there is an ancient technique, whereas, one will use the mouth and teeth to scientifically derive the constituency of what the element of a product or thing would be
the Fast Runner was so excellent that I purchased the movie. Like I said... the "White MAn" taught others to be more materialistic and is still doing it along with their "cronies" in other countries.. Corporatization and Political Coporatization.. Please! any Ivy League educated Socio-Cultural Anthropologist understands how intelligent people used to be many eons ago... now we have a bunch of robot people... where are the original thinkers of TODAY?
thank goodness some saved film of the anthropological aspect of how it was... now is this land still to the indigenous or like us in the usa has the 'white man' moved them away too? At 14 years old I had a crises.. I became ashamed about being white with blonde hair and blue eyes, eventhough, being part Mongolian and Cherokee. Already the "white man" was allowing the Inuit to become materialistic and the deal seemed like a rip off for the inuit and animals almost disappeared because of greed
@ickybonesss Yeah definitely faked. I studied it in a film class and some critics argue that it's mostly an advertisement for fur. If you know anything about the Canadian fur trade, traders exchanged really inexpensive goods like crummy food and cutlery for very valuable pelts. The film is all propaganda to make it seem like the Inuit can't survive without "the white man" and would starve without them to try and justify the fact that fur traders were taking complete advantage of these people.
This shows human beings at their best. Those people were indeed wealthy in every way. It's a blessing to watch their humanity that is so evidently at peace within themselves and with everything.
Life really isn't about years lived; it is about the quality of the life you live..
Spiritually; emotionally and physically. The people in the film are far wealthier and healthier than we are today. God bless them and their spirits that must look at the modern world; perplexed and saddened.
@MrCangoods2 Because he's a silly savage who doesn't know what technology is if it isn't made of seal skins (that was ironic).
They were familiar with this kind of technology if at least from the filmmaker introducing them to it. A lot (if not all) of this film was staged based on his other trips to the region. They had a complete understanding of the film and were playing along.
Actually, I was very surprised these folks were able to keep dogs at all.
But then, again, the reason must have been: your chances of securing meat were just much higher, over all, if you a few loyal dogs who'd get up any time of the day or night and work with you to get from A to B, to sniff out prey, and to keep babies warm in sub termperatures, because dogs of such environments evolved extremely fit insulating hair/fur to keep themselves warm in the coldest of temperatures.
This film demonstrated, more than any other, the absolute importance of dogs in early human cultures. And more so here than the tropics or any other place.
While the dogs also required maximum calories of meat to stay strong, the environment was such that a few good, strong dogs meant the difference between starving or surviving into the next cycle of weather, particularly in places, as noted, that were so rugged, to move 2-3 miles took a whole day, even with hard working strong dogs helping.
great video , really liked it alot . i have a kayak similiar to the one nanook has , but made out of wood . really cool to see how the eskimo's lived and i'm sure some live like that in the present day
I knew an elderly physician when I was a teenager. He had worked among Eskimo men, and said that due to the hunting of seals, and doing things like lifting freshly killed ones onto the ice, they had a very high incidence of back injuries, especially to the lumbar spine.
Fast Runner is better, especially in that it was apparently actually made by Inuit people. It's curious that shamanism doesn't figure into Flaherty's film at all, though it's central to Fast Runner---and apparently shamanism was in fact central to the Inuit way of life. This pretty much shows that Nanook of the North is not documenting their way of life, rather it's "documenting" Flaherty's idea for a story: struggle for survival and all that. Not authentic, but it's still interesting to watch.
@meyouwhome Maybe he figured nobody back home would understand the shamanism at all? He focuses on action for the same reason that films tend to today; it is much easier to capture on film. His problems were a hundred times worse given the kind of equipment they had to work with, and in the freezing cold no less. Apparently there was much more footage that was destroyed before this film was made. Some of these title cards are straight up fiction though, "cinema verite" was a long way off
@meyouwhome False. Nanook of the North did document a way of life that is not lived that way now. In that, it is a precious time capsule. The difficulty filming was extraordinary. Nanook is a documentary. Fast Runner is a movie, a story with shamanism as a key part of its story line, all shot with acted scenes with modern digital equipment.
