Week 4: Nanook of the North as a Source of Inquiry

The job of documentary filmmaking to depict reality, or at the very least truth, is paramount to the form’s credibility. This is true of any documentary, but the responsibility is increased exponentially in the case of films made for children or intended to be seen by children. The child takes the things they view in a more literal manner than adults, and as such they expect to trust what they see implicitly. This makes it very easy for a documentarian to manipulate the events and images when dealing with such an impressionable audience. This ethical question applies directly to Robert Flaherty’s 1922 Nanook of the North, which blended documentary and fictionalization in a then-unprecedented way. The film is easily understood and digestible for inquisitive young audiences, which makes its status as a document of truth worth exploring.

The Disney True-Life Adventure footage we watched from White Wilderness is grossly irresponsible in its depictions of nature. To create an urban legend in the form of the lemming incident is an affront to the documentary form, and takes advantage of its audience – in doing so creating an entire generation of baby boomers who believe that animals commit mass suicide.

Nanook of the North has a less flagrant dilemma, though. It is now widely known that Flaherty staged many events in the film, even going so far as to invent Nanook’s family wholesale from a group of people in the same village. However, the difference between Nanook and White Wilderness is that where Disney invented a new truth, Flaherty dramatized true events, whether or not they were appropriate to the period. For example, the incident with Nanook seemingly observing a white man’s gramophone for the first time is inconsistent with the 1920s setting, it reflects some truth of the indigenous experience. Roger Ebert said of Nanook, particularly the walrus hunt which was staged: “it has an authenticity that prevails over any complaints that some of the sequences were staged. If you stage a walrus hunt, it still involves hunting a walrus, and the walrus hasn't seen the script. What shines through is the humanity and optimism of the Inuit.”

The authenticity of the presented truth transcends any literal reality, and I don't think anyone should feel an ethical conflict in showing Nanook to a child. In fact, there is something unique about the near-century old footage that I think further allows a kid to inquire about what's being presented on screen. Compared to a modern ethnographic or nature documentary, there's an abstraction to the images that forces more contemplation and mental stretching. For children raised on tablets, black and white images are alien, which requires them to not only take in the information they're seeing but also to use imagination to fill in the gaps. There is a value to withholding some information from a young viewer – it makes for an involved viewing experience that does not lecture the viewer but rather fuels their sense of inquiry by giving them rudimentary tools to expand their understanding of the world.