Viewing Nanook of the North today rather than at the time it was created perhaps makes the moral lesson of manipulating small details of a documentary more visible than before. As we spoke of in class, the decision to have Nanook and his people hunt and behave in traditional manors rather than use the guns and other modern technology available to them in order to preserve the natural spectacle that was seeing this way of life for the first time. The way the film tried to captivate the audience was through exposing this unknown culture to the rest of the world, and have modern and familiar technology at use in the film by the natives would take away from the curiosity that brought the audience in.

I believe the message of the documentary film is that modern society could learn alot from eskimos who survive off of very little necessities. The message is subtle because I don’t feel that it is presented in a blunt way. By showing us the eskimos’ travels for food and ignorance to modern technology, Robert Flaherty simply presents images that allows the audience to come that conclusion themselves.

I believe the moral lesson that is taken away from Nanook of the North is best described as the beauty in the struggle to survive in everyday life of a harsh environment. It is subtle because the film maker, Flaherty depicts different scenes that allows the audience to piece together what is happening and form a conclusion. He doesn’t just blatantly come forward with this; you would have to make connections with the different scenes.

I believe that the moral lesson of Nanook of the North was that happiness lies on one’s perspective and outlook on life. Even though bad things may happen, with the right perspective and outlook, you can still be content. Given that we’ve grown up in a modern civilization in a first world country (America), our perspectives are a little skewed to be “spoiled.” Thus, if an average American had to live in the conditions that Nanook and his family lived in, their perspective on life might be discontent and struggles. However, with the right perspectives, you can make any way of life enjoyable— as perceived by the smiling faces of Nanook and his family.

I think a moral lesson of Nanook of the North is how you can be happy with almost nothing. The people are portrait very noble, it is almost some sort of nostalgia. As the professor pointed out as an example: we’re not like that anymore. We live in the city.
You can really tell the director wanted to give a certain image (for instance that they didn’t actually hunt with a harpoon any more but he wanted it to look like they did). Flaherty wanted to give the people a certain feeling when looking at this Inuit people.

Flaherty pushes forward two lessons through his work. The first and foremost, the moneymaker, the essence of the movie itself. It shows to the consumer Nanook and how it is to be in his environment. That environment had been an environment that restricted any modern technology or ways of life in order to present the culture of Nanook and his people. By his ultimate goal he also lines his documentary with a subtle message. That message is the suspension of reality the consumer under goes as they are able to view the world of nanook as if they were invisible beings in that same location. That is caused by the way Flaherty is able to record his work in a way where himself or no one else is seen and the angels are the same as if your eyes were the camera.

I believe the moral lesson portrayed in this documentary focuses on the will to live fairly. Everything the Eskimo family does to stay alive is done naturally. Whether it be hunting, traveling, or sleeping. They’d take full advantage of what nature would present to them. Rather than cheating and using modern technology back then to gain easy access to food and shelter, they would be one with nature instead. They had the will to live fairly with nature.

The subtle message is that you can accomplish something with more at your fingertips, but the question is should you?

the film, I was able to see through the acting. Though these people are referred to as “simple,” that doesn’t mean they still don’t face challenges.

The way in which Flaherty portrayed Nanook and his family was in such a way that the audience could not feel sad for them unless some prior knowledge of the portraits or general idea of the Inuit lifestyle would allow them to. The simplistic and perhaps comedic life of Nanook and his family was only the side that Flaherty decided to show, as an audience our first thoughts are of being entertained and amazed at this different culture rather than curiosity at the struggles that come with such lifestyle.

Nanook and his family are portrayed throughout the film as a noble and proud family who lived a simple but happy life. The challenges they had to overcome such as finding food were displayed as brave acts that some people in modern times did not have to deal with.

The film presents the characters not as a struggling alaskan family that is roughing it, but as a thriving culture of people that are happy with their environment and know how to get the most from it. They also do not look unhealthy or near death, Nanook and his family are usually either calm or smiling in almost every shot shown to us. In the scene where we see an almost naked baby playing with the puppies, you would think that the baby would be close to death wearing nothing in such a cold environment. But the baby is already used to the cold and used to their environment from birth. Which gives us a nice portrait of the generations of family that have survived in the cold.