I am contrasting this with Fast Runner for my Documentary Film Class and it should be noted that some of this film is staged and those Inuits, which is the proper name are more with it than this film portrays. While reading some history I found out the camera they used broke and it was the Indians who fixed them...funny to think about when you see Nanook stupidly chewing on the record. I suggest watching Fast Runner, after this. It is an all Inuit made film!! More accurate!
@vcanby but it might not be more accurate because a self made film they decided what went in it and what didnt... more ethical yes, but not more accurate necessarily... if I made a film of my life there would DEFO be parts I would miss out!
@vcanby apparently the actor who played Nanook (which isn't his real name as you can probably guess, although I can't remember what he was named) actually repaired phonographs as well and was probably more familiar with the technology than the director. Just adds to the irony of the biting the record scene.
Some of the comments are quite ridiculous. The eskimos were active participants in this project, not exploited ignorant victims. They were acting, so that their ancestors way of life could be captured on film while there were still people around who could remember it. These "stone age people" normally hunted with guns, they only used spears for the film. It was 1920, not 1820!
@oldbloke135 Relatively true. You have to have money for bullets. The film crew provided food while Nanook of the North was being shot. You have to have the skill to use a spear and these hunters obviously had the skill.
i had my tears just the start watching the film,thinking how very hard for these people striving everyday of their lives in order for them to live in that very isolated place...
Not to ruin it for you, but we just analyzed this movie and went trhough the history of it. This movie is nothing more than reenactments. The dramatic stuff was added in for just that, drama.
After this film Flaherty returned and in his paternalistic way took our young hunter into his civilisation, scooling, exposing him as example of his cultural outstanding, with our boy desperatedly trying to adapt. The stress and alienating made him so sick that he nearly died and decided to go back, where he was a stranger now also. At the first big hunt he died. This greatefully is documented a a film documentary that everybody should see in combination with this film.
@vinbe9 What is the name of that documentary please. I'd like to see that.
There are some interesting comments re this movie, some thoughtful. But I still say that Nanook of the North is hardly a documentary. That doesn't necessarily make it not worth watching though of course. Anyway I'd like to see the documentary you're referring to.
@meyouwhome Duh. My good God. "...Nanook of the North is hardly a documentary." Wake up. This is exactly what a documentary is, a non-fictional observation of life with the ideal of the film maker not taking a position. It's observation. It's a film of real life taken of real life as it happens. That is what a documentary is. If they don't have a successful hunt, they starve. In fact, that's exactly what happened to Nanook two years after this documentary was made. That's as real as it gets.
I've never found specific cinema but decided to go to view that one found at thisisawesomemovie. c000m and simply i said? it was in fact brilliant. an individual simply just are required to realize who the three main characters are and almost everything else will be easy to understand.
Flaherty is worthy of recognition in essentially informing the world about the potential film had to capture worlds we did not know or understand. Some of his staging was necessary given conditions (such as the half-igloo scenes). But let's not mistake him for a man who honestly was attempting to do the best he can for the people he was filming. His own writings make it clear he had no respect for them, but simply viewed them as labor in his own attempt to gain glory as the Great White Explorer.
Keep in mind that this was filmed at the same time that issues like enfranchising women with the vote and dealing with Jim Crow laws in the South were being debated. Flaherty filmed with these issues clearly in mind.
In summary, Flaherty depicted the Inuit as praiseworthy only when he could send the message that "even primitive semi-human beasts recognize these virtues, such as men being strong and self reliant and women being supportive child bearers."
Multiple examples abound. He typically refers to them as "huskies," seeing them as little different than the animals they utilized. He refers often to them as being children who are ruled by jealousy and their stomachs, and not by more rational or intelligent means.
In one incident, he decides to punish one of his Inuit assistants for being a bit surly by cutting off the man's food rations. He fails to appreciate that, for a bad moon, he essentially passed a death sentence.
