FINAL

This past summer I had the wonderful experience of being the marketing intern at a company located in Austin called Open Arms. I will describe my experience through the expository mode, using photos and descriptive writing to explain both what I observed of others and my personal experience while working with this wonderfully diverse group of people. To begin with some background history Leslie, CEO of Open Arms, describes the company as a “social enterprise using the power of business to inspire social change. It is a humanitarian manufacturing company that creates its own brand of fashionable apparel as well as offering U.S.A-based manufacturing for other brands. Open Arms offers living wage employment to women war survivors, demonstrating the power of the human spirit and breaking the cycle of poverty this group so often experiences.” The products, including bags, skirts, and scarves, are all repurposed out of recycled t-shirt remnants. Combining ESL and enrichment classes with family-friendly hours, this meaningful work and living wage employment creates self-sufficiency and dignity for the women they employ.

When I walk into the office each morning I am greeted by a room full of happy, hardworking women from many different cultures. The Open Arms team is an amazing group of women and the general mood of the atmosphere in which we work is reflected through the beautiful clothing that the ladies create together, from recycled t-shirt material and discarded remnants. Each woman has a diverse background and a unique story to tell.

In the above picture is Odile. She is responsible for spontaneous dancing and singing and dancing that often breaks out in the workspace. Odile was born and raised in the Congo, she fled oppression on foot, walking every day for a year to reach neighboring Gabon. She arrived in Austin with her three daughters in 2010, leaving behind three sons. One of the things I enjoyed most about working at Open Arms is that the team is all in one room together everyday, like busy bee’s, each person working on a specific task. All of the unique noises in the room of conversations, sounds of the machines, music playing in the background, and sounds of the ESL students next door reading out loud, all seem to make up one rhythm to describe this powerful community. Often times, throughout the day, people in the building will just stop by to observe what goes on inside the space. Everyone who works around this group of inspiring people, can not help but fall into the enthusiastic and welcoming rhythm that is created when working together. The Open Arms team shares everything from knowledge, smiles, stories, and even lunches with one another. It is a very giving community and we all have a lot to be thankful for.

There are seven refugee women employed by Open Arms as of right now. Each women has a compelling story to tell. Michelle, Open Arms’ design intern has come up with some exciting new ideas for products. Raya, the production supervisor, works hard to teach the rest of the ladies how to create the new products. Though every task here differs, each team member has astonishing skill in what they do to contribute to Open Arms. Every day I learn more and more from the people I work with at Open Arms. Not only am I learning more about myself and the work I do, but I am also learning more about others and experiencing diverse cultural outlooks. It is interesting and so powerful to have all of these different aspects happening in one place at the same time.

This description of Open Arms reminds me a little of the expository documentary Nanook of the North. Flaherty observed the people in their natural habitat, while they worked, joked and even when conflict arose. Observing people in their work environment while contributing with the culture is an element associated with the expository mode. Most of the refugee women came from the deepest parts of Africa. Each and every one of these women have an amazing story to tell of how they survived their life before coming to America. After watching the expository documentary Stranger with a Camera, allowed me to realize the importance of reviewing and explaining the history of Open Arms. I have interviewed many of the Open Arms team members and though I can not reveal a lot of their stories for personal reasons, I will describe this group of women as a whole as very strong and I look up to each and every one of them.

In this photo essay, I strive to use pathos to persuade my audience about the atmosphere of Open Arms and how wonderful the organization is. As a writer, I also strive to use ethos in proving to my audience that I am credible and that I am being truthful in what I state. Most all of the photos I have taken are candid, action shots from when I was observing at work. The purpose of this documentation was to explain the cultural atmosphere of this organization and to describe the compelling stories of the refugee women. In explaining such, hopefully the reader gains a sense of appreciativeness as it is so easy to take each day for granite.  Every day was a new experience for me at Open Arms. Today, I keep in mind that no matter how culturally diverse people are from one another, we all smile in the same language.