I was personally amazed by their journey. The images didn’t suggest at all that they wanted sympathy. The brilliance behind Flaherty’s directing is the movie expressed pride and content, despite their conditions. Those feelings transferred to myself as I watched, and I therefore respected the eskimos for their lifestyle.

I don’t feel sorry for Nanook and his family only because that isn’t the message that the film maker is trying to depict. I believe his intent was to just showcase the life of a culture that not widely known. Some key factors that interpret the film maker was portraying these characters in a positive aspect is by using upbeat music and having the characters smile frequently throughout the film.

While watching the film, I really did not feel sorry for Nanook and his family. I didn’t feel sorry for him because the way it was presented was in a light and almost playful manner. Really that was done with the music in my opinion. We didn’t really hear this sad music, but rather more playful and cheerful music. Also, that was just the way of life back then (where they were from.)

I do not feel sorry for Nanook and his family. The purpose of a documentary is depict the true nature of a subject. Regardless of whether Flaherty was objective in shooting his film, he portrayed Nanook and his family in one perspective— happy. Since Flaherty depicted Nanook’s family to be with no issues, as an audience member, I do not have a reason to feel pity for his family.

I do not feel sorry for them because they look so independent. I have the feeling they’re totally fine on their own and don’t need the tools of modern society to have a nice life. They seem very happy and satisfied.

I do not feel bad for Nanook and his family because of the two ways I interpreted this movie. The first was in a way that I let myself to be ingulfed in the movie. Nanook and his family were in their environment with no disturbance by the outside world. No one was harmed, modern technology was absolved from being shown in the movie. In addition to this the family was shown eating, partaking in activities and free from most danger. This is their way of life and if that is their norm then no one can say they are any worse off if they do not know what could be better. On another note when you critically analyze what is going on I still do not feel sorry for them. Yes they are foreigners on their lands but they are not intruding. They are portraying their way of life a certain way and use upbeat music, angels and modern technology to show the world how simple a normal and happy life can be.

I think the film show that a family’s struggle to survive is a part of their life, just like ant other all around the world, and thus it makes the audience recognize their tough life, and we need to understand.

can be seen taking a bite of a fish right after pulling it from the water.

Skimming through various definitions of noble savage, most make reference of an individual who is not corrupted or influenced by civilization. Perhaps Nanook is portrayed as more of a noble savage than in real life since Flaherty wished to see the Inuit’s act and live in the historic manor that their ancestors did rather than the modernized lifestyle infused with more advanced tools. In the films realm though, Nanook appears as the noble savage being in control of his family and responsible for their travel and general well being.

Evolutionism broke up society into three different types of people: savage, barbarian and civilized. A noble savage is a good way to describe to Nanook because every primitive task throughout the movie he completes with class and courage (two qualities I believe making up a noble savage).

I believe that someone is called a noble savage or a savage for that matter when someone does not understand or want to understand their lifestyle. So would I consider Nanook a noble savage? No because the film gives us an insight into Nanook’s life and family which greatly humanizes him. Is he a dirty savage from the north who eats poop and does other barbaric things? No, he’s a pretty much ordinary Alaskan living in a barren wasteland in which he thrives. To truly make him a noble savage I think the documentary must have been through a “Nat Geo” type of lens where everything is from the outside and they never really get into the life of the family or Nanook.

I don’t like to use the word savage. I believe it is offensive even in this case. Nanook was noble because of what he did to feed and take of his family. It took more than being accountable and responsible for others, it took bravery and courage to keep his family alive.

A noble savage is a human without civilization. Without civilization, humans are naturally good. Its with civilization that makes them act in bad ways, according to Wikipedia. I believe that Nanook does fall under this category because he simply lives in harmony with his people and environment. And because he has not been influenced by civilization and lives a simple life, he is therefore considered to be a noble savage.

While talking about a noble savage, it got me thinking more and more about what it means to be one. Really, I feel like to be a noble savage is to be able to feed and provide for your family. To provide shelter and safety and generally just to care for your family. I believe that Nanook is a noble savage as he did pretty much fulfill those requirements.

Nanook was depicted of being a noble savage. He lived a pretty “raw” life being an eskimo with his family— a life that isn’t dependent on modern technologies and is . However, I felt a deep appreciation for this way of life. Even though his son had to drink (which many modern Americans would find disgusting) the fish oil? the fish oil for his stomach ache, it seemed as if he enjoyed the taste. Nanook’s “noble savage” way of life helped him and his family be content and happy with simple things.

