Furthermore, it allows him to bring attention to parts of the film that otherwise may have been overlooked in the excitement that someone in the audience may have. Such a method is essentially a bait and switch that allows him to bring up issues that require critical analysis.

By just talking about the seal, he is giving an example of the way the film was shot, and also the critiques about it. He soon after talks about how some people couldn’t believe his credibility because there were some fabricated details. Starting off with the seal scene, he gives way for questions that are to be answered in the following paragraphs.

It makes Ebert’s review more closely tied to the documentary, therefore it attracts readers’ attention.

It is very possible that if Elbert decided to start with the story of building the igloo or Nanooks family then it might not get the readers attention as much as Elbert talking about the battle scene between Nanook and the seal. It would have the same effect if it were a trailer, because by showing that scene first, you grab the viewers attention.

Ebert grabs the reader attention by briefing explaining what type of character Nanook is. A scene explain in words can often be a draw in a striking image for the readers to picture.

This being a form of a documentary, Ebert begins his review with a very rememberable scene. This scene portrays the realness that Nanook faces through his life. I think that Ebert began with this scene in the review to grab the attention of the reader.

This seal scene could be the most intense scene in the film. Ebert chooses this “teaser” to talk about in the beginning so the audience would want to read/ watch the rest of the review/film.

The scene is also a good example of what this whole documentary is about. It explains Nanook’s character and what he does for living. This"…desperate tug of war" between Nanook and the seal reflects the conflict between the Eskimos and the nature.

this scene because not many people know what it means to hunt a seal. I, for one, did not know that a seal comes up every 20 minutes to breathe. Furthermore, when Ebert goes into great detail to discuss how the hunter hovers motionless over the hole for the 20 minutes and waits, it starts of his review with a sort of admiration for the Nanook. Many of us have not experienced this and it says a great deal about the patience and character of the Nanook just by describing their hunting habits.

Nanook proves that he can perfectly complete more menial tasks like fishing and installing an ice window in his igloo. But, catching the walrus shows just how difficult it is to live in a world where nature can be your greatest aid or biggest detriment.

He also begins with this one, astonishing sequence because it is the most controversial. It may not have happened. This one scene encompasses everything that is positive and negative about the film, including that it ultimately is just a reenactment. Does that take away from the reality of Nanook’s life?

The beginning of the review is like the beginning of a suspensful book, it paints a scenario to grap ones attention. Not only this, but as you continue to read the review, if something is mentioned about the seal, this picture he panted pops back up in ones mind.

Ebert began his review by focusing on said sequence because it is captivating to the audience. Reviews are not the most fascinating thing to read sometimes, so Ebert knew by focusing on the most adventurous part of the film that he could entice people to read further.

Ebert’s statement means that the scenes shown are not true reality, or actual events that happened. Why? Because there was a camera, catching Nanook’s every move, which Nanook and the other Inuit people were aware of. When people are being filmed, their actions are no longer 100% true because the fact that they are being filmed is always on the back of their mind.

In addition, Ebert’s statement also hints that the producer (Flaherty) had a say in what type of scenes he wanted. By having an idea and discussing it with the star of the film is in a way, assisting reality; things will happen because it was planned out.

Ebert also reveals that he is not really upset with Flaherty’s documentary. Before he says “realities admittedly assisted,” he says that Flaherty is “a man who has been called the father of the documentary, whose films are masterpieces.” By leading into the comment with these statements, Ebert is bringing attention to the fact that Flaherty is known for his works for a reason, even though they may not fit into today’s definition of a documentary. At the same time, by putting “realities admittedly assisted” in his review, I think Ebert wants people to at least be aware of the fact that not everything in the film is completely true.

However, this doesn’t mean that Ebert outright dislikes the film. Instead, he acknowledges it as a kind of a limitation or necessary evil, as films need to have some kind of interesting aspect to them to have an audience.

entertaining a specified audience.

The word “realities” is the goal that every documentary film aims at achieving. However, documentary film is just another genre of film production. As long as it is an work of art, there are pre-arranged efforts that assist realities. The prearrangements include editing, cutting, sounding techniques, etc. Ebert mentions the “decades-old debate.” I think he is on the director Flaherty’s side because Ebert admits there are facts that reduce the authenticity of documentary film in general.

Elbert means that, though Flaherty facilitated many of the situations in the film, he did so in order to capture actual truths (he still calls them “realities”). While some might criticize Elbert, believing it unethical or dishonest to stage aspects of the film yet label it “documentary,” Elbert views Flaherty’s method as a means to achieving greater honesty. To Elbert, Flaherty was simply providing the situations that would allow for the Inuit’s true essence to be captured. In doing so, he was documenting a reality better than had he simply sat back let the camera roll. Flaherty’s intention, it seems, was to capture the Inuit’s spirit, not their day-to-day actions. Elbert believes that this was achieved and allows Flaherty the artistic license necessary to best get the job done.