His "wives" (They were actually Flaherty's common-law wives) are similarly treated. Nyla's child is very much compared to "puppies". They are seldom depicted except when it suits to have them supporting Nanook, whether by doing the chinking of the igloo, warming his bed, or bearing children.
If you read Flaherty's diary it becomes very clear that he did not, in fact, admire the Inuit. To the contrary he viewed them as an opportunity for self aggrandizement.
There's really not enough space to document this properly, but:
When the film clearly shows admiration for "Nanook" it is in those times where he is displaying values of the dominant Amero-European culture. Strength, courage, resilience, fatherhood... These are praiseworthy and depicted as such.
Inuit values, on the other hand, are not. "Nanook" bites the record player, subtly displaying him as "infantile" He eats raw meat like an animal, just like the dogs he's feeding with the same meat...
buddholly28 - so tell me, if Flaherty directed and created this film, does that mean it's not a documentary? If he put them in danger, does that mean it's not a documentary? If he misrepresents these individuals, is it no longer a documentary? Is a documentary factually correct? Is a documentary a film that doesn't manipulate? A film that is truthful? I'm not advocating his methods, but if what you say is the case, what then, is documentary?
This "shit" was a way of life. Your entire family tree wouldn't be able to bear that kind of "shit" for a few hours. You disrespectful fool... perhaps that's the way you should remain... dumb, ignorant & disrespectful of others, untill life will kick some common sense into you.
It should be noted that this film is far from a documentary. Flaherty very much directed and created this film. Inuit had been using rifles for a number of years at this point but Flaherty insisted they use 'traditional' implements that they hadn't used in many years - often putting them in terrible danger to do so.
Moreover, the racism in the representations certainly can not and should not be ignored.
.... they would otherwise never see, and to help them put their own life issues in perspective. Far from being racist, this piece romanticizes and idealizes the Stone Age lifestyle that was in the process of disappearing when Flaherty managed to capture its essence on film. Very well done, in my opinion.
@hardheadteacher so well done that every single faculty of visual anthropology in the world use this video to show how an anthropological documentary should not be.very good teacher.
@hardheadteacher Romanticizing and idealizing can be and often are racist. It's simply racist to assume any people or culture don't have th same mix of good and bad that all of us have. That doesn't make this film racist, I agree with you there. Perhaps naive or wishful. They left out the abuse the Inuit often get from outsiders bringing in disease and alcohol. But it's still an interesting and important film I recommend to others.
@buddyholly28 You're right in noting that Flaherty constructed much of the film. In that sense it's more of a docu-drama than an actual documentary. But even today, many 'documentaries' are staged. While technical limitations & the apparent need for dramatic/humorous sequences (eg. Nanook biting the record) led to Flaherty staging or re-creating some of the scenes, ...
@buddyholly28 (cont'd) I'd question people like 'Bear' Grylls, apparently always a step away from death out in the wilderness, but actually staying in luxury hotels. Plus, Flaherty never set out to shoot a documentary.
Re: racism - the film is from 1922. Most of the Western world had never even heard of Inuits, so it's not a surprise that these 'exotic' people were portrayed almost as a 'freak show'. I'm not saying it's right, but the historical context should not be ignored either.
How can a movie that evokes such empathy and love for these characters come from racism?! To accuse a movie of exaggerating or misrepresenting through stereotype is one thing. That critique has nuance. I'm getting awfully damn sick of hearing people cry "racist!" over every-other-movie from the past. That's a cop-out, from the narrow vantage of hindsight. Aren't you privileged to be so "enlightened"?! Pfffft.
My grandfather told me about this book and mentioned that he thought there was a movie as well. I am glad I ran into it 2 weeks later accidentally. In fact I'd watch it again!
Fantastic Video. Thank you for the priviledge of viewing it, Even if I did have to watch the many commercials :) This is pretty long so make sure you have time to enjoy it ..
@wargarurumon surprisingly I hear they only eat a cupful of vegetable matter a year- and get their vits from the organs of prey, liver intestines etc- very interesting that they do not get scurvy X
@wargarurumon You bet- there is even a plant called "eskimo potato"- at least in Alaska. It doesn't grow on the arctic shelf proper, but grows in the northern interior where I'm from. Inuits traveled and traded extensively, rarely wintering up north. The most common vegetation to eat were bog cranberries, but tinctures made from willow leaves were a common marinade full of vitamin C.
