Nanook and Menand

I love Menand’s description of the one thing all documentaries have in common: “they show you what was not intended for you to see.” The irony of this is that the subjects are exposed to you in such a way that you still are not seeing what is not intended for you to see. This largely has to do with the bias in documentaries that is so clear, it almost tricks you into believing that it is the perspective you should agree with. Menand discusses the difference that between the “preference for the off-camera” and “officialdom.” While it is easier to feel pity or love for those who are not used to being exposed to a camera, filmmakers will go to greater lengths to show those familiar with camera exposure in a less flattering light.

While I agree with Menand’s description of the average filmmaker, I found his analysis of Nanook of the North a little over the top. While it’s deceiving that Flaherty staged so much of his documentary by doing things like building a camera-friendly igloo, Flaherty is honest in his intentions. Menand even says that what Flaherty wanted to show is “the former majesty and character of these people, while it is still possible--before the white man has destroyed not only their character, but the people as well.” Flaherty’s admittance of his goal as showing the former character of the Inuit people nearly negates his deceitful tactics. Had he been making the argument that those filmed were still walrus hunting with harpoons, it would be a different story. The disclaimer that Nanook and his family were portraying traditions that have since been abandoned makes me think Menand needs to cut Flaherty some slack.