Nichols describes anthropology through autobiography and ethnographic works of documentary (153). Autobiographical documentaries explain someoneʼs outlook on life or an experience. Ethnographic documentaries study a culture and participate in the society, gathering fieldwork. Ethnographic documentary types are nonfiction, as Nichols describes, however they do cater to the filmmakers perception or outlook on the culture/ situation allowing for persuasiveness. This documentary work caters to my view about my work experience with Open Arms. Though I have explained this experience using the expository mode of documentary, my documentary work also relates to the autobiographical mode that we have studied in class. Like viewing a piece of art, each person who studies a foreign culture will have different perspectives about the culture. It is up to the filmmaker to portray the culture or experience they studied as truthfully as possible. There is, however, room for persuasion when making these types of films. This documentary is about sharing my experience with the audience, from my point of view.

My experience with this organization has taught me so much and allowed me to grow as a person. Every new experience gives us to a chance to learn something and to participate in a cultural setting that perhaps we have not been in before. It was really neat to go to work each day and interact with women of all different cultures and backgrounds and to hear the amazing personal stories that they shared with me. Some of these women had spent over ten years in refugee camps before coming over to America. Some of them traveled for months through the wilderness to escape their past lives and to reach safety. I want to share with the audience the idea of happiness that was portrayed by these women. They are so happy each day to be here in America and take nothing for granted. These women made me remember to appreciate the little things in life. I also realized, from working in this environment, that it is not worth my time to dwell on the situations in my life that I can not change, but rather to appreciate and spend time on the things and people that I do love. Being in an environment with so many different cultures allowed me to experience all different aspects. All of the women I worked with have very different backgrounds than me, and even from each other, but from the day that I walked into my new work environment, I realized one thing, we all smile in the same language. If we can all smile with each other, common interests will follow.

Doc. Mode 3- What Do You See?

I am using this crazy piece of “artwork” to describe and explain the idea of individual development and perception of culture. Nichols describes anthropology through autobiography and ethnographic works of documentary (153). Autobiographical documentaries explain someone’s outlook on life or an experience. Ethnographic documentaries study a culture and participate in the society, gathering fieldwork. Ethnographic documentary types are nonfiction, as Nichols describes, however they do cater to the filmmakers perception or outlook on the culture/ situation allowing for persuasiveness.  The above picture is a piece of artwork created by many different hands. I started the original doodle and had left it out in the living room at my apartment. My friends, being creative too, decided to add to it each time they came over. Whenever my roommates and I had gatherings, someone was always adding something to the picture. Each person added their own ideas to the masterpiece and the above picture is the result. The picture has a lot of hidden meanings and expression of feelings within the clutter. Each person views this picture a little differently, especially those of us who have worked on it. This picture reminded me of how each person has a different outlook and idea about a certain culture or particular situation. Like viewing this piece of art, each person who studies a foreign culture will notice and have different perspectives about the culture while studying. It is up to the filmmaker to portray the culture they studied as truthfully as possible. There is however room for persuasion when making these types of films. For example, the documentary Super Size Me is clearly persuading the audience that fast food is not healthy to eat everyday. The filmmaker persuades through experiments and by stating facts. The documentary Stories We Tell, which we watched in class, was an autobiography about Sara Polly’s family. This documentary was explaining the way we tell stories about our lives. Polly did a good job of letting the story unravel itself and almost allowed her subjects to write the story for her. This artwork created by my friends and I reflects different perspectives and outlooks on life. It is a symbol of mixing culture and the idea that everyone sees situations a little differently. As you examine this piece of artwork, try to see drawings from different perspectives.

