Nanook of the North Group Questions PDF

Preview

Summary

nanook of the north...

Description

1. Is it correct to say that different ethnic groups are coded differently, and within that coding, that certain ethnic sub-groups within the broader group are highlighted with the aim of celebrating aspects of their “code”? If this is true, with respect to Nanook, what kinds of code features of the Inuit are being “celebrated” in the ethnographic focus of the film? (Rony) I would say that it is correct that different ethnic groups are coded differently, since cultures and beliefs are different within every group.Native American/ Indigenous peoples exemplify this fact because they solely used oral tradition, and Native Americans living in Pennsylvania faced different circumstances than Canadian Inuits. Yet, by showing the codes of the Inuits, Indigenous people, Alaskan Eskimos, and Inuits could relate to film and see the history of their people. Some of the codes featured in the film Nanook of the North are about the living situations of this specific group of Inuits. The viewer watches the making of an igloo, and how Nanook and his family uses the igloo for survival. Another code that is apparent is interactions between the family and social subtleties like Eskimo kisses (rubbing noses together), kids playing tug a war, chewing on each others boots, and husky sledding. Also it was noted by Raheja that there was a Native code within the context of smiling towards the camera. Furthermore, Raheja stated that the Inuit actors helped Flaherty to edit what should be filmed, which helps to legitimize these codes as unique to the Inuits, and something they believed were important. 2. To what extent would you agree with Rony that Nanook, by effectively asking the Inuits to reproduce outdated customs, declares the tribe to be dead? She says that “The irony is that in order to look most alive; the ‘native’ must be perceived as always already dead” (116). What does this mean? The film used outfits that were worn twenty years prior to filming, techniques that were deemed by Inuit people of the day as unsafe, and a sense of technological ignorance (even though they were acting, and making the film with Flaherty). The ignorance of the Inuit life was exemplified by the use of Inuits as “exhibitions,” the white American/European audience could only digest an Archaic visual of Inuits. If the Inuits seemed to be living in the present society of 1922, it would attack their dominance and superiority. Rony introduces the idea of “taxidermy” “in order to look most alive, the ‘native’ must be perceived as always already dead.” This brings up another stigma of the Inuits that they are disappearing as a people, that there needed to be a “taxidermy;” ultimately, the taxidermy means there is a sense of loss. So, the film is assuring audiences that the Inuits are not people they will have to coincide with in the future, which matches up with what occurred in historical relation to race and non-Aryans from then till the 1950s. I do believe the film made many attempts to frame the Inuit family, as a family that the audience could relate to, but only for the means of getting sucked into the film, not to relate with on a deeper level. Flaherty director artistic choices made Nanook and his family seem as though they were in a time capsule, and that their images were of the older generation of Inuits. To some extent viewing the Inuits as people from twenty years prior allowed the misconceptions of Inuits to prevail in the viewer’s mind, and the Inuits images on screen matched the ignorant conceptions

that prevailed common thought. 3. Film critics have praised Nanook for making the viewer wait with Nanook in his hunt of the seal. That is, the film deemphasizes the “action” of the plot in favor of emphasizing the “realism” of waiting. At the level of story, it might also be said that the film is not structured by a traditional narrative trajectory. To the extent that this is true, why would you say that Nanook “lacks a plot”? I would say that Nanook of the North lacks a plot because typically a plot is how the story is threaded together with all of its components. It is clear to the audience that this film does not evoke much action. With the way nature is, it makes it a waiting game until you can go on a hunt and spot some whales. Meanwhile, Nanook shows how they build igloos, make their own clothing, protect their family, and kill raw fish. With the viewer "waiting" with Nanook, the story does not follow a traditional narrative trajectory because nothing happens. Usually, you wouldn’t make the viewer wait because you would have something else going on that could entertain the audience while the other task is being complete. However, in this film the audience waits with Nanook to realize how long it would take and how the activity really was; all to get a better sense of what the whole movie was about, their way of life. So I would have to agree that the film deemphasizes the “action” of the plot in favor of emphasizing the “realism”, since the purpose of making the audience wait with Nanook was to make the experience seem more realistic.Yet the film is telling a story of how the lives of Inuit’s are in their everyday and to some it’s an accurate display, to others it is a harsh racist look at Indigenous people in an effort to deem them extinct, and to some Natives it’s their codes on film.

4. In what ways can the moment when Nanook looks at the camera and smiles be understood? To which version would you subscribe, or are there other ways to grasp this gesture? In the most innocent of ways, the viewer could see Nanook as happy in the moment enjoying himself, since some assert Allakariallak (Nanook) and the other actors were enjoying themselves while being filmed. His smile could also be viewed as a cultural code to Inuits; smiling would mean that things are going well. Thus, the smile would suggest this is a film for Inuits to be proud of; meanwhile the audience, from the very start they should feel comforted by the smile. Nanook’s smile could also be understood as inviting, due to the fact that they knew they were being filmed and wanted to show that they are able to find joy in the little things, even if it’s to help portray the Inuit community. Yet, the last belief, as Rony stated on her piece that follows filmmaking in the 1920’s, because “until the 1930s, it’s unseemly in the United States and Europe to face the camera smiling: smiling was considered to make the subject look foolish and childlike” (Rony). Therefore, the smiling Nanook was used to maintain and idea of Inuit inferiority and unintelligence. Throughout the film the Inuits are continuously shown to look lesser, barbaric, and archaic, so I would have to agree with Rony that the smiling Nanook was to

