that there aren’t some good ones out there, I just wasn’t able to enjoy this film as much as I might have if they had the technology to use sound or color.

I enjoy watching documentaries of all kinds. I’m not a big fan of silent anything but I did enjoy watching this film. To see a culture in that extreme environment and how they lived their day-to-day life is so fascinating and humbling. I was really impressed by the way Flaherty constructed this film without really knowing how to and with the lack of experience. Awesome film and I would watch it again.

The illusion that Nanook of the North is a 100% real life action, and that everything is a special moment spontaneously caught on film was believable throughout the documentary. Sure, I realize a lot of it had to be staged to capture it on film, but I thought the real moments and staged moments flowed well together, practically seamlessly. Yes, like everyone has already pointed out, the film has a lot of hiccups that would not fly in today’s standards of filmmaking. But I think they held up well for the time and the conditions in which they were filmed in. Imagine where documentary filmmaking would be if Flaherty hadn’t taken the creative initiative to travel and capture the lives of this community of Eskimos on film for all to see, enjoy, and learn from. As both historians and documentarians. Great documentary overall, very entertaining and informative!

This to me was a great documentary. Before reading this article, i never really saw historical documentary as a means of preserving the traditions of a culture but after reading this, i saw that advantage. Though it is said that parts of the documentary was staged, in my opinion, that takes nothing away from the value of the work as a whole because even the staged part was a real part of the like being lived. The content of the documentary was successful at linking me into the life of the Inuit.

I think this was a very interesting documentary to me. It showed me a whole different world on planet earth that I didn’t know much about. This documentary definitely opened my mind up to different cultures of people. I just wonder how it was filming in the cold weather and some of the difficulties they had. Overall this was a wonderful documentary to me.

I really enjoyed this piece! As a documentary it showed a lot of real shots that I never thought could be attained. Despite some shots being staged, it didn’t take away from the feel of the story. It was very interesting and really cool. I like the score used and the overall vibe of the shots.

I think it is really interesting that this film is 100 years old and we are still watching it today. I really enjoyed this film. One of my favorite elements of this film was the score. The music was spot on and matched the action perfectly. Though some of the actions were staged, I still feel that this film is excellent and will stay a wonderful piece of history for a long time.

I love seeing films that were made a long time ago. Especially Nanook of the North since it was made a hundred years ago. The world was so different back then and it was interesting. Despite the not so perfect quality of the footage I still liked and enjoyed watching the documentary.
I hope to be able to make a film one day that could survive the passage of time, just like Nanook of the North.

I greatly enjoyed watching “Nanook of the North.” At times, I found myself so thoroughly captivated by the film, that I completely forgot that these events took placed 100 years ago. It perfectly captured the life and spirit of Nanook and his family. What a wonder documentary. I would recommend it to everyone!

I think this was a really awesome film, and enjoyed watching it. It was really a look into how the Nanook live off the land and everything they have to do. I think it was very well done with what he had to work with. I think its amazing how much of a impression the film has made from a historical aspect and i hope to maybe work on a documentary like this in the future.

Nanook of the North is one of the most inspiring films I’ve ever seen. I say this, keeping in mind the era it was made, the equipment they had at the time and of course the priceless footage Flaherty captured. In a historical and anthropological reflection, the film explores the culture and tradition of the Inuits that has since been revolutionized to better exist with our contemporary world. Never again can we witness the Inuits in their native lifestyle and in that respect this film is both timeless and priceless. Although Flaherty gets some negative publicity with this “documentary”, in regards to how much was actuality, the fact is that Nanook of the North was an actual person of an ethnic group of a time that is no more. So, say what you will about the film, but in my opinion if it wasn’t made in this way, documentary film making would have never evolved to what it is today.

Totally agree with your comment. This documentary has stood the test of time, almost one hundred years, and it still tells a story audiences can relate to.