Shit
ramlalgandoo 2 days ago
there is an ancient technique, whereas, one will use the mouth and teeth to scientifically derive the constituency of what the element of a product or thing would be
girjaye 3 weeks ago
the Fast Runner was so excellent that I purchased the movie. Like I said... the "White MAn" taught others to be more materialistic and is still doing it along with their "cronies" in other countries.. Corporatization and Political Coporatization.. Please! any Ivy League educated Socio-Cultural Anthropologist understands how intelligent people used to be many eons ago... now we have a bunch of robot people... where are the original thinkers of TODAY?
girjaye 3 weeks ago
thank goodness some saved film of the anthropological aspect of how it was... now is this land still to the indigenous or like us in the usa has the 'white man' moved them away too? At 14 years old I had a crises.. I became ashamed about being white with blonde hair and blue eyes, eventhough, being part Mongolian and Cherokee. Already the "white man" was allowing the Inuit to become materialistic and the deal seemed like a rip off for the inuit and animals almost disappeared because of greed
girjaye 3 weeks ago
This guy seems so touched, simply by spending time with a people not his own. Look at us now...We are devolving. Sad.
Shinobi11San 3 weeks ago
Does anyone know if this was actually faked? Not the whole thing but people say that is was. I really hope not since it's such a great film.
ickybonesss 1 month ago
@ickybonesss Yeah definitely faked. I studied it in a film class and some critics argue that it's mostly an advertisement for fur. If you know anything about the Canadian fur trade, traders exchanged really inexpensive goods like crummy food and cutlery for very valuable pelts. The film is all propaganda to make it seem like the Inuit can't survive without "the white man" and would starve without them to try and justify the fact that fur traders were taking complete advantage of these people.
Joeblow20111 3 days ago
This shows human beings at their best. Those people were indeed wealthy in every way. It's a blessing to watch their humanity that is so evidently at peace within themselves and with everything.
Life really isn't about years lived; it is about the quality of the life you live..
Spiritually; emotionally and physically. The people in the film are far wealthier and healthier than we are today. God bless them and their spirits that must look at the modern world; perplexed and saddened.
telemetry9 1 month ago
@ 14:05, why is he biting the record?
MrCangoods2 1 month ago
@MrCangoods2 Because he's a silly savage who doesn't know what technology is if it isn't made of seal skins (that was ironic).
They were familiar with this kind of technology if at least from the filmmaker introducing them to it. A lot (if not all) of this film was staged based on his other trips to the region. They had a complete understanding of the film and were playing along.
snipelfritz 3 weeks ago
Actually, I was very surprised these folks were able to keep dogs at all.
But then, again, the reason must have been: your chances of securing meat were just much higher, over all, if you a few loyal dogs who'd get up any time of the day or night and work with you to get from A to B, to sniff out prey, and to keep babies warm in sub termperatures, because dogs of such environments evolved extremely fit insulating hair/fur to keep themselves warm in the coldest of temperatures.
HenryDavidT 1 month ago
This film demonstrated, more than any other, the absolute importance of dogs in early human cultures. And more so here than the tropics or any other place.
While the dogs also required maximum calories of meat to stay strong, the environment was such that a few good, strong dogs meant the difference between starving or surviving into the next cycle of weather, particularly in places, as noted, that were so rugged, to move 2-3 miles took a whole day, even with hard working strong dogs helping.
HenryDavidT 1 month ago
I wonder, how many people looked this up because of Blame Society's review?
Socrates458 1 month ago 3
@Socrates458 i know i did
DeathToAlliHate 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
thx for uploading this, it almost made me cry. wonderfull.
WikiWaki91 1 month ago
Comment removed
WikiWaki91 1 month ago
great video , really liked it alot . i have a kayak similiar to the one nanook has , but made out of wood . really cool to see how the eskimo's lived and i'm sure some live like that in the present day
MrStephenwakeham 2 months ago
Outstanding film.
chardero 2 months ago
Poor huskies....
