Since the release of his seminal Nanook of the North in 1922, Robert J. Flaherty has since been affectionately dubbed as the "father of the documentary", a title which is striking considering he knew almost nothing with regards to film-making before his expeditions to the north began in the mid-10s. Somewhat amusingly and very much in contrast to what Flaherty depicts on screen for his audiences, it's since been widely known that much of the director's crew (who were in fact native Inuit and by now favoured rifles over harpoons and spears) knew more about his crazy Western picture-machine than he did. Despite all the grumblings and murmurs with regards to Nanook of the North's authenticity however—and there's plenty of it, if you look—there exists a compelling and fascinating look into a culture and way of life that was completely alien in 1922 and to this day remains as something to behold.One of the film's stand-out scenes which involves a long, drawn-out seal hunt shown in one continuous cut, whether completely natural or not, relentlessly draws you in as if it were happening right before your eyes. In restricting his camera to one still shot, devoid of movement or cuts, Flaherty establishes one of the pillars of documentary film-making; to make the puppeteer's hand blend into the background as much as possible. While one may find cause to argue against politically-inclined documentaries or overly-manipulative docu-dramas in regards to their editing, Nanook of the North never really sets out to tell a story in the first place anyway. Instead Flaherty opts to depict, observe and, well, document. Sure, he may depict more than he observes, but the results can nevertheless be marvellous to watch. In terms of modern-day documentaries, the film is almost as barren as the landscapes it showcases; Information is sparse and character, plot or narrative is almost non-existent, or at the very least is contrived. What Nanook offers now is more akin to the icy window on the side of the tribe's igloo. When you first see it, you probably imagine that the view isn't that great from the inside. Frosted over and scraped, it instead provides curious spectators a hazy viewport through which to glance back into a bygone era which itself was peeking over its shoulder, romantically reminiscing of what once was a simpler, more fundamental time for both the Inuit, and the documentary film-maker.

I see reviews for almost nothing but fiction all the time, or at least scripted movies. I generally don't watch that many documentaries, but I will make an exception if the documentary is truly significant in some way. I have decided to review this because it was the first feature length documentary ever made. Very few documentaries are box office successes so they're forgotten by most movie goers. Movies based on true stories are not documentaries as they are still scripted, but yes, they should be taken more seriously than those not based on facts. Documentaries are the most important of them all, at least in terms of making a difference in our everyday lives. I have done research and found that some of the stuff is in fact staged.The director changed some names, but honestly that's not a big deal at all. The film depicts the Eskimos hunting with spears, even though they used guns. Perhaps the film's most memorable sequence, the building of the igloo was from people who knew what a house was. Of course, I'm not sure if they exactly lived in one. Whereas most documentaries want to cause change in some way, this was not one of them. Almost all the films that don't do this are nature documentaries. I have in fact seen a lot of those. Wild animals are in fact featured in this, albeit being hunted. I guess I have a certain fondness for walruses.The camera work in this film is superb and it truly is a unique experience. What's great about documentaries is that they are about so many different topics as they truly illustrate how amazing the real world is. It was weird to see a silent documentary film. There isn't much color in these places, so I'm not complaining about it being in black and white. I will always appreciate how it still took a lot of work to make this and the results were very entertaining. It's probably this film that gives us most depictions of Eskimos. I mean, the people being filmed certainly seem like they're having fun and it is a movie that film buffs must check out, even those who ignore non-fiction. ***1/2 out of ****.

I found this film electrifying until, in reading more about it, I learned that some of the scenes were staged for dramatic effect - that Nanook, in the scene in which he bites on the record as though he hasn't seen one is really mocking us, that the Inuk use spears when in fact they hunted with guns, and that the race to construct an igloo at the end of the film were all staged. I found this sad. I don't think it completely devalues the movie though. Director Robert Flaherty still spent a great length of time with the people with whom he worked and we see a culture and a way of life that we would otherwise know nothing of. The shots of the family, the revelation about how to fit multiple people in a canoe, the disclosure of how to make an igloo, and the use of furs are all fascinating. I was sad to learn that Flaherty staged scenes for dramatic effect but this doesn't completely devalue this film. We see a lot of unvarnished glimpses of the spartan life which the Inuk undoubtedly lived. For that, I am profoundly grateful. I found this terrible and thought that it was a terrible manipulation of circumstances for dramatic ends. It's enough for me to rate this movie a significant amount lower. That said, it is very interesting.

The first feature documentary looks at one year in the life of an Inuit family. Nanook, his wife Nyla, and their son Cunayou inhabit one of the most inhospitable climates in the world. They migrate around to find food, build an igloo in which to spend the night, and sometimes have to separate the sled dogs (or wolves) when the latter get in fights.It's well known that director Robert Flaherty had earlier shot a bunch of footage, only to have it go up in flames, and so he had to re-shoot everything (leading to allegations that much of what appears in the finished documentary is staged). Regardless, this is a truly breathtaking experience. Filmed in northern Quebec on the Hudson Bay, the landscape is almost a character as much as any of the people: barren land and ice sheets as far as the eye can see. Above all, the focus on the Inuit people is fully sympathetic, but not paternalistic. It simply lets the viewer understand the people's way of life, and feel as if s/he is a part of the culture, much like Flaherty later did with "Man of Aran", about life on Irish island.In a TV interview some years after Roberty Flaherty died, his widow Frances noted that people all over the world saw "Nanook of the North". In fact, when Nanook died, it made news as far away as Singapore.Anyway, this is definitely a documentary that you MUST see. To my knowledge, the only other movie that focuses on the Inuit people is "Atanarjuat", spoken in their language.