I think Nanook of the North is a film that works as an inspiration for anyone who wants to make documentaries. First of all, the film falls into an anthropological area. This area requires a lot of dedication, since it’s needed an experimental immersion of the location of research (And I’m sure it was freaking cold over there). It’s true that Flaherty cheated a lot, and I understand the reason why Grierson called him a “romantic”; however, the film shows the Inuit people’s lifestyle in an entertaining way, and I think that’s what really matters. The music was awesome, and the Inuit people’ “performance” was something I had never seen in my whole life. Finally, I think it’s admiring that he reshooted the whole thing after he accidentally lost everything, and also the fact that he developed his film on location by using melted ice. Maybe the film doesn’t have a lot of actuality; however, it shows to the audience several traditions and customs of the eskimos; which I think is whole point of Visual Anthropology.

As you mention any “performance” by the local Inuits seen in the documentary are not important as they are real people, doing what they do, not actors. At the time this film was made there were no rules. There was no Visual Anthropology. You could say Flaherty invented it without trying. He just set out to preserve a way of life that was fading away.

I really enjoyed “Nanook of the North” for many reasons, but I believe my favorite was that the documentary is so intimate that made me feel like I was a part of it. At the end of the film you feel like you know the characters so well that it is actually weird to realize that this film was shot almost a 100 years ago. I remember feeling my heart beat faster when they were struggling to hunt the walrus, and my heart melt every time they showed the little puppies and kids.
This documentary gives you more than a story. It shows how that group of people behaved and lived. Even though I was aware of the “staging” I didn’t care because it was still very real to me.
For me, ” Nanook of the North” was an amazing, heart warming experience.
I imagine all the struggles that Mr. Flaherty had to film this documentary – which would still be pretty hard to film even with today’s technology – and it makes me appreciate this documentary even more.

I personally loved this documentary not only because of the story but of the historical aspect of it; it teaches us of how these people survived many generations in the freezing cold and managed to take care of an entire family. A great documentary

I really liked this documentary because it shows that you don’t need much to make a great one. It did an excellent job of showing how these people live and even though it was made so long ago, it was still very entertaining.

I think this documentary was really great, but many people criticize it as an “exploitation film” but I honestly I don’t so, this documentary captures the real and actual life of the Inuit people. It is true some stuff in the film was staged, but most of it was real and every interesting piece of art to watch.

The documentary “Nanook of the North” was an interesting look into the life of the eskimos. I believe this documentary was the perfect way to begin a long running line of films considered the documentary. Showing mostly staged events of how the inuits lived, it still gave a great insight on the lifestyle.

I thought the film was great! Such a classic documentary that not many see in their life time. Its amazing how Flaherety managed with the equipment he had melting ice to develop film, and filming with the cameras he had with him. Its just amazing

Watching these documentary showed me how with so little equipment you can make a beautiful story , even though being a documentary with no audio and black and white you can see a full story and even though you can see they have difficult like starvation you forget that they are passing difficulties because you are so fascinated on the images and how is different of our way of life and how they have a different values.
I was enchanted by the documentary.

Jessica Santos

After watching the film I felt compelled to look up more information in regards to it. While it is surrounded in controversy concerning the manipulation of scenes, which is regarded as taboo in modern documentaries it was a wonderfully executed account of a group and their way of live. This will resonate in history and help us to maintain an insight into different groups that walked the Earth. As civilizations die it is our responsibility to maintain records and tell their stories for generations to come. I loved the light hearted tone as it kept me interested while also educating me on their struggles. I look forward to finding more documentaries that will both entertain and educate me, this was a fantastic start.

I enjoyed this documentary more than I thought I would because it wasn’t what I expected it to be at all. It kept my interest the entire time, I’d never seen anything like Nanook of the North before and I found it to be a really interesting piece, not only because it was the first documentary, but because of who the documentary was about. It was very informative for being silent, but the visuals were easy to understand and it was entertaining to watch.

I thought the film was really well done despite the debate as to what was staged and what wasn’t. It gave a great idea as to the history and the lifestyle of the Inuit people. The struggles that Flaherty must have gone through in the environment and with the equipment that he had at the time. You really have to give him credit for that. Even after seeing this film before, it really does continue to pull it in which is a testament that it stands up to the test of time.

This 1920’s documentary was quite enjoyable to watch, surprisingly. it was really interesting to watch what people call the first documentary. Flaherty did a phenomenal job overcoming all the different obstacles he faced while filming this documentary.

