HW #1 (1)
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Moorpark College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
FTMA
Subject
Arts Humanities
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
Pages
5
Uploaded by ColonelArt1089
Nanook of the North
1.
Does Flaherty, the director intrude on the people’s lives? Why or why
not? Elaborate.
The director doesn’t intrude on people’s lives because Flaherty’s goal is to make
a documentary about Nanook and what he days in his everyday life. Nanook and
his family welcome him to document their lives, so it wouldn’t be considered
“intruding.” A scene such as the walrus scene, though, I feel Nanook wasn’t fully
comfortable with him being there.
2.
Name 5 “everyday” incidents that are depicted in the film? What is the
point of each of them?
Five everyday incidents are Nanook using moss for fire fuel, putting seal skin on
the kayaks, walking the far distance to the lake, going to the trading post, and the
hunting they do. Showing Nanook and his family and how they function by doing
these things normally is important in showing the way they live on a daily basis.
They use what they are given in nature from natural resources, rather than being
able to easily acquire materials like society has us do. In order to have
transportation, Nanook and his family must carry the heavy kayak and preserve it
with the seal skin. To prepare for the approaching conditions of winter, they barter
animal pelts. For hunting, he fishes even without bait, and he hunts large,
dangerous animals like walruses.
3.
Describe the scene in which Nanook builds the igloo? 5 sentences
minimum.
Nanook first looks for a good area to begin building the home. He is searching for
properly packed snow that is deep and solid. He calls up his family for help and
uses his saliva on his knife to be able to efficiently cut snow. While cutting snow,
Nyla and Cunayou chunk the snow to keep warm and keep out the cold air.
Nanook moves the last blocks of snow into the right position and makes a door.
He grabs a sheet of ice to use as a window.
4.
Arguably, why is this film exploitative of the natives?
This film is exploitative since Flaherty was able to make money from the film,
which didn’t go to the inuit people. He profited off of it and didn’t give any
proceeds to the natives. He used other people’s lives and obvious struggles for
his own gain.
5.
Describe the seal scene? 5 sentences minimum.
The seal is called “Ogjuk.” The seal must come up for air and uses the funnel to
breath. Nanook waits for the right time when he spots the funnel. Nanook gets
dragged on the ice with the weight of the seal which makes him call for
assistance. Nanook is able to make a hole in the ice and bring the seal out of
water.
6.
What did you make of the film?
I enjoyed the film and found the lifestyle of Nanook and his family interesting. I
always wondered what it would be like to only depend on nature to live, so this
film presents it well. I don’t love how Flaherty didn’t give any proceeds to the inuit
people when he uses their life in his documentary.
7.
How do you think audiences would have reacted to it in 1922?
I think audiences would be shocked to know that other people live this way.
They’d probably think it was all acted out and staged rather than it being actual
proof of other people living that certain way. Back then, I think audiences would
find the inuit people weird since at the time, discrimination was much more
common and accepted.
8.
In what ways does it still seem fresh. (I think the easy affection among
Nanook's family is appealing in a timeless way.)
It seems fresh through Nanook’s family’s affection since, for example, the kids
playing and messing around while Nanook is working on the home. This shows
that everyone, including the kids, used whatever they had to live their life and
enjoy it. The affection shown would make an audience feel touched and attracted
to the simple and humble lifestyle these people lived.
9.
How did you evaluate the "truth” of the images you were presented
with? Flaherty claimed that it was necessary to "lie” in order to tell a
"higher truth." What do you think he meant by this?
The “truth” can be misleading in the film. Nanook having a way to easily call up
the family while hunting the seal is an example. I think hunting a seal in those
circumstances would’ve been much more difficult to do. Also, the scene where
Nanook’s son has a stomach ache and is given caster oil to help it is another
example. Right when he takes it in, he appears better instantly, seems off too.
These types of things are what Flaherty is referring to as a way to tell a “higher
truth.” He was able to present a higher truth by allowing things to happen at the
perfect time, in the best way possible. It covers up the true difficulty of what these
challenges would actually make you face.
Nichols
1.
What 3 assumptions are made about documentaries?
Three assumptions are that documentaries are about true reality and that they
are about something that really took place. Nichols says, “documentary films
speak about actual situations or events and honor known facts; they do not
introduce new, unverifiable ones.” (Nichols 24) Second assumption is that they
are always about real people, and the last is that documentaries tell stories about
what happens in real society. All of the assumptions revolve around how
documentaries are a reality, not a fiction.
2.
