Robert Flaherty is cited in creating the first documentary, with Nanook of the North, made in 1922, this film was wildly successful and generated obsession around this new genre documenting real people. Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson eventually adapted this filmic practice as a tool for documenting cultures for scientific purposes, founding the field of visual anthropology. Flaherty and Mead’s influence can be tracked to filmmaker John Marshall, who challenged the paradigms of spectacle and science by developing his own distinct style of film throughout his prolonged career. This transitional arch can be tracked through his films The Hunters, A Marriage Argument, and N!ai, A story of a !Kung Woman, where his distinct style becomes recognizable
…show more content…
Robert Flaherty created a film he knew people would want to see, rather than creating a scientific documentation of the Inuit people. He used an example of a nuclear family to appeal to white Americans, romanticizing the simple Inuit, who is so separated from the Euro American way of life. The most drastic example of this illusion of separation Flaherty is attempting to establish is when Nanook foolishly bites the gramophone as he can’t find where the sound originates. Flaherty portrays the Inuit as a people of the past, revealing what once was, ignoring their current ways of life and intentionally removing them from both the political and historical realms in order to create a spectacle of them. Rony describes this in Taxidermy and Romantic Ethnography, stating, “If Flaherty had not banished history from Nanook of the North, he would have had to acknowledge his own role as an agent of change in the lives of the Inuit” (3). Flaherty’s presence is completely absent in this film, he intentionally removes himself as to avoid acknowledging his influence on the Inuit. Flaherty’s treatment of film is one of romantic primitivism, deception and …show more content…
Marshalls decision to have a voice actress translate N!ai’s words while she simultaneously talks, as well as using subtitles frames the film as very much her story, and not Marshalls. We see many very intimate shots of N!ai, and in these interviews we become aware of the consequences of Marshalls actions through her direct address to him. We see an example of the impact of his presence specifically to N!ai’s life, when N!ai is involved in an argument with some of her friends, she very clearly tells the camera that they are angry because she works with the white people, referencing Marshall. In addition, the Ju/’hoansi people also often refer to the times “before the white people came” (4) as a relative measure of time acknowledging the significant impact this had on their lives. Marshall challenges previous filmic styles by revealing a historical and political arch, something that Flaherty completely avoids in Nanook. Where Flaherty intentionally removes the Inuit from current history and politics, Marshall shows clear examples of their current political situation. He illustrates this, by revealing to the viewer their new territory, the rations of food they are given from the government, and the outbreak of Tuburculosis, all which are associated
Robert Flaherty created a film he knew people would want to see, rather than creating a scientific documentation of the Inuit people. He used an example of a nuclear family to appeal to white Americans, romanticizing the simple Inuit, who is so separated from the Euro American way of life. The most drastic example of this illusion of separation Flaherty is attempting to establish is when Nanook foolishly bites the gramophone as he can’t find where the sound originates. Flaherty portrays the Inuit as a people of the past, revealing what once was, ignoring their current ways of life and intentionally removing them from both the political and historical realms in order to create a spectacle of them. Rony describes this in Taxidermy and Romantic Ethnography, stating, “If Flaherty had not banished history from Nanook of the North, he would have had to acknowledge his own role as an agent of change in the lives of the Inuit” (3). Flaherty’s presence is completely absent in this film, he intentionally removes himself as to avoid acknowledging his influence on the Inuit. Flaherty’s treatment of film is one of romantic primitivism, deception and …show more content…
Marshalls decision to have a voice actress translate N!ai’s words while she simultaneously talks, as well as using subtitles frames the film as very much her story, and not Marshalls. We see many very intimate shots of N!ai, and in these interviews we become aware of the consequences of Marshalls actions through her direct address to him. We see an example of the impact of his presence specifically to N!ai’s life, when N!ai is involved in an argument with some of her friends, she very clearly tells the camera that they are angry because she works with the white people, referencing Marshall. In addition, the Ju/’hoansi people also often refer to the times “before the white people came” (4) as a relative measure of time acknowledging the significant impact this had on their lives. Marshall challenges previous filmic styles by revealing a historical and political arch, something that Flaherty completely avoids in Nanook. Where Flaherty intentionally removes the Inuit from current history and politics, Marshall shows clear examples of their current political situation. He illustrates this, by revealing to the viewer their new territory, the rations of food they are given from the government, and the outbreak of Tuburculosis, all which are associated