Since for this blog post we can choose our own topic, I have chosen to describe which documentary mode I have enjoyed studying the most this semester so far and relate it to modern documentaries that I have recently seen. I have enjoyed studying the expository documentary mode the best so far. This mode has the most films fall into this category. Some films we have viewed in class include Stranger with a Camera, The Corporation, and the Holocaust film we watched. In expository mode the director speaks directly to the viewer. I like documentaries because they are informative and when the film is over I feel that I have learned something. That is why I like this mode because I feel like it is still truthful, though some films can be biased. A few modern films that fall under this category that I have seen include Food Inc., the Earth documentaries by Nat Geo. and Super Size Me. I like these documentaries because logic supports the images being seen. There is voiceover by the “narrator” who is usually not ever seen. These documentaries express feeling and emotion to an issue, allowing the audience to form a perception on the matter. For example, in Super Size Me the filmmaker is explaining that eating McDonald’s every day for every meal is super unhealthy. The filmmaker hopes to persuade the audience into agreeing with his message about fast food in hopes to create awareness and change among society. Some critics question the ethics in making these films stating that these documentaries are too persuasive and “not allowing the audience to think for themselves.” I disagree with that idea because the documentary is made from the filmmakers perspective because they are trying to share their own idea with the public, by stating facts and showing real footage. Of course the filmmaker wants to persuade the audience and create awareness, that is why they felt the passion to create the film in the first place. It is up to the viewers whether they want to do more research on the topic or not after viewing a film like this. The audience should interpret the filmmakers perception through their own eyes, and not saying that the audience always should agree with the perspective of the filmmaker. Overall, I think that the expository mode of documentary is very effective and I have enjoyed learning about this style and relating that knowledge to critique documentaries that I have seen.

mobile

Nichols describes the participatory mode of documentary in which the filmmaker interacts with his or her social actors. The filmmaker participates in shaping what happens before the camera. I know the most common example of this is executed through interviews, but I wanted to take a little bit of a different approach and film my friends cat, Samantha, as the subject. One of the social actors is provoking the kitten with a toy to act in a certain way. Therefore, the cat is more interesting to the camera rather than the viewer just observing her. My approach reminds me of a mix between Nanook of the North and Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill. Obviously, this short clip and poor recording of Samantha does not compare to these two great documentary works. I was trying to capture Samantha in a time of happiness. Like the parrots and the inuits, Samantha the cat has been through difficult times as well. The kitten was abandoned, in poor health, and had no one to care for her. When my friend found Samantha, she was starving and her tail was in poor condition. My friend took Samantha in and cared for her, getting the abandoned kitten veterinary help. The short clip goes to show how happy Samantha is now, she has a family and people who truly care for her. For participatory mode, I had my friend tease the kitten with the toy, a game she actually enjoys very much. Though the kitten was being provoked for the video, she is usually this playful and I wanted to capture her in her natural playful state. I like to call this clip “kitten interview” because Samantha shows the audience how happy she is now to have a home and a family who cares so much about her.

The participatory mode as Nichols describes it is where the “filmmaker interacts with his or her social actors and participates in shaping what happens before the camera” (Nichols 151). This mode became popular around 1960 when new technology allowed for sync sound recording. An example of this type of documentary found most prevalent is the use of interviews and asking the subjects questions. The person filming is talking directly with the subject. The filmmaker interacts with, rather than observes, the subjects. For example, in Nannook of the North, Flaherity did not interact with the subjects at all. In the documentary Photographic Memory though, the filmmaker interacts with his son the whole time. Interaction in these films shifts from between the filmmaker and subject to viewer and material. Participatory mode is often described as the style that holds the most truth because it allows for observation and engagement. This allows the viewer to experience what it might be like for the filmmaker in a given situation and how the situation alters as a result (Nichols 182). Some other examples of this mode are often found in radio. Radio allows for interaction among people and allows the viewer to imagine what the situation looks like. The study of anthropology is common in participatory documentaries because the filmmaker can both interact by living among the people but also observe and study. The viewer watches how the filmmaker and subjects interact with each other. Participatory documentaries can involve ethics and politics like in Chronicle of a Summer. In this film, the camera engages how people react. The filmmaker puts subjects on the spot, asking “are you happy?” This is a great example of how the social actor changes when the filmmaker is involved and there is a camera in someone’s face. This mode is very interesting, engaging the audience, and very popular in documentary filmmaking.

