I really liked their uplifted spirit despite their living conditions. There’s also a scene at a trading post, where the “white man” introduces a gramophone to Nanook, who then attempts to eat the vinyl. From casting photogenic Inuit people as the ‘Nanook family’ to capturing the harpoon hunting tactics (the Inuit by this time have exchanged harpoons for rifles), there’s lot of inauthentic elements in this proto-documentary (the seal Nanook fights with was actually dead). One of those films you wanted to know what happend after it ended. Though it may have been criticized for partly being staged, capturing the things that Flaherty did with the ‘equipment’ he had at the time was truly amazing! Flaherty told us a story that is still interesting after more than 80 years. I feel it gives people a greater appreciation for what they have today. Nanook of the North is a pioneer of documentaries. So much respect I have for Flaherty. Because the documentary is a silent film, I was at frist concerned I would not enjoy nor be able to remain attentive of the information being presented. Comments: My first impression of Nanook of the North was that it was going to be boring. It showed how they made their living off the land, hunting seals and walruses with a spear, rope, and other handmade hunting weapons. While I was researching online for the answers to our homework, I ran across a lot of thoughts regarding how much ‘reality’ was actually present in the film. It was made in a way as to make it seems that Nanook (Allakariallak)’s daily life was so much more harsh than it is in real life. I greatly enjoyed watching “Nanook of the North.” At times, I found myself so thoroughly captivated by the film, that I completely forgot that these events took placed 100 years ago. I see a different style of life that I never thought that excited. Reference this. Not to mention the extremely cold conditions that they had to endure. But at the time period that this was filmed, it was for their survival so I understand why it was shown and because of that my opinion changed to like the documentary. Robert Flaherty who made Nanook believed that the Inuit people of that time had a […]. I thought this movie was amazing. There’s just something about learning the struggles of others and seeing them succeed that helps me respect them more. A lot of people today may criticize the way he had some things staged, but he was trying to stay true to the reality of the situation while still finding ways to make it entertaining. Flaherty had to overcome a lot to film this and in this case, I don’t fault him for taking those liberties. I believe there was an original score written for the film. One of those films that have been able to stand the test of time. I understand why it is so popular and it is a shame how it got negative publicity on how he shot the movie. The film itself was almost taken in a fire, but survives to teach us about the essence of human nature. According to Charlie Nayoumealuk, who was interviewed in Nanook Revisited (1990), "the two women in Nanook – Nyla (Alice [?] It was very cool to see the lives of the Inuit people though some of them were stage still accurately portrayed their way of life. He would attempt to portray the type of life they lived before the Europeans came to that area. For me, ” Nanook of the North” was an amazing, heart warming experience. I feel that there’s a shock factor for modern audiences to the hunting scenes that back in the day seemed routine. But it makes it difficult to trust documentaries, because who knows what the filmmakers are staging. Being a filmmaker I understand why Flatherty did some staging.