project an idea of a “primitive Eskimo.” 5. How does Raheja understand “visual sovereignty” in connection with Nanook and the interaction of indigenous people with filmmaking? Raheja differs from Rony’s view of Nanooks smiling face, and adds the idea of visual sovereignty. Since, the film was made with contributions of the Inuit people, Raheja suggests the smile is a cultural code, a way to engage the Inuit watcher. That unlike Rony’s view of “childlike”, “laughing at the camera” was a way to insert Inuit culture on film and to help dismantle white american/european stereotypes of Indigenous people. Rahjea understands “the visual sovereignty” as a way to capture Native culture on film; therefore, the film’s representation of culture can help unify tribes of Indigenous people, and document political, personal, and tribal conflicts they were dealing with. Nanook of the North was made with the help of the Inuit people, who also helped to challenge Flaherty’s biased conceptions of Inuits. Thus, the film is a way for Indigenous people to latch on to some of their history visually instead of just orally, and inspired other Inuits to find their place in filmmaking. 6. Do ethnographic films of indigenous peoples also have a history, or is it more correct to say that these films mainly record (for better – and usually worse) the indigenous peoples themselves. What about “fictional” films. Past films like Nanook, have over time influenced the depiction of various cultures and ethnic groups. Although there are inaccuracies, it is a starting point in the long history of Native Americans in film. The viewing of the movie instilled pride in the people watching the film and sparked an interest to continue seeking stories about various cultures. As Michelle H. Raheja states in the reading filmmakers have engaged since at least the 1960s. Inuits who were featured in the film added authenticity, making the film feel more accurate. The filmmakers were able to add natives into the film like the book Nanook of the North laughing at the camera, which to audiences was depicted as being childish. It appeared that he enjoyed making the film but from the viewer’s point this could be interpreted as “acting for the camera”. With that, I would have to say that other ethnographic films of indigenous people also have history to go along with it. Yes, in Nanook of the North the people being filmed obviously staged a few scenes to paint a better picture for the audience. The viewing of the film in the 1970s reinstated a sense of pride for those who felt as if the film represented their ideas, beliefs, and history. Events like this enlighten and inspire audiences; it expands upon the history of ethnographic films.

7. Nanook emphasizes the relationship between the Inuit individuals and groups and the Arctic landscape. How would you characterize this relationship? Does it change over the course of the film, or does it end as it began? Pushing this line of questioning, would it make any difference if elements from the opening 10 minutes were exchanged with the elements of the concluding 10

minutes? The relationship between the Inuit family in Nanook and nature is thread through the entire film. The first remark in the film is that Nanook had died of starvation after filming. As the film goes on at 02:25 “The mysterious Barren Lands-desolate, boulder strewn, wind - swept -- illimitable spaces which top the world.” It goes on to say at 3:05 “The sterility of the soil and the rigor of the climate no other race could survive: yet here, utterly dependent upon animal life, which is their sole source of food, live the most cheerful people in all the world -the fearless, loveable, happy-go-lucky Eskimo .” We as the audience are introduced to the landscape that mystifies in its beauty, vastness, and danger. As the film proceeds we develop a connection with the Inuits as we watch them combat the elements of the icy waters, the need for layers of clothing, and use of igloos; also, the audience is enveloped in their search for food in the seal hunt, and the harpooning techniques to catch fish. The Inuits respect the land, understand the land, and try to overcome the obstacles the terrain has to offer. The film ends with an attack by wolves that leads Nanook and his family to find shelter in their igloo, as the camera crosses from the face of Nanook sleeping to the face of the dogs sleeping outdoors. Then at 1:13:50 the film remarks about nature once again “The shrill piping of the wind, the rasp and hiss of driving snow, the mournful wolf howls of Nanook's master dog typify the melancholy spirit of the North.” Unlike in the beginning when the harsh elements were juxtaposed by the Eskimos “lovable happy-go-lucky” disposition it ends just with the “melancholy spirit” that make up the rough landscape. Starting the film off with an optimistic vision for the Eskimos as the people who could overcome the harsh, cold, treacherous, terrain. Then after battling some of the many obstacles, which was a great way to get the viewer to connect with Nanook, the Inuits start suffering more and dealing with starvation. Ultimately, the last scene really captures the idea that nature will always be more powerful than the Inuits, and solidifies the idea of “taxidermy” of the Inuits. I do believe it would make a difference if the beginning and the ending were switched, because in the beginning there was a sense of joy in Nanook and an ability to combat the elements; while, at the end there was a sense of nature being overwhelming and foreboding. The beginning and the end both show the elements, a statement on starvation, and the racist idea that the Inuits were on par with their dogs; yet, the end adds the visual addition of nature being obtrusive....