Nichols describes the reflexive documentary mode as it “calls attention to the conventions of documentary filmmaking and sometimes of methodologies such as fieldwork or interview” (Nichole 151). This mode points out the methods involved in the filmmaking process within the actual film. This action calls formal vs. political attention to the filmmaking process. For example, in the film about the Vietnamese women, the audience gains awareness for a deeper level of thinking. The audience questions the form, content and thought of the filmmaker and how he is applying the process to the film itself. We may winder what it is like to live in this culture. This mode is also expressed in Stranger with a Camera because the audience considers the quality of the documentary itself, the processes. The filmmaker does this by shooting footage of footage being taken. The goal in this case is to aid the audience in their understanding of the process of construction in the film so that they can develop a sophisticated and critical attitude. The filmmaker uses this mode to capture authentic truth. In the Vietnamese woman culture film, the filmmaker seeks to catch the perspective from the cultures viewpoint. The audience feels very in touch and sympathetic to these people, even though we do not know them. This is also how viewers construct knowledge of parts of the world that we have not seen. Nichols describes two techniques used in this filmmaking mode, political and formal strategy. Formal strategy seeks to make the familiar strange and reminds the audience that how documentary works to persuade peoples ideas about the world, so that they represent the filmmakers views (Nichols 199). Political strategy reminds us how society works in accord with situations we find familiar that are often taken for granted (Nichols 199). The reflexive mode of documentary promotes truth and calls the viewers attention to the filmmaking process.

Reflexive and participatory modes of documentary both seek to heighten awareness from the viewers’ perspective so that they can gain appreciation to the filmmaking process. They are very similar modes and can often be confused. I think that most documentaries striving to use this style end up using qualities from both modes. Both exploit the filmmaking process so that audience can gain knowledge about subjects and work put into making the film. Films like this are usually successful, in my opinion, because the audience becomes so engaged and appreciates the work put into the film.

W.doc mode activity 1 open arms

This past summer I had the wonderful experience of being the public relations/ marketing intern at a company located in Austin called Open Arms. I will describe my experience through the expository mode, using photos and descriptive writing to explain both what I observed of others and my personal experience while working with this wonderfully diverse group of people. To begin with some background history Leslie, CEO of Open Arms, describes the company as a “social enterprise using the power of business to inspire social change. It is a humanitarian manufacturing company that creates its own brand of fashionable apparel as well as offering U.S.A-based manufacturing for other brands. Open Arms offers living wage employment to women war survivors, demonstrating the power of the human spirit and breaking the cycle of poverty this group so often experiences.” The products, including bags, skirts, and scarves, are all repurposed out of recycled t-shirt remnants. Combining ESL and enrichment classes with family-friendly hours, this meaningful work and living wage employment creates self-sufficiency and dignity for the women they employ.

When I walk into the office each morning I am greeted by a room full of happy, hardworking women from many different cultures. The Open Arms team is an amazing group of women and the general mood of the atmosphere in which we work is reflected through the beautiful clothing that the ladies create together, from recycled t-shirt material and discarded remnants. Each woman has a diverse background and a unique story to tell.

In the above picture is Odile. She is responsible for spontaneous dancing and singing and dancing that often breaks out in the workspace. Odile was born and raised in the Congo, she fled oppression on foot, walking every day for a year to reach neighboring Gabon. She arrived in Austin with her three daughters in 2010, leaving behind three sons. One of the things I enjoyed most about working at Open Arms is that the team is all in one room together everyday, like busy bee’s, each person working on a specific task. All of the unique noises in the room of conversations, sounds of the machines, music playing in the background, and sounds of the ESL students next door reading out loud, all seem to make up one rhythm to describe this powerful community. Often times, throughout the day, people in the building will just stop by to observe what goes on inside the space. Everyone who works around this group of inspiring people, can not help but fall into the enthusiastic and welcoming rhythm that is created when working together. The Open Arms team shares everything from knowledge, smiles, stories, and even lunches with one another. It is a very giving community and we all have a lot to be thankful for.

