Nanook of the North

TW: Discussion of racist/stereotypical presentations

Overall: How do you talk about a film like this?

I've head the name "Nanook of the North" since childhood. Usually some character in a work would be jokingly nicknamed Nanook and I learned that it was some reference to an old movie. The only reference I came across in recent years was from the Legend of Korra, in the form of "The Adventures of Nuktuk: Hero of the South". Where LoK sort of pokes fun at the film, I think it might actually be a good reference for me to check back with in addressing the film's interplay between Flaherty (the director) and Allakariallak (The Inuk star of the film, whose character is named Nanook).

That's a starting point right there, of course - the fact that the film is presented as a documentary is in many ways laughable. The character of Nanook is not real. He is an amalgamation of various Inuit half-truths presented in a manner similar to how some members of the Maasai partake in tourist attractions today. In the 1920's when Nanook was filmed, the Inuit were using rifles and had begun integrating western clothes into their lives. Allakariallak knew what a gramophone was, and didn't need to be told. However, therein lies the rub, I think. Nanook isn't Allakariallak, and this film, though it purports a documentarian stance, is mostly a fictionalized account of a fictional person's life.

There are tons of ethics questions to unpack here. On the one hand, indigenous peoples being presented as ignorant of western society is damaging and a real ugly way to go about making a film. On the other hand, I have to remember that Allakariallak was a star. As far as I know, he and the other people in the film were not forced to do any of the things their characters did - they were cast and paid actors who at the very least were actually Inuit people and not white folks in facepaint.

The film's narrative is almost entirely fabrication - Allakariallak did not die of starvation while hunting two years after production, as the film suggests--he died of natural causes in his home. The igloo that is built was not used for filming interior shots, as the camera could not fit inside. There are rumors that the scene in which Allakariallak wrestles a seal on the other end of a rope actually had no seal on the other end. The film is not a documentary in any "let the cameras roll" sense. It's an ethnographic film, that like an ethnography, purports to make claims about a population based on some minor observation and storytelling techniques. I'd really be interested in hearing various perspectives on this film, as I imagine there are plenty. I think for me the most troubling aspects of the film are the use of the term "e*****" to refer to these people, and the killing of various live animals that took place as a part of the filming. I generally don't like when live animals are used for film narrative purposes, and especially not when they're hunted as a "documentarian" venture. In terms of representation, though, I don't know that it's the worst representation I've seen. It's got its problems, but there is a measure of reassurance in the casting of actual Inuk people.

I realize as I write this that there's not much I can say by way of the film's "plot." It mostly follows the character of Nanook in the daily life of his family. They go about trading, hunting, building an igloo, and trying to survive. There is no real antagonist, except perhaps the elements, and the film doesn't really have a climax as much as it does a final scene in which Nanook's dogs begin fighting one another (ugh) and Nanook settles it down. His family is then unable to start building an igloo because it is too late, but they find an abandoned one to bunker down in for the night.

So I think for documentaries I'm mostly just going to do commentary and avoid plot synopses as I make my way through these collections... so then, like I said at the beginning, let's talk about Korra.

In The Legend of Korra, there's a sub-plot that crops up throughout seasons 2 and 3 surrounding the character of Bolin who becomes a "mover" star in a serial called "The Adventures of Nuktuk: Hero of the South" and while it's obviously a play on Nanook I can't help but draw some wider parallels between the production of Nanook and the production of The Legend of Korra.

Nanook is fake. Allakariallak was a movie star who played a character named Nanook. In the same way, Nuktuk is fake, played by a mover star named Bolin. But let's abstract this a bit further. Bolin is fake. P.J. Byrne is an actor who was cast in the role of an asian-coded character by two white directors. These two directors take potshots at the idea of appropriation and anachronism that plays into the making of the Nuktuk serials, while themselves creating a story which loosely plays on folklore and various non-white cultures as viewed through a white western lens. I mean, even the voice acting, although including some notable names (including Jason Isaacs as Zhao) is largely absent of people of color, especially when compared to another animated property that came out half a decade earlier and featured a non-white cast of characters, Disney's Mulan.

What am I trying to get at here? I'm not exactly sure, I guess. I suppose that if I have a point it's that I'd be hesitant to go after Nanook of the North as an antiquated, harmful, and racist piece. I mean, certainly these things are in it, don't get me wrong, the fact that they use the word "e*****" is point enough, but I don't really think that it's fair for modern audiences to posture as though our own media properties have undergone some great leap forward with regard to how non-white actors are cast and live action people of color are presented on film.

I'd be perfectly willing to hear other perspectives with regard to this topic, but I'm hesitant of inviting some kind of flame war... I may very well be overlooking some crucial analyses that have been done on Nanook over the years that could shed some new light on the topic, this was just sort of where my mind went upon viewing it. A film which seems to say more about the filmmakers and what they consider uncivilized (albeit admirable in some way). Which, ironically, is set against films like Haxan and what 1920s culture considered civilization.