What is the difference between movies like
Monster
and
Schindler’s List
in comparison to docs?
The difference between the movies compared to other docs is the story the
filmmaker even if the film is loosely based on real events. For example, the
movie Schindler’s List isn’t told by Oscar Shindler, rather its told by director
Steven Spielberg.
Monster
doesn’t depict Aileen Wuornos playing herself in the
film, but it’s instead a different person.
3.
What is mentioned about indexicality? Why is this important for
documentaries?
Indexicality refers to the way the photographic image and recording sound
replicate what it is we take to be the visual qualities of the world. It refers to the
way we interpret an image with sounds of a scene. How the image corresponds
with what it represents.
4.
“Power and responsibility reside in …” (finish the sentence). What is
meant here?
“…knowing; the use we make of what we learn extends beyond our engagement
with documentary films to our engagement with the historical world that such
films represent.” (Nicholas 28) There is a lot to learn about life that goes beyond
what we find in documentaries.
5.
When you get into an argument with someone you care about tell me
how you act just like a documentary filmmaker. Think: Interpretation.
One acts resentful and sympathetic to the other individual as they care for their
well-being. One must prove their side or claim, but also show understanding for
their loved one. Imagine their feelings and feel what they feel.
6.
What do documentaries spark in the viewer? There is a specific word I
am looking for...
Documentaries spark curiosity in the viewer based on what it’s about. It provides
most information on a subject, but can allow the viewer to seek more in depth
knowledge on the same topic.
Faking What? Making a Mockery of A Documentary
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
1.Why/how is documentary already a fake of sorts?
Because "its claims to capturing reality have never yet proven fully authentic,
definitive, or incontestable". (Lebow 223).A documentary, according to Lebow, is
something of a fake because its assertions that it captured reality have never
been proven to be accurate. Although Nanook of the North, for instance, can be
regarded as a documentary, its authenticity has been disproven.
2. Does Lebow believe that “mockumentary” authorizes the truth of
documentary? Why or why not? Elaborate.
Lebow claims that the "Mocumentary" does authorize the documentary's
accuracy. Labow writes “they can efficiently serve to authorize documentary as
the proper nonfictive model, from which they then depart.”. (Lebow 223). A
documentary's goal is to demonstrate that the events depicted are true,
non-fiction events that happened.
3. How does the term “fake doc” further the binary between real and fake?
The term “fake doc” confirms that the documentary itself is “real” or authentic/
genuine. The term affirms to its audience that the doc is not fake, for example
Shindlers List or Monster. Lebow writes “Fake doc needlessly concedes that
documentary itself is “real” or at least authentic (the genuine article, i.e., not
fake), while my hope is that Mockumentary Might more successfully attenuate, if
not ultimately destabilize, the credibility of documentary by, if you will, mocking
the very concept at its core” (Lebow 224).
4. What is verisimilitude and why is this term important for Film Studies?
In order for the audience to understand whats going on and believe the film, the
world presented must be believable. Lebow writes “verisimilitude is . . . central
[to] the documentary film just as much as and perhaps more than for the fiction
film. The world presented must be believable, it must be like what we expect the
world to be, in order for the film to sustain our belief in its claim to reality.”( Lebow
229). Lebow also writes “documentary’s realist pretension, its verisimilitude, is
subject to highly conservative, normative codes of reality.” (Lebow 229).
5. How does Lebow support her claim that the doc AND the mock are one
and the same?
Lebow supports her claim that doc and mock are one and the same by analyzing
verisimilar representational techniques. These techniques being scripting, acting,
reenacting, and staging. Lebow also claims that documentary cannot be
historically prior to mock. Lebow writes “Mockumentary and documentary are not
merely coincident identical twins separated at birth they are, in their origins, if no
longer in their present day effects, one and the same.” (Lebow 232).
6. What does Zizek mean when he states that the Real is inaccessible?
According to Zizek the “Real” is only an unattainable substance of peoples
fantasy. Zizek writes that the “Real” is “pulsing of the presymbolic substance”.
(Lebow 233). Essential the real is a projection of our fantasy that we humans
cannot access directly. The “Real” is not anything.
7. What is the final bold claim made by Lebow?
According to Lebow, the final bold claim is reality itself is a “Mockumentary”.
Lebow writes “reality itself is a mockumentary, for which there is no “Doc.” If we
concede my point that the true objective of both forms lies beyond (the
nonetheless impossible goal of) representing reality, to actually achieving a
glimpse of the Real.” Lebow concludes with “mockumentary is perhaps the truer
documentary form” (Lebow 236).