There are seven refugee women employed by Open Arms as of right now. Each women has a compelling story to tell. Michelle, Open Arms’ design intern has come up with some exciting new ideas for products. Raya, the production supervisor, works hard to teach the rest of the ladies how to create the new products. Though every task here differs, each team member has astonishing skill in what they do to contribute to Open Arms. Every day I learn more and more from the people I work with at Open Arms. Not only am I learning more about myself and the work I do, but I am also learning more about others and experiencing diverse cultural outlooks. It is interesting and so powerful to have all of these different aspects happening in one place at the same time.

This description of Open Arms reminds me a little of the expository documentary Nanook of the North. Flaherty observed the people in their natural habitat, while they worked, joked and even when conflict arose. Observing people in their work environment while contributing with the culture is an element associated with the expository mode. Most of the refugee women came from the deepest parts of Africa. Each and every one of these women have an amazing story to tell of how they survived their life before coming to America. After watching the expository documentary Stranger with a Camera, allowed me to realize the importance of reviewing and explaining the history of Open Arms. I have interviewed many of the Open Arms team members and though I can not reveal a lot of their stories for personal reasons, I will describe this group of women as a whole as very strong and I look up to each and every one of them.

In this photo essay, I strive to use pathos to persuade my audience about the atmosphere of Open Arms and how wonderful the organization is. As a writer, I also strive to use ethos in proving to my audience that I am credible and that I am being truthful in what I state. Most all of the photos I have taken are candid, action shots from when I was observing at work. The purpose of this documentation was to explain the cultural atmosphere of this organization and to describe the compelling stories of the refugee women. In explaining such, hopefully the reader gains a sense of appreciativeness as it is so easy to take each day for granite.  Every day was a new experience for me at Open Arms. Today, I keep in mind that no matter how culturally diverse people are from one another, we all smile in the same language.

Bill Nichols defines expository documentary mode as the mode that gives priority to the spoken word to convey the film’s perspective from a single, unifying source allowing the reader to better comprehend the combination of images with words (154). Expository documentary mode is the category in which most documentaries would fall into. The easiest way to recognize this mode is by determining voice. In expository documentary mode the narrator speaks directly to the viewer through voiceover, in which the audience usually does not see the speaker or narrator throughout the film. This mode focuses specifically on the impression of objectivity. Objectivity, meaning different modes, how things are organized, and how the filmmaker shapes the voice and feeling. Documentary is about the filmmaker’s perspective on the world.
The film Stranger with a Camera is a documentary that investigates the aftermath of the murder by Hobert Ison, of Canadian filmmaker Hue O’Connor. Director Elizabeth Barret films the documentary using expository mode. The narrator speaks directly to the viewer using voiceover to inform and persuade the audience. Expository documentary mode gives the narrator the role to explain or argue the film’s rhetorical content. Stories and statements are given through voiceover with images to illustrate the tone of the film. Using this mode, the filmmaker collects footage that functions to strengthen the spoken narrative. Expository documentary mode also executes a shift in visual tactics so that images are used as evidence to the voiceover. In Stranger with a Camera, the rhetorical element used in Pathos. The narrator states stories and statements that are true and emotional which persuades the audience to see the story through the filmmaker’s perspective. I liked the documentary Stranger with a Camera. I think it contributed a lot to modern day filmmaking in that it informs and persuades the audience from a rhetorical perspective, using Pathos, rather than telling the audience what to believe.
Stranger with a Camera also fits into the reflexive mode of filmmaking. A style that calls the attention to the conventions and methods of documentary filmmaking itself uses methodologies such as fieldwork or interviewing (154). The goal of this method is to aid the audience in their understanding of the process of construction in film so that the audience can develop knowledge for capturing authentic truth. This is portrayed in Stranger with a Camera when they show the audience where O’Connor was standing when the murder happened. In the documentary The Corporation, the tone is different because the voiceover states hard facts rather than telling a story to persuade the audience. Though both films do a good job of using elements of rhetoric, they are different regarding elements in persuasiveness.
The five elements of rhetoric are invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. Each of the five elements contributes to Nichols’ relation to voice. Invention, which is evidence or proof, supports the argument or position that the narrator uses to persuade the audience. Arrangement organizes parts of rhetorical speech to create balance or flow. An example of arrangement found in films is the use of images to support the voice. Style facilitates the documentary voice of tone and speech. Style uses tools to which to speak to the audience or convey expression. Memory is important for speech delivered on the spot. People in film use the element of memory to execute talking points or explain how something happened. Finally, the element of delivery expresses the nonverbal communication in the film. Delivery lets the audience know how the people in the film are feeling without any words being said. All of these different elements contribute to the expository documentary mode of filmmaking, which is the most popular category that most documentaries fall into.