MrRuiNobre 3 months ago
Nanook of the North was made in the 1920s, the last great global warming, when the Northwest passage was free of ice for months at a time.
People tend to forget this has happened many times before.
All the open ocean area you see is now choked with ice, but will probably open up again in the next decade or so. Baffin Island is WAY up north.
Merlin5by5 3 months ago
hello from canada
ruellan2003 3 months ago
I wonder how many times Isaac Mizrahi Watched This...
SeptemberEclipse 3 months ago
I sometimes lie awake at night wondering who would win in a fight - Chuck Norris or Nanook?
Seriously though, awesome film! Definitely gives you a new perspective on life.
BizarroNobody 3 months ago
I knew an elderly physician when I was a teenager. He had worked among Eskimo men, and said that due to the hunting of seals, and doing things like lifting freshly killed ones onto the ice, they had a very high incidence of back injuries, especially to the lumbar spine.
Albacorewing 4 months ago
Fast Runner is better, especially in that it was apparently actually made by Inuit people. It's curious that shamanism doesn't figure into Flaherty's film at all, though it's central to Fast Runner---and apparently shamanism was in fact central to the Inuit way of life. This pretty much shows that Nanook of the North is not documenting their way of life, rather it's "documenting" Flaherty's idea for a story: struggle for survival and all that. Not authentic, but it's still interesting to watch.
meyouwhome 4 months ago 2
@meyouwhome Maybe he figured nobody back home would understand the shamanism at all? He focuses on action for the same reason that films tend to today; it is much easier to capture on film. His problems were a hundred times worse given the kind of equipment they had to work with, and in the freezing cold no less. Apparently there was much more footage that was destroyed before this film was made. Some of these title cards are straight up fiction though, "cinema verite" was a long way off
troublemakir 3 months ago
@meyouwhome False. Nanook of the North did document a way of life that is not lived that way now. In that, it is a precious time capsule. The difficulty filming was extraordinary. Nanook is a documentary. Fast Runner is a movie, a story with shamanism as a key part of its story line, all shot with acted scenes with modern digital equipment.
wordbeeps 2 months ago
I'm 100% eskimo.
32deej 4 months ago 3
I am contrasting this with Fast Runner for my Documentary Film Class and it should be noted that some of this film is staged and those Inuits, which is the proper name are more with it than this film portrays. While reading some history I found out the camera they used broke and it was the Indians who fixed them...funny to think about when you see Nanook stupidly chewing on the record. I suggest watching Fast Runner, after this. It is an all Inuit made film!! More accurate!
vcanby 5 months ago 4
@vcanby but it might not be more accurate because a self made film they decided what went in it and what didnt... more ethical yes, but not more accurate necessarily... if I made a film of my life there would DEFO be parts I would miss out!
clolovesmakeup 3 months ago
@vcanby apparently the actor who played Nanook (which isn't his real name as you can probably guess, although I can't remember what he was named) actually repaired phonographs as well and was probably more familiar with the technology than the director. Just adds to the irony of the biting the record scene.
Joeblow20111 3 days ago
Amazing, truly Amazing!
MsShowtime2010 5 months ago
literally the most boring thing i've ever seen. what a nap i had.
fruitywheelz 5 months ago
Some of the comments are quite ridiculous. The eskimos were active participants in this project, not exploited ignorant victims. They were acting, so that their ancestors way of life could be captured on film while there were still people around who could remember it. These "stone age people" normally hunted with guns, they only used spears for the film. It was 1920, not 1820!
oldbloke135 5 months ago 4
@oldbloke135 Relatively true. You have to have money for bullets. The film crew provided food while Nanook of the North was being shot. You have to have the skill to use a spear and these hunters obviously had the skill.
wordbeeps 2 months ago
how do you pronounce Nanook?
kewtiepie97 5 months ago
@kewtiepie97 Na as in do-ray-mi-FA then nook as in book.
