Nanook of the North

Although it plays very fast and loose with the truth, Flaherty's semi-documentary ethnographical study of the Eskimos is interesting, entertaining and lovely. By modern standards, a few parts are dragged out too long and I would have liked to learn more about their culture, but it's still some compelling material.

If you consider the logistics of making a film like this with 1922 equipment, it would be absurd to expect no amount of intrusiveness or staging. What's amazing is the absorbing illusion that Flaherty creates, that is, the fly-on-the-wall mood that he achieves as his film recreates every aspect of traditional Eskimo life. In this sense this is a cultural treasure of a document, and the cornerstone of ethnographic cinema and documentary cinema at large.

The walrus hunt is unforgettable; they sneak up on them on the beach, evading the walrus herd's lookout, and harpoon one of them with a spear with a line attached. Then they just sit on the shore eating the meat off the bone, licking their knives. It's a very primal experience.

eh, nothing special

Maybe some viewers wish Flaherty had been a fly on the wall among an undiscovered tribe. With his huge hand-cranked camera, outdoors, in the arctic hinterland, in 1920, 15 years before the term "documentary film" was coined. Might as well complain it's not in 3D. Flaherty "staged" many of the scenes, but it's essentially realistic reenactment of authentic traditional Inuit life, by Inuit. Flaherty's approach to his subjects is not beyond criticism, but it's a giant leap beyond SOP for the time.

Who knew eskimos could be this much fun sober? That is, for as long as they use a canoe to magically make family members appear or play a happy-go-lucky slapstick version of Chuck Norris in the wild... When all they want is to eat or sleep, it naturally gets boring

Staged scenes be damned, this was entertaining as hell, and plenty informative of a time that would have been forgotten had this film not existed.

While much of it is scripted it is still real enough to have an impact. It's a very nice film to look at, following Nanook striving for survival in the harsh barren north.

Awsome! This a great piece of art. 80 years later and still as fresh as the first day. The first documentary ever in history.

The love and empathy for Nanook and his people shines through each frame.

Whatever, it's okay. I guess it's an "important" film, but not anything I'd voluntarily watch if someone else hadn't looped me in.

The fact that so many of the scenes were staged or exaggerated hurts the movie slightly for me, but it's a fascinating artifact of the time. Watching it as a procedural for how Inuits hunted seals or built igloos, for instance, is interesting. Even if their methods had advanced beyond what is depicted, it's still watching how their immediate ancestors would have done it. What also shines through is the humanity and the universality of certain emotions and experiences.

This iconic “original” documentary has a certain amount of interest from a historical perspective, but on its own terms as a film it’s fairly crude and even dull at times, with the antics of Nanook and his “family” showing their real life contrivance and artificiality. Still Flaherty deserves a certain amount of praise for breaking new ground as a “back to nature” film-maker.

This must have been stunning in 1922, as we meet these "other world"-ly people living in an almost inhospitable area. It's no longer 1922, and National Geographic pumps out a few of these each week with color and sound, so the "amazingness" of this film is almost hard to see. I'm glad I watched it for the historical checkmark, but it's not a movie I really would ever care to see again.

Not great as a movie (nor as an anthropological work), but man, those pictures nobody will ever be able to shoot again!

Ano de Centenário de André Bazin: Repassando os filmes citados em Qu'est-ce que le cinéma? Filme #1 Experiência cinematográfica extraordinária - o que não quer dizer boa. DVDRip no MakingOff.

In order to form a cohesive argument about why this film is terrible and should only be seen in an academic light, I would have to give the film far more thought than I'm willing to. Yes, that's a copout. Nope, I don't care. The longer I watched this, the more I detested it.

This set the tone of most documentaries that followed. There is staging and editing to fit the filmmakers vision, however the film feels more natural than most film of it's kind.

Nanook of the North is a fascinating watch from beginning to end, as Nanook and his family build an igloo, hunt for seals and play in the snow.

Doesn't age well beyond a film history stand point of being the first "documentary." I don't mind that much of it was staged beyond making them appear more primitive then they actually were at that point. A few moments are laughably fake but probably not to audiences in 1922.

I told my girlfriend I was seeing this film in class and she misread that as "Norm of the North"

Robert Flaherty's full-length documentary film is a fascinating watch, even 95 years later. Worth looking up some of the surrounding lore to add to the experience...

A fascinating watch.

Apart from its historical context, I still really enjoyed Nanook of the North. Perhaps I'm an old-fashioned dude, or easily impressed, but I still loved it.

Once upon a time, a grammophone was a culture shock. Imagine if we could've given them our memes.

I do not regret watching 'Nanook of the North' but I can't really say I've enjoyed it too much either. I understand the importance of this documentary and how legendary it must have been for people seeing this not knowing anything about the Belcher Islands but to me it felt too much like fiction. Besides of the building-an-igloo-part, I had to drag myself through an endless mix of early Micky Mouse concertos. https://cinemuckblog.wordpress.com/2015/04/14/nanook-of-the-north-1922/

An interesting and affectionate demonstration of traditional Inuit ways, that played a huge part in shaping notions of what a documentary could or should be.

surprisingly, it was actually kind of interesting ... but still rather boring.

This is so good man, now I can build an esquimaux igloo of my own.

wow. i'm shocking and impressed. i've seen many of hundreds nature documentaries but this one maybe the best with storytelling and many details; there is no doubt that it's better than modern ones. the only negative point that it deserves better ending. still a masterpiece.

The historical significance can't be overstated, but it did at times feel like a more apt subtitle may have been: "The Banality of the Eskimo." Yet there were definitely shots, like Nanook as a long figure against a seeming endless expanse of iciness that, that were quite beautiful.

While I appreciate this as a landmark of documentary filmmaking, I didn't get much out of it and it was even a bit tedious.

kuzey buz denizi, arktik, kanada, aile, avcilik, fok, balik, mors, iglo,gercek yasami ele alan belgesel sari köpek diye bir mogol filmi vardi bu filme benziyor.

Informative, if not always engaging, documentary tows the line between an honest portrayal of a group of people whom Flaherty obviously loves and an exploitation of their otherness.

That the first documentary was mostly staged (how couldn't it have been?) is pure classic cinema, but the contents therein aren't exciting anymore and it's hard to be engaged despite the interesting subject matter. The kids are cute and the walrus hunt was suspenseful, at least.

Watch for historical importance as this is considered the first ever full length documentary.

#239

FUR IS MURDER ESKIMOS

anthropologically bad, but sweet and very good for its times :)

OVERRATED, COME AT ME BRO.

ha, great fun. NB: not meant to be factual (different times)

The issues of its factuality cannot be ignored, but there is still so much that you can take away from this.

Primitive but trail-blazing documentary, hard to sit through for modern audiences, I bet.

The first hour is very entertaining but then it gets tedious.

It's a small miracle that any film was made at all after the majority of the initial footage was destroyed in a fire. Interesting portrait of a lifestyle that was basically a thing of the past at the time of filming.

"The eskimos are happy-go-lucky people."

239

A truly fascinating piece of cinema, no matter how much of it was staged. There's a falsity in all documentary anyway, and Flaherty's staging of a few scenes reminds me of the way Herzog often "creates" certain sequences in his documentary films. The obvious blend of staged and unstaged does not take away from the sheer power of the images, as Flaherty successfully communicates both the joy and the hardship experienced by these hardy people. Excellent film.

210

# 194

Interesting and informative, but deceptive on the part of the filmmaker.