Flaherty and Grierson are both very credible filmmakers from early documentary film history. Though Flaherty is known as the first “father of documentary,” both artists are seen as important pioneers or “fathers” of the industry. Flaherty first produced Nannook of the North, which appealed to a Hollywood audience and was a documentary film made for entertainment, outlining the intimacy of culture. In the Barnouw text, it is discussed that while Grierson admired Flaherty as the father of documentary, he often took a different approach to the industry. John Grierson’s determination was to “bring the citizen’s eye in from the ends of the earth to the story, his own story, of what was happening under his nose…the drama of the door-step” (Barnouw 85). Grierson’s mission focused on dramatizing issues and exploiting social issues in a meaningful way. One of Grierson’s favorite topics was the situation as a mandate to explore the entire role of communication in a modern society. Robert Flaherty was more involved in capturing the intimacy, communication between cultures, and way of life in documentary making the film more light hearted for the audience. He often uses reenactment and staged scenes, which some people argue about truth in using these techniques.
Flaherty is known for feature-length, close up portrait of a group of people, remotely located but familiar in their humanity. Grierson criticizes Flaherty’s approach calling it remote and primitive. For example, when Flaherty filmed Nanook in 1922, with no voiceover or commentary, the film was produced for a Hollywood audience. It was playful and enjoyable to watch because it outlined Inuit culture as American’s knew it. Flaherty writes about the film Nanook: “What I want to show is the former majesty and character of these people, while it was still possible, before the white man has destroyed not only their character, but the people as well” (Barnouw 45). Barnouw states that part of the satisfaction when watching the Nanook film lies in the fact the audience has been permitted to be an explorer and discoverer, like Flaherty himself. Flaherty includes the audience. Grierson would have taken a different approach, I suspect, by outlining the social issue of how the white man changed the culture for the Inuit’s or how they had a lack of food and supplies. This approach would have given the film a different feel, making the documentary more political to a modern issue. Grierson shows or teaches the audience about a social issue, where the film would have been more persuasive than intimate.
Grierson’s films appeal to a smaller audience, more “private groups.” For example, The Battleship Potemkin, forbidden in theaters by British censorship decision, was more issue- oriented and considered unfit for the public eye. On the other hand, Drifters filmed by Grierson was less obtrusive, more Flaherty style. Drifters brought to life the daily routine of workers and there was nothing doctrinally radical about it (89). The success of Drifters is what brought Grierson, a deviation from Flaherty, to find his new career. Grierson in the British filmmaking industry, focuses on personal matters for the audience. He tells his film crew that they are, “Propagandists first, filmmakers second” (90). Some major characteristics that are noticed in Grierson filmmaking is he dealt with impersonal social process; usually shorter film with the use of commentary or voice over that articulated a point of view. Flaherty, for example in filming Man of Aran, is known for a feature-length, close up portrait of a group of people, remotely located but familiar in their humanity.
Grierson critiques Flaherty’s filming technique in Man of Aran arguing that he ignored the social issue going on at the time, stating: “Flaherty ignored, amid a world economic crisis, the social context in which Aran islanders carried struggles” (99). Grierson would have fixated on a more modern approach and outlined the important issues going on in Aran at the time rather than focusing on an earlier period, which is what Flaherty did. This film can be compared to Grierson’s film Night Mail and Cole Face, in which he focused on the process of the cole miners life at the exact time, an account of the difficulties during the Depression. Returning to Great Britain, Grierson used film to build national morale to deal with the problems during the Great Depression.
John Grierson has changed or shaped the documentary genre by taking a more a realistic approach, reporting social issues rather than documentary for pleasure. Grierson makes his films more political reasons rather than for a Hollywood audience, which was more Flaherty’s style. Documentaties today are more informative, outlining a social issue rather than capturing the essence, beauty and intimacy of life, like Flaherty did. I think both filmmakers have contributed a great deal and devoted a perfect balance and example for documentary film today. I feel that filmmakers today can contribute aspects of both Grierson and Flaherty’s techniques to teach the audience about a social issue while also capturing a personal account, and intimate culture of the scene. This was portrayed well in modern day documentary The Act of Killing. The film both presented a social issue to the audience where scenes were very intense, but also showed the happiness of the culture, like when the families are all joking around together. Grierson and Flaherty have contributed an important balance of aspects to filmmaking in which modern day artists still use today.

