― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 19:04 (twenty years ago) link
― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 19:05 (twenty years ago) link
Reference Library: Encyclopedia
Main Page | See live article | Alphabetical index
Documentary filmAn incredibly broad category of cinematic expression, traditionally, the only common characteristic to all documentary films is that they are meant to be non-fiction films. The French used the term to refer to any non-fiction film, including travelogues and instructional videos. The earliest "moving pictures" were by definition documentary. They were single shots, moments captured on film, whether of a train entering a station, a boat docking, or a factory of people getting off work. Early film (pre-1900) was dominated by the novelty of showing an event. These short films were called "actualities." Very little storytelling took place before the turn of the century, due mostly to technological limitations: cameras could hold only very small amounts of film; many of the first films are a minute or less in length.With Robert J. Flaherty's Nanook of the North in 1922, documentary film embraced romanticism; Flaherty went on to film a number of heavily staged romantic films, usually showing how his subjects would have lived 100 years earlier and not how they lived right then (for instance, in Nanook of the North Flaherty does not allow his subjects to shoot a walrus with a nearby shotgun, but has them use a harpoon instead, putting themselves in considerable danger).
Some of Flaherty's staging, such as building a roofless igloo for interior shots, was done to accommodate the filming technology of the time. In later years, attempts to steer the action in this way, without informing the audience, have come to be considered both unethical and contradictory to the nature of documentary film. On the other hand, both the story line and content of any documentary are imposed by the filmmaker.
Amazon.com description:
Editorial ReviewsAmazon.com essential videoRobert J. Flaherty, who wrote, directed, produced, shot, and edited this landmark picture, will forever be remembered as the godfather of documentary filmmaking. While this landmark 1922 production, shot on the northeastern shore of Hudson Bay, isn't a true documentary by contemporary conventions, it remains the first great nonfiction film. With the help of Nanook and his friends and family, Flaherty undertook the mission of re-creating an Eskimo culture that no longer existed in a series of staged scenes. Nanook ice fishes, harpoons a walrus, catches a seal, traps, builds an igloo, and trades pelts at a trading post, all captured by Flaherty's inquisitive camera. Though he presents a "happy" culture bordering on primitive innocence (Nanook and his family were in reality quite westernized), his loving portrait is anything but condescending. Ultimately Flaherty shares his tremendous respect and awe for a culture that has learned to not just survive but thrive in such an inhospitable environment. On a purely visual level the film is a beautiful work of cinema, an understated drama in an austere, unblemished landscape of snow and ice. With unerring simplicity and directness, Flaherty re-creates the details and rhythms of a culture long gone and gives the world a glimpse.
review from Silent Film Sources:
Nanook of the North (1922) R E V I E W 1922. 6 reels. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revillon Freres present NANOOK OF THE NORTH. A story of life and love in the actual arctic. Produced by Robert J. Flaherty F.R.G.S. Pathepicture. Opening title: The mysterious Barren Lands- desolate, boulder-strewn, wind-swept- illimitable spaces which top the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Produced for video by David Shepard. Nanook of the North was the first of Robert J. Flaherty's romantic depictions of man's dignified perseverance in combating a malevolent nature. Flaherty is often called "the father of the documentary", and he did make the first theatrical documentary feature with Nanook. But that fact does not do justice to the humanism and the technical brilliance that makes his best works -- Nanook, Man of Aran and Louisiana Story -- beautiful and enduring.
imdb:
Nanook of the North (1922) Directed byRobert J. Flaherty
Writing credits Robert J. Flaherty
Genre: Documentary (more)
Tagline: A story of life and love in the actual Arctic. (more)
Plot Summary: Documents one year in the life of Nanook, an Eskimo (Inuit) and his family. Describes the trading, hunting... (more)
Shall I go on? Googling gets old.
― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 19:06 (twenty years ago) link
― The Devil's Triad (calstars), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 19:06 (twenty years ago) link
x-post
An IMDB entry for it says documentary - OK, IMDB also lists Häxan as a doc. Is Häxan a documentary? An Amazon review, a dictionary reference that includes the line "In later years, attempts to steer the action in this way, without informing the audience, have come to be considered both unethical and contradictory to the nature of documentary film."
