#flaherty

[hilaryknightsoftheroundtable]

maggie flaherty with the double goggles on the pod

[steadystrongholdcascade]

Rain delay can't stop Mariners' march

[khevlfc]

[bigmack2go]

rewatching the twenty second of material that i have of sky flaherty other than newsies for the 72nd time❤️👄❤️

[ohmongird]

Nanook of the North (1922)

[attractivebaseball]

St. Louis Cardinals | Jack Flaherty - Pitcher #22

[helminadin]

Nanook of the north ...

It is inevitable not to relate personally to what we see on the screen. whether you hated it or loved it, it doesn't matter at the end when you found your connection you will start to build your opinion about/around it. With documentaries,  it is not easy for me to relate to what on the screen without understanding what was happening behind it. the narrative is incomplete I need more to truly build an opinion. Who are the movie makers? who paid for it? when it was filmed? why? among other questions, so whenever I got a chance to dig deeper I do. 

As for the anthropological documentaries, in my perspective, it is crucial to understand the circumstances around/behind the production. The researcher background, approach and many other factors can affect the final product” the film” and sometimes it made me question the credibility of the film. Sometimes what happened behind the camera is a completely different narrative waiting to be explored.  

Nanook of the north is a good example for incomplete narrative from my perspective. I’ve chosen to write my first blog about it because I had an argument with a friend regarding the hunting trip scenes whether it was realistic or just forced by Flaherty to make the narrative excited?!!!! i decided to rewatch the movie and take notes then compare it to Flaherty side of the story

“How I Filmed 'Nanook of the North' is the name of an article Flaherty wrote about the filming process. I remember how much I was excited the first time I read it because I got to know more about Flaherty's journey with Nanook, their relationship, the dynamics between the film crew including Flaherty himself and the locals. But it was disappointing for me when I was trying to connect the dots between what was going on in the field (from Flaherty's perspective) in return of what did he chose to include in the movie. Not to mention others who analyzed Flaherty’s work and added more exciting points to the narrative. so I ended up with a list of questions but I will leave two only to you all to answer: 

  Question one “ big aggle ” 

For the purpose of not writing 10 pages about Nanook, I will only focus my notices on one incident “ the hunting trip”  at the article Flaherty wrote “ The walrus hunt having proved so successful Nanook aspired to bigger things. The first of the bigger things was to be a bear hunt at Cape Sir Thomas Smith which lay some two hundred miles northward of us. "Here," said Nanook, "is where the she-bear den in the winter. I know, for I have hunted them there, and it seems to me that there we might get the big, big aggle”. 

Following this part, Flaherty talked about how much Nanook pictured and visualized the conflict scene with the bear. So other than just observing Nanook’s life. Nanook was actually discussing his narrative with Flaherty and was in control of what to show or not show. That raises a big question in my head “if creating specific circumstances which will lead to a conflict which becomes an essential point of the narrative or observation for filming purposes only can affect the credibility of the documentary?”

Question two “ We are in this together”

“ We forgot about bear hunting; for two and half weeks we tried for seals wandering from day to day along the broken ice foot of the Cape. In that interval, two small seals were killed and they were just enough to keep the dogs alive. For four days, at one time, we had no seal oil and our igloo was in darkness. The dogs were utterly weak and slept in the igloo tunnel. Whenever I had to crawl out of doors I would have to lift them to one side like sacks of flour for they were too weak and indifferent to move away. The irony of it all was that bears there were everywhere; four of them had passed within a thousand feet of our igloo one night but the dogs were too weak to bay them or bring them to a stand. My own food supply was nearing its fag ends. For days past I had been sharing it with the men. “

Well in the movie Flaherty pictured the journey differently. he removed himself from the equation to focus on the protagonist yet he was the main player and motivator for the journey to “make a big picture” how did that affect what we see in the movie?

At the end when you read about how he filmed the film you will discover that it is another movie.  I wanted to pose more questions but I have to run, I am not done with Nanook, still, a lot to say.

But I have to run now!

[fresh-new-yoik-watah]

sky posted this on his story and lemme tell you

I visibly cRINGED

this

This right here

oHohohohohoohohoohoho

No no my friend

As a German speaker, this really

Nope

nOpe

I can’t function after this