Looking back to the early development, documentary was called to be crucial in the phase of cinema. Historically, the film was conventionally commences in 1895, according to Erik Barnouw, the media historian, the Lumiere programs were the very well-liked in which for a span of two years they had just about a hundred operators working around the world. In fact, both showing their films as well as photographing new ones for the purposes of adding to a progressively rising catalogue.
So in this view, there was a number of the new enterprising film firms in which just sprang up at the turn of the century featuring non-fiction titles, most specifically the travelogues. In the period prior to world travel has been actually widespread and every tourist had a camera. Therefore, the scenes of distant lands as well as the life were then having considerable foreign appeal for film patrons. As in most of whom until time were working class and definitely could not afford travel for such a reason.
Citing some instances, for these two filmmakers Edwin S. Porter (1870–1941) and D. W. Griffith (1875–1948) had done perfecting the editing techniques for such a reason of advancing a story. That so happened, non-fiction films had been quickly obscured in attractiveness by narrative films in which had been exploited in editing as well as other cinematic techniques. Among those were framing and the movement of the camera in order to engage audiences expressively.
In effect to that, non-fiction film had an assumption to a contributory position. (Kawin 2011) In due course, in institutionalizing non-fiction film in movie theaters as the travelogues or newsreels; as one of a series of shorts being presented prior to the attraction of the feature (Rothman 1997). On the other hand, documentary remained on the margins of conventional cinema, no more than occasionally producing a feature-length work in which it has administered in finding further with the distribution in commercial theaters.
In view of a documentary turning point, “Nanook of the North” has been certainly one of if not the most important work during the period of the twentieth century. Considering the story of Nanook together with his family, it has become the central point of attention of the national media. At the same time, has nearly changed the perceptions that the entire world had of film for documentary intentions. Robert Flaherty can either be to the documentary world while Tolkien is to the visionary world. In fact, Flaherty was being counted as the colossal of the genre. Rothman 1998) So, it made “Nanook of the North” a masterpiece. Actually, there is simplicity and profoundness of the story and eventually unique. From this time forth, the groundwork upon that the great documentarians had created their respective works during the 20th century. However, by means of perception after the fact, the film falters. The most perceptible is the fact in which Flaherty had been composing each of the sequences ahead of time. More so, had been able to purposefully alter the life of Nanook in order to make it harsher.
As to see at the most famous scenes, Nanook laughs at a phonograph at the same time bites into a record pretending he failed to understand it. Conversely, at the later part it was discovered that not just had Nanook seen phonographs earlier; however, he was a customary visitor to the trading post, a snowmobile owner, and a rifle. It is in this fact wherein places a question about the strength of this work as a documentary. In the part of Flaherty, he defended himself of this matter and further claimed that some things to be altered for the purposes of the message to be seen.
But, this is what has been called in the film world as “fiction”. Profusion of fiction is basically upon the fact, however, when this can be called something a documentary, it is to be held up to various standards; one work of Robert Flaherty, even though, first-rate, fails to attain. In this regard, such commercial motion pictures programming, this said “documentary” eventually found a niche in the form of newsreels, which in fact has been a regular part of commercial film exhibition (Rothman 1998).
Together with the previews as well as cartoons, in which they all in support of the narrative feature films. Even though newsreels could just report on news once the fact has been done, when the stories being covered were already acknowledged. With that they appealed to audiences for the reason that they have provided an experiential propinquity in which exceeded the chronological immediacy of the daily newspaper. It was in 1922 that Robert Flaherty (1884–1951), as called to be one of the former explorers and prospectors with slight training in cinematography. Rotha 1983) He created Nanook of the North; this is a film pertaining to Inuit life in the Canadian far north that demonstrated documentary, as this could be both considered as an art and an entertainment. In fact, Flaherty skillfully employed fictional techniques like in the utilization of close-ups and parallel editing for the purposes of engaging viewers in the world of Nanook. This film has moved beyond the picturesque objectivity of the unadventurous travelogue. With such a purpose, this has offered a poetic vision of human fortitude in opposition to the natural elements.
The film reveals the hardships being confronted with Nanook in finding food particularly for his family in the icy Arctic. At the same time, he was also creating an intimate sense as individuals specifically of whom viewers might care about even thought it was on an occasion which might lapse into condescension. An instance, when Nanook has been described in one of the insert titles as said to be “happy-go-lucky Eskimo”. In order to give further emphases on both film and documentary with a commercial success, this film had a lengthy run on Broadway.
In spite of the fact, the artistry of Nanook, director Robert Flaherty had been taking liberties with his subjects, in particular. Most importantly, some were indispensable for the reason that there were technological limitations. With that, in the scenes of Nanook together with his family in igloos, for instance, these were in fact shot in cutaway igloos being constructed because of filming. Since, the camera was too big to get inside a real igloo and they did not provide sufficient light for filming.