TonysTinyThings 5 months ago
Comment removed
TonysTinyThings 5 months ago
thumbs up if you're here for Weedman
MrBobchaizzle 5 months ago
How did they squeeze all those characters into that kayak?
Roncace 5 months ago 3
@Roncace that´s a good question!!!
ivanauskasbarbosa 5 months ago
No Eskimos were harmed in the making of this film.
Imagynuity 6 months ago 2
It was really nice to know about Eskimos, but I really hated the background music I almost fall asleep because of It :S
anhel2020 6 months ago
Comment removed
kdesudo 7 months ago
i had my tears just the start watching the film,thinking how very hard for these people striving everyday of their lives in order for them to live in that very isolated place...
MrQueenalexander 8 months ago
Comment removed
4berry104 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrQueenalexander
Not to ruin it for you, but we just analyzed this movie and went trhough the history of it. This movie is nothing more than reenactments. The dramatic stuff was added in for just that, drama.
4berry104 7 months ago
After this film Flaherty returned and in his paternalistic way took our young hunter into his civilisation, scooling, exposing him as example of his cultural outstanding, with our boy desperatedly trying to adapt. The stress and alienating made him so sick that he nearly died and decided to go back, where he was a stranger now also. At the first big hunt he died. This greatefully is documented a a film documentary that everybody should see in combination with this film.
vinbe9 8 months ago
@vinbe9 What is the name of that documentary please. I'd like to see that.
There are some interesting comments re this movie, some thoughtful. But I still say that Nanook of the North is hardly a documentary. That doesn't necessarily make it not worth watching though of course. Anyway I'd like to see the documentary you're referring to.
meyouwhome 2 months ago
@meyouwhome Duh. My good God. "...Nanook of the North is hardly a documentary." Wake up. This is exactly what a documentary is, a non-fictional observation of life with the ideal of the film maker not taking a position. It's observation. It's a film of real life taken of real life as it happens. That is what a documentary is. If they don't have a successful hunt, they starve. In fact, that's exactly what happened to Nanook two years after this documentary was made. That's as real as it gets.
wordbeeps 2 months ago
no sounds on this thing?
Faceoflink 8 months ago
@Faceoflink This is a silent film made in 1922.
deldred 7 months ago
Almost as good as Flaherty´s classic doc. ´Man of Aran ´. You can find it on YouTube , uploaded in 10 min. portions .
Hemulen40 9 months ago
The documentary is like reading a book which contains very precious footage of real life.
seyoumeye 9 months ago
I've never found specific cinema but decided to go to view that one found at thisisawesomemovie. c000m and simply i said? it was in fact brilliant. an individual simply just are required to realize who the three main characters are and almost everything else will be easy to understand.
flowerlover0610 10 months ago
WOOOOOHOOOOOOO my dogs called Nanook buuuuuut this movie has nothing to do with Malamutes O_O
bobby123323 10 months ago
Flaherty is worthy of recognition in essentially informing the world about the potential film had to capture worlds we did not know or understand. Some of his staging was necessary given conditions (such as the half-igloo scenes). But let's not mistake him for a man who honestly was attempting to do the best he can for the people he was filming. His own writings make it clear he had no respect for them, but simply viewed them as labor in his own attempt to gain glory as the Great White Explorer.
SgtSareth 10 months ago
Keep in mind that this was filmed at the same time that issues like enfranchising women with the vote and dealing with Jim Crow laws in the South were being debated. Flaherty filmed with these issues clearly in mind.
In summary, Flaherty depicted the Inuit as praiseworthy only when he could send the message that "even primitive semi-human beasts recognize these virtues, such as men being strong and self reliant and women being supportive child bearers."
SgtSareth 10 months ago
Multiple examples abound. He typically refers to them as "huskies," seeing them as little different than the animals they utilized. He refers often to them as being children who are ruled by jealousy and their stomachs, and not by more rational or intelligent means.
In one incident, he decides to punish one of his Inuit assistants for being a bit surly by cutting off the man's food rations. He fails to appreciate that, for a bad moon, he essentially passed a death sentence.
