"Nanook of the North" at 100 Years
Can the Canadian Nanook Centennial Committee do more than apologize for what came next?
Photo credit: Hanging the 100 Anniversary banner at the Inukjuak airport – May 31, 2022 (K. French). Nanook Centennial Project collaborators in Inukjuak.
[Warning: some images in this article are disturbing.]
Nanook of the North (1922) is the first documentary film, establishing the field of visual anthropology by its producer, Robert Flaherty. The documentary purported to capture the lives and customs of a distinct people, the Inuit of Unkjuak in northern Quebec, Canada, and a couple, Nanook and Nyla, and their family.
The Canadian Nanook Centennial Committee is commemorating this anniversary and one of the events is a seminar which nicely summarizes the conflict surrounding this documentary:
To mark the centenary of Nanook of the North (1922), this seminar considers the legacy of one of the most important landmarks of documentary film history along with screening. What started as a collaborative effort of Robert Flaherty and the Inuit of Inukjuak (ᐃᓄᒃᔪᐊᒃ) in northern Quebec, Canada, eventually launched Flaherty’s career as the “father” of documentary film. Nanook started out with a hugely popular commercial release and decades followed of celebratory praise for the brilliance of its cinematography and the extraordinary film-making process. However, the film has also become a lightning rod for critique and debate because of its “faked scenes”, imperial approach, paternalism and racial stereotypes that misrepresent the Inuit people and their way of life.
With so much written about Nanook, there is one glaring absence in film scholarship that has yet to be adequately addressed. Flaherty was only a visitor amongst the Inuit who stayed for several years, fathered at least one child, then left to make an illustrious film career elsewhere and never returned. However, many of the Inuit of Inukjuak, including Flaherty’s direct descendants, faced forcible relocation by the Canadian Government, alienation in residential schools and decades of hardship, whilst Nanook the film was being celebrated. 1
While governments’ duplicity with indigenous people is not surprising, the intentional evil associated with Canada’s removal of the very people portrayed in Flaherty’s career-making documentary, still stuns. In 1953 through 1955, Canada was in a political conflict with ownership of the northern territories with the U.S. which had established stations in the arctic during World War II. Fear of encroachment led Canada to forcibly populate the “High Arctic” to ensure it would have strong Canadian claims. They saw that displacing Inuit people from their traditional lands would achieve that purpose and allow them to take the traditional lands. Making blatantly false claims to coerce this displacement was the evil that followed. Those claims included the promise of an abundance of wild game like caribou and musk ox that would allow the Inuit to return to their traditional lifestyles; and if they were unhappy, they could return in two years. Both turned out to be false, and the lies were knowing. The game was depleted and the government refused to pay for anyone to return at the end of two years.
In order to control the Inuit and force them to stay in one place, rather than to move during traditional seasonal hunting, the Canadian government engaged in more evil. The RCMP slaughtered the Inuit families’ sled dogs which meant they were unable to travel. (Warning: this image is disturbing.) These dogs were an important part of every family and it was emotionally devastating to have them slaughtered. Of note, Robert Flaherty, in Nanook of the North, warmly portrayed the family’s puppy in a scene with the family traveling across the bay in their kayak.
Photo credit: https://www.ctvnews.ca/quebec-recognizes-effects-of-sled-dog-killings-on-inuit-1.680928
In 1944, Canadians began an “eskimo system of identification” (around the same time Germany created the yellow star tracking system for Jewish people). (Eskimo is considered a perjorative.) This physical tag was made of leather etched with a number. This dehumanizing system aided the Canadian mindset that the Inuit could be moved at will for political purposes for Canada.
In Canada’s zeal to populate the high arctic they further coerced families to move by letting them believe this was the only way their families could stay together. Instead of honoring that small commitment, Canada divided families at the first port of call. They were so distraught that families cried in distress, and even their dogs were crying.2
Conditions were horrendous. The kind of conditions needed to build igloos did not exist in this new area. With none of the familiar game like caribou and musk ox, they had to resort to killing polar bears and seals. They were forced to seek food from the garbage at the near by military base. If they were caught, their homes were searched and anything they had “stolen” was also confiscated.
It was not until the 1970s and 1980s that families began to return at their own expense. In 1988, the Canadian government finally acknowledged their obligation to pay for the return of the displaced Inuit families. In 1999, a new province was created from these territories called Nunavut. The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act of 1993 recognized the aboriginal title of Inuit who occupied the lands and provided for their co-management of natural resources there.3 A step toward self-governance.
An investigation was conducted in 2006 by the Canadian federal government into the dog slaughter of the 1950s and 60s. The killing of these dogs was purportedly for “public safety” to cover their genocidal policies and the RMCP were cleared of any wrong doing in 2011.4
Robert Flaherty became the “father” of documentary film. The Inuit of Inukjuak were exploited and displaced from their homelands, families were separated and dogs were slaughtered.
I cannot say on this 100th Anniversary that wrongs have been addressed and acknowledged, but at least there is a small beginning. A small token, but perhaps instead of simply naming Robert Flaherty the father of documentary he should share co-father status with Nanook, but also using his real name Allakariallak. Nyla, his wife’s real name was Maggie Nujarluktuk, and was not even his wife, but the common law wife of Flaherty.5 Two years after release of the film, Nanook died, probably from tuberculosis he contracted from visitors like Flaherty.
To watch Nanook from the North (1922) is to remember its context in Canadian genocidal policies, but important to appreciate Nanook and Nyla. Documentary cannot help itself from being intrusive into people’s lives, and to the extent Flaherty staged scenes of Nanook’s life, perhaps it was less intrusive. I would like to think this staging gave Nanook at least some control over how he was portrayed.
That hope was dashed with one of the staged scenes. A scene involving a pathetic comic setup by Flaherty that was meant to make Nanook look ignorant about how a gramaphone worked, is cringeworthy. He set up this scene knowing that Nanook already knew about gramaphones.6
I am a documentary filmmaker and if I am to be honest, I feel I got glimpses of Nanook through this documentary. However, you cannot really know him at all without knowing the genocidal government policies that are the context for this time when this documentary was made and the times that followed.
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/rai-film-seminar-revisiting-nanook-at-100-years-tickets-475153987367
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/inuit-high-arctic-relocations
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-28.7/FullText.html
https://www.ctvnews.ca/quebec-recognizes-effects-of-sled-dog-killings-on-inuit-1.680928
https://www.afi.com/news/nanook-of-the-north-afi-catalog-spotlight/
see https//youtu.be/UqEIJM5TghY