In today’s time – when we think of realities being assisted in various medias – we may think of certain shows such as Big Brother, MasterChef etc., where people behind the scenes have an outline or agenda of what they want to capture, but doesn’t necessarily have a script. The same goes for “Nanook of the North,” with Flaherty having an agenda/outline for what he wants to achieve with his documentary, but he doesn’t exactly know how the end result will look like.

In some sense, one could argue that all documentaries have assisted realities. Why? Well, the director has an idea of what he wants to portray, and what he wants to achieve with the documentary, but he/she doesn’t necessarily know how it will turn out. A great example is when Nanook is catching the seal. Ebert wanted to capture Nanook in a vulnerable moment while trying to provide food – and maybe clothes – for his family. It’s literally a matter of life or death. Ebert knows that he wants to capture Nanook fishing, but he doesn’t know how the actual fishing part turns out.

According to IMDB and Wikipedia, the documentary is classified as a docudrama, and dramas are all known to be pure fiction, thus it is a mix of some reality as well as some fiction. That’s maybe also why Ebert is trying to point out that not everything one sees in the documentary is original, meaning that the film is not shot randomly. There will always be retakes or more takes on one scene, for example, Nanook fishing more than once. The one that is most dramatic is most likely to be chosen for the documentary.

Ebert is not too critical in his review of the film, and he gladly uses words as: “magnificently projected”, “masterpiece”, and “father of documentaries.” Ebert also justifies the reality of Nanook really having a seal on the other end of the line. This proves to me that he is trying to defend Flaherty, and that he supports his way of making films.

Ebert refers to the documentary having “realities admittedly assisted.” I think he is saying that the film that is suppose to be based on truth and real life experiences isn’t all that true. Ebert’s attitude toward the documentary is negative because he sees the flaws of the truth in the film.

Ebert might saying that although documentaries are showing realities, but the “realities” audience see are being edited; any scene in the film was chose to be shoot and edited into the film.

According to John Greerson, documentaries are “the creative representation of reality.” For me, the word “creative” means the realities are no longer untouched.

He credited his work by specifying the way that Flaherty just had limited resources, the weather and still made a good film

Because Flaherty’s documentaries were created at a time where the standards for the “documentary” hadn’t yet been solidified, he got away with manipulating the scenes for the sake of cinematography. Ebert chose the words, “realities admittedly assisted” because essentially the reality that was being shown on screen was being “assisted” to look the way Flaherty wanted it to. i.e. the fake wives and children, while they existed, Flhaerty had actors for whatever reason, but he admitted to it.

Ebert reviewed the film in 2005, 83 years after the film released. In 2005, the general public knew what a documentary was, and the criteria that it was supposed to follow (to show events that actually happened). Here, when Ebert notes on the “purity of Flaherty’s methods,” he is pointing out the fact that in 1922, there were different (or really no) rules and expectations for filmed documentaries.

Here, although some of the events in the film were staged, Ebert points out that these events still took place. In other words, although a person can tell another person to do something, a person cannot tell nature what to do. In this review, Ebert focuses on Nanook catching a seal. Flaherty might have told Nanook to catch a seal, but that did not mean Nanook was to be successful. In the end, the film shows a seal being caught. The scene, which would be called ‘staged’ today, still expresses the actual way the Inuits captured their food.

Therefore, this film from the 1920s is precious enough to be a masterpiece. In 1920, there should also be less commercial pressure on filmmakers to make profits out of their production (I assume), so Nanook of the North contains great artistic and historical value despite the methods of the director.

Flaherty’s methods involved total fascination in these cultures in order to realize the basic patterns of life.

The mere fact that Flaherty was so far up north shooting footage in the 1920s was impressive enough. Had the footage been shot today then there may be a higher standard for the staging of the scenes and choices made while shooting. However, the time and place that Flaherty chose to document almost feels revolutionary. He was documenting a real life style in a time when no one else was, and that’s pretty hard to critique. Anything that is tried for the first time isn’t going to be perfect, and “Nanook of the North” is a perfect example of that.

Flaherty made “conventionally beautiful” films later on, but Nanook of the North makes unforgettable. It makes Nanook real. The courage and humanity that the film delivers remain valuable, inspiring, and touching over decades, and these factors are harder to capture than simply making a film “conventionally beautiful.” Therefore, Flaherty and his work are successful.

As well as calling his work “masterpieces” and calling Flaherty the “father of the documentary.” Ebert would not have stated that if he was not of fan of his wok.

Paragraph 4

The staged action in Nanook of the North is as real as it gets.Flaherty merely made them act out scenes from how everyone already thought they did. Nanook remains important for its representation of the an assortment of actions and positions of a workaday life.

When Ebert talks about the “…courage and ingenuity of its heroes”, he’s talking about not just Nanook, but all the Inuit Eskimos. Flaherty’s original work documented and introduced the world to a people who live in a way that is different than anything most people knew and resourceful to a degree that most would not think possible. Why would you want to attack a man who manages to do something like that?

Filmmaker. But it didn’t have a subject as powerful or as raw as Nanook and the Inuit people.