Criticisms of Nanook of the North and Dead Birds:
Worries of Authenticity and Lasting Implications
Films have been seen as windows for everyday people to experience and see new and different things. With ethnographic documentary films, people are able to see real parts of the world that are not always visible in their current, everyday lives. Nanook of the North (Robert Flaherty, 1922) and Dead Birds (Robert Gardner, 1963) are both ethnographic documentaries, revered as revolutionary for their times and carry many similarities and differences. However, both films faced negative criticisms, such as with concerns of authenticity and the lasting negative connotations left on the people after the film’s release.
Nanook of the North is the first …show more content…
in Ruby, 6). Gardner was trying to establish a flow, similar to an evolving story, so there are possibilities for the loss of some true customs or activities done by the indigenous people. Also, in the film, it never shows an actual battle between tribes, but a composite one of footage from several alterations. Garder believed that “the footage he had of any one battle was inadequate to make the statement he wished to make about Dani warfare” (Ruby, 7). However, this misleads the audience as it distorts the reality that was actually seen with then Dani people. On some level, this dramatizes the events and cultural norms of the tribes in the area. Also, because of technological limitations and Gardner choosing a better picture quality camera, there was no sync sound being recorded. The audio had to be separately assembled, some while they were on site, while others were added later on (Bishop, 478). Watching the film itself, one most likely could not distinguish that the sound was not diegetic. This is misleading since the audience would not know if it was actually from the Dani people and their environment or reenacted by someone and collected later on. For example, Gardner got his son to imitate the crying of the boy in a rough game (Bishop, 478). The audience would not notice the voiceover and see …show more content…
Like with Nanook of the North, both films were completed with the intention to be shown to audiences in the Western world. Because of this, both the Inuit’s and the Dani are seen as savages and underdeveloped, compared to the standards of Western society. With the Dani, many would see them as more backwards because they aren’t fully clothed, ignoring their geographic and climate conditions (Bishop, 477). Also, the only thing we know about the Dani people is through the “Voice of God” narration, providing information on everything from weaving to the thoughts of young Pua. However, things bring to question truly how much Gardner knew and understood about the people. The audience will generally believe the narration as truth, so any misunderstanding between the filmmakers and the people will then translate to all those who learn about them through the documentary. Another point, Gardner was very interested and focused on the tribal warfare of these indigenous people (Ruby). Because of this, the film reflects his interest as it predominately focuses on alterations, preparation and waiting for alterations, and how children play practice in preparations to be fighters for these alterations in the future. However, this could only be a portion of their culture, but that would be the only part seen by the outside world, and since there was no direct address on a possible focus of
Worries of Authenticity and Lasting Implications
Films have been seen as windows for everyday people to experience and see new and different things. With ethnographic documentary films, people are able to see real parts of the world that are not always visible in their current, everyday lives. Nanook of the North (Robert Flaherty, 1922) and Dead Birds (Robert Gardner, 1963) are both ethnographic documentaries, revered as revolutionary for their times and carry many similarities and differences. However, both films faced negative criticisms, such as with concerns of authenticity and the lasting negative connotations left on the people after the film’s release.
Nanook of the North is the first …show more content…
in Ruby, 6). Gardner was trying to establish a flow, similar to an evolving story, so there are possibilities for the loss of some true customs or activities done by the indigenous people. Also, in the film, it never shows an actual battle between tribes, but a composite one of footage from several alterations. Garder believed that “the footage he had of any one battle was inadequate to make the statement he wished to make about Dani warfare” (Ruby, 7). However, this misleads the audience as it distorts the reality that was actually seen with then Dani people. On some level, this dramatizes the events and cultural norms of the tribes in the area. Also, because of technological limitations and Gardner choosing a better picture quality camera, there was no sync sound being recorded. The audio had to be separately assembled, some while they were on site, while others were added later on (Bishop, 478). Watching the film itself, one most likely could not distinguish that the sound was not diegetic. This is misleading since the audience would not know if it was actually from the Dani people and their environment or reenacted by someone and collected later on. For example, Gardner got his son to imitate the crying of the boy in a rough game (Bishop, 478). The audience would not notice the voiceover and see …show more content…
Like with Nanook of the North, both films were completed with the intention to be shown to audiences in the Western world. Because of this, both the Inuit’s and the Dani are seen as savages and underdeveloped, compared to the standards of Western society. With the Dani, many would see them as more backwards because they aren’t fully clothed, ignoring their geographic and climate conditions (Bishop, 477). Also, the only thing we know about the Dani people is through the “Voice of God” narration, providing information on everything from weaving to the thoughts of young Pua. However, things bring to question truly how much Gardner knew and understood about the people. The audience will generally believe the narration as truth, so any misunderstanding between the filmmakers and the people will then translate to all those who learn about them through the documentary. Another point, Gardner was very interested and focused on the tribal warfare of these indigenous people (Ruby). Because of this, the film reflects his interest as it predominately focuses on alterations, preparation and waiting for alterations, and how children play practice in preparations to be fighters for these alterations in the future. However, this could only be a portion of their culture, but that would be the only part seen by the outside world, and since there was no direct address on a possible focus of