I had never seen this movie before so it was neat to get to see it. I think it took a great deal of dedication for Flaherty to pick a subject in the arctic and then to return when the film caught fire. You could really see how comfortable Nanook’s family was with Flaherty in the film, just from the way they interact with the camera. You can see in some of the footage it is like they’ve forgotten that he is filming them.

I found this documentary to be fascinating, particularly considering the time in which originally shot. The brutal environment, challenges of developing film on location, and the hardships of the Inuit people all made me truly appreciate Flaherty’s efforts. Seeing the film almost 100 years later, knowing the drastic changes to their culture, makes this all the more important of an effort. It’s an amazing film reference and a testament to Flaherty’s perseverance and care.

In the beginning of this documentary, Nanook of the North, I realized a slow gradual movement of the filming and action. It did increase intensely to portray the reality of a group of people living everyday to survive another day in this treacherous environment.

I didn’t like the subtitles initially, but it caught up to me by the emotion it described in the moving mages.

I gained a respect for the Nanook people and their way of life. It educated me with facts from the visual documentary.
Being created in 1922, this black and white film is still interesting even in our present technological and clear colorful era.

I would definitely share and watch it again.

Banarski, Marcin

I definitely gained more respect than I already had toward documentaries and documentary filmmakers. Watching the first documentary film opened my eyes to a better understanding of what it really takes to tell a great story that needs to be told.

With no dialogue, and having specific notes being told to the audience like flashcards was something I never really experienced and it honestly made it more exciting for me. The music was also took a huge role in conveying the emotion meant to be felt in each scene.

There’s plenty of great things to learn about from this film but the one aspect I admire the most from it is how the Inuits actually survived and lived day by day. I would have known a whole lot less if it wasn’t visually documented like it was, so thank God for film and Robert Flaherty.

Excellent observations.

I thought nanook of the north was very entertaining. Especially because it’s old. Which makes it historic.

Even without dialogue i found this documentary to be very insightful. I truly learned a lot from this documentary. And the elements that goes into creating a good documentary.

In my opinion this is a good documentary, it show us a different culture, their traditions, ways to survive and activities. It has a good pace, I never got tired of watching it, every scene had a purpose and the music was used correctly.

I like it because I learned a lot about it, before I saw it I had no idea how the eskimos survive, it also answered several questions I had about their traditions, for example before I saw the documentary, I had no idea why they create igloos instead of building houses, now I know because in their environment it’s hard to obtain the materials to build a house and it’s easier to find snow to create it.

Even though it’s old I found it entertaining, I’m glad Flaherty decided to shoot all their traditions instead of showing them hunting with their rifles.

Documentary filmmaking it’s very important for the society since it allows us to learn about our past and different cultures. Things we would never be able to know without them.

Interesting comment, well written.

For it’s time I find it amazing what they achieved. The camera wasn’t an easy size to travel with, developing stock on location is amazing, and screening it was well, and where they had issues like lowlight inside an igloo they found a feasible way to recreate. I agree with Ebert’s statement that even tho they staged the walrus hunt they still hunted walrus, that wasn’t fake, the walrus didn’t have a copy of the script. I think they recreated things well while still documenting a culture in a positive light and not focusing on other issues at the time like them being exploited in the fur trade.

This was a very interesting documentary . I always found older films very interesting because I was always curious about how life was lived back then. I think that is why I liked it a lot.

I thought Nanook of the North was a very interesting documentary film. The way that they captured the lives of the eskimos and how they lived drew me in to learn more about them. I really liked their uplifted spirit despite their living conditions. I feel that they are a very strong people, with a will to live. Even though it was made in the early 1900’s without a word spoken, I was still moved by this film and learned from it.

I think Nanook of the north is a very impactful documentary that anybody whose anyone can learn from it. Showing you how a simple kind of people can live there lives and not need to worry what the outside world thinks. What I also picked up on during the building of the Igloos you can see that its very strenuous but Nanook always turns to the camera and gives a smile as if what he’s doing is nothing.My last thought on this documentary is that the director Robert J. Flaherty lost all his footage in a cigarette fire and he could of given up on his film but, he didn’t he kept on and made his movie. Which today as a up and coming film maker thats the type of attitude I need to be successful.