In this regard, there were other manipulations which trouble. So, for that matter, the Inuit were already familiar with contemporary weapons and tools, however; Robert Flaherty had chosen to film Nanook without their presence. What he actually did was by way of falsifying their actual lifestyle for the purposes of presenting a more traditional view of their culture specifically. At the time Nanook was being filmed close hunting, in fact he did not catch one; hence, a dead was to tie onto the end of his fishing line and further enacted his “struggle” with it. Calder-Marshall 1966) If we look at the other side of it, as a response to criticism Flaherty manipulated his subjects and further stated that “One often has to distort a thing in order to catch its true spirit. ”
In fact, on this comment it has significantly provide implications for documentary practice, as this opens up the likelihood in which documentary films can be rightfully look for to document more spiritual or insubstantial aspects of life underneath both the physical and the visible world. Bouse 2000) On the other hand, on the approach of Grierson to documentary, this is frequently being seen as adversative to the more romantic vision of Flaherty. However, for Grierson the documentary was initially serves as a tool of social propaganda. He also pointed out that it is in the sense of the potential medium in reaching and educating the masses. Therefore, it can be concluded that Grierson attacked the lyricism as well as the preference of Flaherty. That is for documenting such isolated, pre-industrial cultures instead of grappling with specific and direct social issues of contemporary industrial society.
In which it can mean that the problems as well as the issues confronting audiences seeing the films. Furthermore, as to Grierson he make a deep emphasis about the social utility of documentary, in which he proclaimed the desire of making drama from the ordinary in films in which further it give emphasis to social rather than Robert Flaterty. In view of the line of Robert Flaherty, as known to be the only documentary filmmaker being included in notorious auterist “pantheon” of Andrew Sarri.
At some extent, he brought to the documentary form through his personal vision of the ceaseless struggle in opposition to nature; finding the theme in a different cultures. Flaherty got so interested in utilizing film to serve as capturing the passing existence of traditional societies, with which he then saw as both noble and uncontaminated through contemporary values. The first film of Flaherty was this; Nanook of the North (1922), for which he was able to get funding from Revillon Freres fur company, was then a ravelogue concerning Inuit life in the Canadian Arctic in which it made use of cinematic techniques up to then that associated more with fiction films than that of documentary. Through recurrently weaving together the close-ups of Nanook along with his family has artfully composed long shots (Barsam 1988). In the immense frozen scenery, Flaherty was on his effort to encourage the viewer both in identifying with the hunter and his family; furthermore, in order to understand the overwhelming natural power of their environment.
In the atrocious blizzard in which constitutes the dramatic climax, the Nanook, Flaherty utilized crosscutting connecting the Inuit family jumbled within their igloo. At the same time, on their dogs exterior in the fierce wind to make a suggestion about the difference between humans and other animals. More so, to emphasize his subject of romantic survival that is contrasting to the crucible of nature. In spite of the fact, the insistence of Grierson about the social utility of documentary; the documentary films had been made under his leadership.
That is both in Great Britain and in Canada in the later part and display a substantial amount of formal experimentation. At one time the films of Flaherty in which have received much critical praise, even though anthropologists raised a complaint that they were inaccurate for the reason that there are manipulation of the director about his subjects in particular. (Barsam 1988) As a matter of fact, Flaherty was able to celebrate for his opulent imagery as well as compelling footage in which today all his documentaries are more frequently considered a prime example of the eroticized, colonial gape.
Noticing this fact, in which William Rothman has said that Nanook of the North seems poised between documentary and fiction. Furthermore, it actually marked a moment before the so-called distinction in between fiction and documentary. The above discussion is full of information that speaks of the main purpose of writing this paper.
Bibliography
Barsam, R 1988, ‘The vision of Robert Flaherty: The artist as myth and filmmaker’, Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Berry, C, Hamilton, A, & Ayamanne, L 1997, “The filmmaker and thepProstitute: Dennis O’Rourke’s ‘The Good Woman of Bangkok’.
Sydney: Power Publications. Bouse, D 2000, “Wildlife films”, Philadelphia: University of Pennyslvania Press. Calder-Marshall, A 1966, ‘The innocent eye: The life of Robert J. Flaherty”,. New York: Harcourt, Brace. Danzker, J 1980, ‘Robert Flaherty: Photographer/Filmmaker, the Inuit, 1910–1922’, Vancouver, BC: Vancouver Art Gallery. Kawin, B 2011, “Film, History: Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia”, Scholastic Inc. Nichols, B 2001, “An introduction to documentary”, America: Indiana University Press. Rotha, P 1983, ‘Robert J.
Flaherty: A Biography’, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983. Rothman, W 1998, “The Filmmaker as Hunter: Robert Flaherty’s Nanook of the North “,Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1998. Rothman, W 1997, “Documentary Film Classics”, New York: Cambridge University Press. Smith, Linda. T 1999, “Decolonizing methodologies, research and indigenous peoples”, Dunedin: The University of Otago Press. Williams, L 1997, “The ethics of documentary intervention: Dennis O’Rourke’s The Good Woman of Bangkok’, Sydney: Power Publications.