The documentary Nanook of the North, was an interesting film by Robert Flaherty of Eskimos and their life as the American public perceived it, during the 1920’s. Through class discussion about this film, I have learned that Flaherty was doing his best to portray the actions and way of life of the original culture by portraying the Eskimos before the “innovative white man” introduced newer means of technology to them. Some may assume from the film that Flaherty was dumbing the culture down, or perceiving the culture as raw and not innovative.
Looking past this idea, the documentary allows us to recognize that Flaherty was striving to make a documentary of the Eskimo lifestyle in its original, traditional setting and culture. This related to idea discussed in the text that films allow us to perceive the world in a way that challenges the audiences’ assumptions. Flaherty challenged his audience by showing them a different part of the world where culture is much different at a time when other parts of the world did not know so much about the Eskimo lifestyle.
Flaherty documented, sometimes staged scenes, of how the Eskimo’s hunted, communicated, and survived in the cold Arctic Circle. The audience realizes that Flaherty staged scenes to make the Eskimo’s look like “dummies” in parts of the film. For example, Nanook, who was no dummy, is filmed in one scene biting a record, which was filmed for playfulness. The film was playful, intending to appeal to a Hollywood audience.
Flaherty challenges the audience portraying that the “white man has ruined the Eskimo culture.”
I found it interesting that Flaherty went to the Arctic Circle looking for mineral deposits and instead, came back with a documentary of Inuit lifestyle. The Eskimo culture was portrayed differently for the documentary. Flaherty presented Inuit culture as how it was before the white man came and “invaded.” Flaherty wanted to capture the Eskimo’s original culture and way of life before westernization. Nanook of the North strives to preserve ancient tradition and I feel that Flaherty did a great job of doing so. The documentary was both entertaining and informative and challenged the audiences’ perception of the Inuit culture and lifestyle.
Barnouw explains in the text that, “ reconstruction and fakes had an impressive record of success.” This statement explains how documentaries at the time were more for a Hollywood audience rather than for educational purposes. Flaherty used reenactments to better portray the Inuit lifestyle before the “technological advancements” that the white man introduced. Flaherty used a sense of realism, staging, and over acting of characters to reenact a lifestyle that was appealing and interesting to the Hollywood public.