SgtSareth 10 months ago
His "wives" (They were actually Flaherty's common-law wives) are similarly treated. Nyla's child is very much compared to "puppies". They are seldom depicted except when it suits to have them supporting Nanook, whether by doing the chinking of the igloo, warming his bed, or bearing children.
If you read Flaherty's diary it becomes very clear that he did not, in fact, admire the Inuit. To the contrary he viewed them as an opportunity for self aggrandizement.
SgtSareth 10 months ago
@SgtSareth If that was true, we'd see Flaherty in the film much like a Micheal Moore "documentary".
wordbeeps 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SgtSareth If that was true, we'd see Flaherty in the film much like a Micheal Moore "documentary".
wordbeeps 2 months ago
There's really not enough space to document this properly, but:
When the film clearly shows admiration for "Nanook" it is in those times where he is displaying values of the dominant Amero-European culture. Strength, courage, resilience, fatherhood... These are praiseworthy and depicted as such.
Inuit values, on the other hand, are not. "Nanook" bites the record player, subtly displaying him as "infantile" He eats raw meat like an animal, just like the dogs he's feeding with the same meat...
SgtSareth 10 months ago
my question is, did they eat that trouble making dog? I was surprised it wasnt mentioned X
typhusbuffet 11 months ago
buddholly28 - so tell me, if Flaherty directed and created this film, does that mean it's not a documentary? If he put them in danger, does that mean it's not a documentary? If he misrepresents these individuals, is it no longer a documentary? Is a documentary factually correct? Is a documentary a film that doesn't manipulate? A film that is truthful? I'm not advocating his methods, but if what you say is the case, what then, is documentary?
boroc7 11 months ago
Allakariallak,the Inuit who played Nanook of the North died of starvation 2 years after this film was made. Not sure what happened to his family
frankiecanuckLibrary 1 year ago
wow this is life. All those people were once alive and now they are old and we are young. How beautiful life is.
sbhuiyan 1 year ago
Chuck Norris of the Eskimo world!!!!
Sabbon 1 year ago
Thank you.
bigdt87 1 year ago
I read in the zombie survival guide that Nanook died a year after due to starvation is that true?
BadVoodo0 1 year ago
@BadVoodo0 No. This was spread around for dramatic effect. Nanook died from a disease most likely TB like 2 years after this video.
purplehaze2250 1 year ago
have to watch this shit for class. Thanks for posting it.
MonTheDon88 1 year ago
@MonTheDon88
This "shit" was a way of life. Your entire family tree wouldn't be able to bear that kind of "shit" for a few hours. You disrespectful fool... perhaps that's the way you should remain... dumb, ignorant & disrespectful of others, untill life will kick some common sense into you.
J1NX1337 1 year ago
It's not racist because he used real live Eskimos. Also I liked the part with the magical dragon!
kdogtheman 1 year ago
Wow! Talk about team work! If most families could function that way in todays society, it would be a very different world indeed. Beautiful film.
famgaztam 1 year ago 4
I never knew Frank Zappa's song was based on anything. Very cool movie.
DharmaLogos 1 year ago 2
I love their "kyaks"!
micahgee 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It should be noted that this film is far from a documentary. Flaherty very much directed and created this film. Inuit had been using rifles for a number of years at this point but Flaherty insisted they use 'traditional' implements that they hadn't used in many years - often putting them in terrible danger to do so.
Moreover, the racism in the representations certainly can not and should not be ignored.
buddyholly28 1 year ago 5
@buddyholly28
.... they would otherwise never see, and to help them put their own life issues in perspective. Far from being racist, this piece romanticizes and idealizes the Stone Age lifestyle that was in the process of disappearing when Flaherty managed to capture its essence on film. Very well done, in my opinion.
hardheadteacher 1 year ago 13
@hardheadteacher so well done that every single faculty of visual anthropology in the world use this video to show how an anthropological documentary should not be.very good teacher.
sunsolesun 5 months ago 2
@hardheadteacher Romanticizing and idealizing can be and often are racist. It's simply racist to assume any people or culture don't have th same mix of good and bad that all of us have. That doesn't make this film racist, I agree with you there. Perhaps naive or wishful. They left out the abuse the Inuit often get from outsiders bringing in disease and alcohol. But it's still an interesting and important film I recommend to others.