Yes, he is. For instance when they bite and smell the LP record Flaherty brought. They didn’t grow up with something like that and thus have no idea what it is. For them it’s normal to smell and taste things if you’re unfamiliar with it. I thought this was a great example of Nanook being a noble savage.

A noble savage is someone who is carefree, resourceful, instinctual and untainted from the evils associated with civilization. Nanook, the man and head of a family who hunts for their food and the demands of their environment create a culture of being highly skilled in multiple facets in order to survive. Nanook is a noble savage because his very life and family demands him to be skilled in order to stay alive, all without the aid of common civilization elements.

I think a noble savage is someone is like saying a civilized animal. They way they behave outside of survival are noble. They help one another, don’t go looking for trouble and are able to establish tribes. The savage part comes from the fact that they hunt and kill their own food. The Inuit don’t live in cities or have day jobs, surviving is their job.

Flaherty’s personal search for the spirit of the Inuit people seems to be separate from the creation of the film. His findings may have been such a feeling that was not comprehensible through film so it was his job to manipulate the characters and scenes in a way that he thought would evoke the same emotions and feelings from an audience who could not visit and interact with Nanook in person. It was also Flaherty’s job to select which activities and actions to capture as living with someone for every minute of every day will hold countless moments of spirit whereas you can only fit so many into a documentary.

Either way it would have been presented would have been altered because of his view and editing. If he would have studied Nanook and then shot the documentary he would have manipulated the shots just as much because sometimes you just cannot get the shots you need without some sort of direction. Sometimes life does not happen the way you predict. So it does not matter if he manipulated certain scenes because film makers do this without knowing sometimes and have to be criticized for what could have been or what isn’t.

I think manipulation was necessary in this film because if their true emotions or uncoordinated scenes could have caused a feeling of pity among the audience. That was not the purpose of the film.

I believe that the scenes that Flaherty manipulated were only to promote the authenticity of the film. For example, although the characters were currently using updated weapons, Flaherty used bow and arrows to keep the dying culture alive. Does this subtract from the truth value? Definitely. However, at one point in time these items were used to hunt so I don’t believe its a complete form of manipulation.

Personally, I believe that Flaherty should not have manipulated certain scenes and characters. In order to get the true authenticity of a documentary, one must capture the true intentions and behavior of their everyday lives. Although this may deviate from the uniform “theme” or “message” the film might be trying to promote, capturing the true spirit of the people is important to developing a documentary. Essentially, this true spirit includes the good and the bad occurrences.

I think in this context it doesn’t. If Flaherty really was looking for the spirit in people, he did a great job in my opinion. He really showed Nanook and his family in their natural habitat and how almost ‘simple’ their lives where (not ‘simple’ as in without difficulties but I mean without tools from modern society). It gave me this nostalgic feeling and almost makes you think that his life, compared to ours, in some parts isn’t that bad at all (without electronics, a lot of time for your family). Personally I’m not really a fan of manipulating certain scenes and make people act like they’re less civilized then they really are (for instance with the harpoon) but I think I will actually make an exception for this one. He showed how Inuit people (used to) live and with that, made a beautiful portrait in capturing their spirit I think.

People have many elements to their lives. Very rarely if ever does the life of a person or culture can ever be interpreted in black and white. By Flaherty focusing on who these people were in a direction that displays to the audience a happy and survivalist culture he had to manipulated the footage he chose to take and already had shot. In essence it does matter because whenever you touch something with the intentions of changing something you have already decided to alter the storyline. But all history is “his-story” and that’s exactly Flaherty had done, he took this part of history in Nanook’s community and made it his for the people back home to see.

I don’t think it mattered that he manipulated scenes and characters because Flaherty was trying to catch the essence of the Inuit. He showed how different the conditions of life for the Inuit was compared to the average viewer and that the Inuit lived happily nonetheless. Flaherty seemed to think the Inuit people were a strong spirited group and that was what he portrayed.

Clearly he wanted his own perspective of the people rather than the perspective of the people themselves, but the project he sought to present was definitely already set up in his head before he began filming. Otherwise, he would have likely included the perspective of the people. Manipulation of scenes and of people has become the norm in today’s modern documentaries and “unscripted” series, but it proves that what we find normal wasn’t so then, at least we didn’t think it was.