This blog is in the process of transforming... from a journal of travel across the country into a journal of travel across the landscape of film. And, the theme remains, Tripping over Utopia, as there are few places in the twenty-first century where ideas can be boundlessly explored and actions can be ideal without restrictions.


Originally:
The purpose of this trip was to begin gathering and processing ideas for my master's thesis that I began in the fall of 2007. As my mom and I traveled across the mid-western United States, my hope for this trip was to discover a sense of the landscape and environment that became the receptacle for several optimistic realizations of/attempts at Utopia. The term or name for such a paradise on earth, as coined by London lawyer Thomas More in 1516 in his text Utopia, can be translated as a derivation of the Greek ou (not) and topos (place), yet the word also is somewhat of a pun in that the "U" might refer to the Greek eu (good) as well. Thus, Utopia could be literally translated as "no place" that might also imply a "good place." As none of these experimental colonies of nineteenth-century America remain extant, perhaps this is a most appropriate term for their current or even destined state. Their idealistic aspirations, however, cannot be easily discarded as irrelevant.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Nanook of the North

Even among its apparent success by the shear commonality of names and phrases from Nanook of the North, I learned of this film only through a reference made in an article about a movie made forty years later. Although I had heard "Nanook" several times previously (was it in Chocolat...did Juliet Binoche's daughter name her imaginary kangaroo, Nanook?), I did not realize that this was a person's name and not just any person's name. Nanook is the name of a man that is the protagonist of a movie that has been labeled as the first documentary feature. Certainly, being the first, Flaherty did not intend to create this genre--now a near-lonely, dissident-sustaining ingredient in a homogenous mixture of contentment and luxury. Nor did he intend to create the sort of ethnographic telescope through which the other is so easily distanced. Still, even in all good intentions to bring to the western world a view of Inuit life, Flaherty's edited series of footage from the years he lived with Nanook's family in northeastern Canada fails to be the missing link he hoped it could be. Watching the television short that featured his widow, referred to only as Mrs. Robert Flaherty, I learned his intention was to bring the spirit of "these peoples" to the world, to establish connections that superseded culturally established norms and to welcome the authenticity of the smile.




While I found myself engaged in the drama of hunting seals, fish, and walruses and awed by the dexterity and efficiency of Nanook's igloo building skills, I remained at a distance from him and his family, viewing, almost voyeuristically, his daily actions. How could I continue to watch? Yet, if I didn't watch, how could I know? Instantly, I was torn by one of the thousands of contradictory questions I continue to face, all with the same basic clash of principle: the (modern) pursuit of knowledge against the (post-colonial) understanding of the anti-humanitarian consequences of that very pursuit. These feelings coelesced as Mrs. Robert Flaherty described her husband as an "explorer" who "discovered" Nanook and this ancient way of life. Of course, with such language we can only assume he has visually staked claim of this life, but after watching Nanook build the igloo in less than an hour (according to Flaherty), I don't want to "unknow" this.




Learning further that Flaherty had staged much of this "documentary," I cannot say that I am surprised. Not even the name, "Nanook," is accurate. Of course, to give him the benefit of the doubt, he was not making a "documentary," but a feature film for distribution in movie houses--for entertainment. Nevertheless, I cannot agree with his "desire to preserve a sense of ancient traditions before it was too late." This, I suppose, helps me to understand more that nagging sensation as I watched the film... something is unfair. I should not dispose of the facts that Flaherty carried with him a developing kit and a projector so that Nanook and his cast of a family (I say that because they were indeed cast for the parts) reviewed the footage daily and provided critical feedback for future shooting. As with any situation deserving of time spent contemplating its effects and causes, it would be ridiculous to point fingers at Flaherty as some invasive monster. Nor do these thoughts elevate this minute discussion to utopian expectations of harmony and equality. Rather, as with any film worth watching, it raises more questions than it can put to bed... continuously... no matter the condition of humanity, be it ancient, modern, or post-colonial.

0 comments

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)