MrAngryindian 1 month ago
@buddyholly28
can you point out to me what you've noticed being racist?
J1NX1337 1 year ago 2
@buddyholly28 You're right in noting that Flaherty constructed much of the film. In that sense it's more of a docu-drama than an actual documentary. But even today, many 'documentaries' are staged. While technical limitations & the apparent need for dramatic/humorous sequences (eg. Nanook biting the record) led to Flaherty staging or re-creating some of the scenes, ...
TwentyThousandDreams 1 year ago
@buddyholly28 (cont'd) I'd question people like 'Bear' Grylls, apparently always a step away from death out in the wilderness, but actually staying in luxury hotels. Plus, Flaherty never set out to shoot a documentary.
Re: racism - the film is from 1922. Most of the Western world had never even heard of Inuits, so it's not a surprise that these 'exotic' people were portrayed almost as a 'freak show'. I'm not saying it's right, but the historical context should not be ignored either.
TwentyThousandDreams 1 year ago 2
@buddyholly28
How can a movie that evokes such empathy and love for these characters come from racism?! To accuse a movie of exaggerating or misrepresenting through stereotype is one thing. That critique has nuance. I'm getting awfully damn sick of hearing people cry "racist!" over every-other-movie from the past. That's a cop-out, from the narrow vantage of hindsight. Aren't you privileged to be so "enlightened"?! Pfffft.
FungusMossGnosis 11 months ago 2
@buddyholly28
It is officially and dully noted that you only consider documentary '' Super size Me ''
TapasBarAmsterdam 10 months ago
wonderful film! This, along with Häxan and Nosferatu, are my favorite silent films
joshmania7 1 year ago
I'm sorry, but these Eskimos are my idols along with David Bowie from now on...
warhols25 1 year ago 28
Nanook of the North
Don't be a naught eskimo
Save your money don't go to the show
GHarrisonFan 1 year ago
My grandfather told me about this book and mentioned that he thought there was a movie as well. I am glad I ran into it 2 weeks later accidentally. In fact I'd watch it again!
mbunch87 1 year ago
Fantastic Video. Thank you for the priviledge of viewing it, Even if I did have to watch the many commercials :) This is pretty long so make sure you have time to enjoy it ..
Tewrobert 1 year ago
an interesting and fun documentary.
but one thing i'm still wondering, do they eat any kind of vegetable or fruit, or do they only eat meats and fish?
wargarurumon 1 year ago
@wargarurumon No veggies or fruit at all, and no heart disease either, kinda weird......
dale3858 1 year ago
@wargarurumon
lol
xelsor 1 year ago
@wargarurumon surprisingly I hear they only eat a cupful of vegetable matter a year- and get their vits from the organs of prey, liver intestines etc- very interesting that they do not get scurvy X
typhusbuffet 11 months ago
@wargarurumon There were and are lots of small fruited plants and tubers, etc., eaten and stored in Arctic communities.
MuttleyEason 5 months ago
@MuttleyEason tubers? as in potatoes?
wargarurumon 5 months ago
@wargarurumon You bet- there is even a plant called "eskimo potato"- at least in Alaska. It doesn't grow on the arctic shelf proper, but grows in the northern interior where I'm from. Inuits traveled and traded extensively, rarely wintering up north. The most common vegetation to eat were bog cranberries, but tinctures made from willow leaves were a common marinade full of vitamin C.
MuttleyEason 5 months ago
@MuttleyEason thanks, truly informative :)
wargarurumon 5 months ago
i never knew they used ice as a window in their igloo's, quite ingenious :)
wargarurumon 1 year ago
too bad the quality from the upload is a bit lacking
wargarurumon 1 year ago 2
superb!
sylvanjf 1 year ago
Awesome .... loved it
shecub 1 year ago
This is fantastic! You can learn from Nanook how to put a window in an igloo and more, 90yrs. ago. Love It!
srvinfinity 1 year ago