The documentary was so enlightening! It is a very stark contrast to anything I’ve ever seen. The educational value of the film is even more apparent today.

I was really nervous the film would seem slow because it is a silent documentary but it kept my attention and I really enjoyed it. I think it was well made, especially for its time. I think their lifestyle was captured well on film. I enjoyed how it showed both the good and hard times the people were faced with. I also think it is cool despite losing all of the previous footage Flaherty decided to go back and film it all again.

Full Sail professors have often referenced Nanook of the North so I was pleased to know we would be watching it in class. Initially I was not riveted but after getting used to the way of the documentary I found myself becoming involved with it.
People claim the fact that he asked the Inuit to reenact some of their daily routines did not make it a true depiction of their lives but I feel for the day and age it was filmed as well as the equipment that was used deemed reenactments somewhat necessary. Flaherty could have gone the easy route and chosen to film others in a safer climate but he chose to shoot in a less than cozy environment and to be that makes him stand out.

I can understand where the criticism for Nanook of the North comes from, but I think it’s important to realise that, as it’s also been stated before, there were no regulations and rules about what a documentary should and should not include. I believe this film set the basis for documentaries now, which might’ve been different had it not been done the way it was. Furthermore, Flaherty did manage to provide his audience with knowledge of a real, non-fictional way of living that had then passed but was still, according to him and the Inuits, worth showing. Regardless of the re-shoots and staged scenes, Nanook of the North is as close to reality as the time and environment allowed.

I was excited to watch this documentary because of all the history it holds. Though silents aren’t my favorite, there was a lot to appreciate about this. It took the viewer into a whole new different world and one that I’m sure made us all appreciate our lives a bit more. The black and white didn’t distract me and I just overall thought it was nicely put together. The shots were composited great and gave us a good point of view. At times it had me feel like I was there.

I had heard a lot about this documentary in the past but never had a chance to watch it. I’m glad that I finally did, though. Considering the time and the type of environment it was shot in, they were all beautiful and well lit. Though some of it was staged, it was the beginning of documentaries and set a strong foothold for future documentary filmmakers.

I never heard of it and definitely I was really impressed by this documentary. Just thinking about traveling with the camera in this kind of environment, it’s amazing! Flaherty did a great job capturing the family struggles and a little bit of their culture. This documentary is now part of the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress and it’s being used as a cultural, historical, ethnography and aesthetically reference for future cultures. The story behind this documentary and how they did it, it still impress me.

So after watching this film, I could see this man pioneering the documentary era of film. After watching it for a bit, I felt guilty for getting bored. Because today’s films scream to grab your attention and keep you in that world. It just goes to show how far we have come to learn/entertain each other. Imagine where we will be in another 100 years of entertainment.

I watched this movie for the second time and this time I found it very interesting and ahead of it’s time in terms of telling the story . the movie starts with a slower pace and a character introductory style and then after we see faster cuts and somewhat action shots. and the ending seems satisfying for a modern viewer .

I found this movie to be surprisingly interesting. When I first heard about it I was a little reluctant to watch it but it definitely turned out to be a great ‘documentary.’ It really showed the culture and way of life of Nanook and his family and the different things that they had to go through and endure on a daily basis.

I really enjoyed this film. Although I now know that a lot of the elements were fabricated, I still felt as though I experienced another way of life. I was captivated by the story of Nanook and his family, and I would have loved to see a more realistic portrayal.

I liked this documentary. I think there has to be a little forgiveness for the fact of staging some of the things within the film if it truly depicts the life of the Inuits historically. Many of us today may not know much about how they lived if not for recordings like this.

Very interesting

I think that this documentary is very well done for being the first documentary ever made. It is impressive how he got most of the shots, taking into account where he was and the weather conditions. For example, I am still trying to figure out how did he shot the part where Nanook is in the sea and the camera is still, it does not move at all. Another good thing, is that despite is a documentary for some years ago, it keeps me interested and makes me want to keep watching it.

Share this:

626 replies on “NANOOK OF THE NORTH”

Add Your ThoughtsCancel reply