None of these show a consensus of opinion on Nanook that lets you use it and its methods as a standard. (Because that consensus does not exist.)
― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 19:10 (twenty years ago) link
I think your error is in assuming that a documentary is about accounting history. Documentary != history book.
― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 19:14 (twenty years ago) link
― deanomgwtf!!!p%3Fmsgid%3D4581997 (deangulberry), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 19:17 (twenty years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 19:26 (twenty years ago) link
― The Devil's Triad (calstars), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 19:26 (twenty years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 19:27 (twenty years ago) link
I'm reminded of how effective this whole embedded journalist thing worked during the war's early stages... lame ass FOX reporters felt the espirit de corps and wouldn't report anything negative... they became buddies with the soldiers.
(And my point is....?)
― andy, Tuesday, 22 June 2004 19:30 (twenty years ago) link
― lauren (laurenp), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 19:40 (twenty years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 19:55 (twenty years ago) link
― lauren (laurenp), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 19:57 (twenty years ago) link
― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 20:04 (twenty years ago) link
― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 20:10 (twenty years ago) link
― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 20:18 (twenty years ago) link
― morris pavilion (samjeff), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 20:24 (twenty years ago) link
i am really dreading seeing this movie.
― g--ff (gcannon), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 21:55 (twenty years ago) link
― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 21:57 (twenty years ago) link
J. Hoberman
a) does he mean Garth out of Wayne's World? b) if so, what's he on about?c) and you know what the worst part is? I never learned to read.
― Enrique (Enrique), Thursday, 24 June 2004 13:56 (twenty years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 14:56 (twenty years ago) link
No other reviews "noticed this" because he left off the last part of the reporter's statement - "it must be avenged, or at least punished." (something to that effect)
― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Friday, 25 June 2004 15:30 (twenty years ago) link
No Country for Old Men > better than There Will Be Blood, Zodiac
The Coen brothers hauntingly mythologize Americana, while P.T. Anderson and David Fincher make it morbid, sadistic and self-congratulatory.
― and what, Thursday, 17 January 2008 19:43 (sixteen years ago) link
o_O
zodiac >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no country for old men (which i loved)
― and what, Thursday, 17 January 2008 19:44 (sixteen years ago) link
yes
― omar little, Thursday, 17 January 2008 19:44 (sixteen years ago) link
armond's line that morbs quoted in the "there will be blood" thread was some all-time hilarity
Plainview is the most remarkable movie performance since Eddie Murphy’s Norbit trifecta.
― dmr, Thursday, 17 January 2008 19:50 (sixteen years ago) link
zodiac >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no country for old men (which i loved)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>there will be blood (which i really really liked)
― Alex in SF, Thursday, 17 January 2008 19:52 (sixteen years ago) link
zodiac was not that good ..... the first half, maybe
― dmr, Thursday, 17 January 2008 19:53 (sixteen years ago) link
i dont like pt anderson but i wanna see there will be blood
― and what, Thursday, 17 January 2008 19:54 (sixteen years ago) link
To be fair zodiac is maybe only >>> no country for old men.
― Alex in SF, Thursday, 17 January 2008 19:54 (sixteen years ago) link
and what and Alex OTM
and No Country was really good but come on it was totally morbid and sadistic
― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 17 January 2008 19:55 (sixteen years ago) link
twbb >>>> zodiac (which i liked a lot) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no country for old men (which is doomed to mediocrity by coens' unimaginative fidelity to mediocre source material)
― tipsy mothra, Thursday, 17 January 2008 19:55 (sixteen years ago) link
and i love tommy lee jones that was one phoned-in cranky-old-sheriff routine.
― tipsy mothra, Thursday, 17 January 2008 19:56 (sixteen years ago) link
BUT that was one, i mean
yeah don't let PT hate stop you, it's not like any of his previous movies
― dmr, Thursday, 17 January 2008 19:56 (sixteen years ago) link
Maybe it's a mediocre book, but I think it works really well cinematically. I can't imagine what you would want to change.
― Alex in SF, Thursday, 17 January 2008 19:57 (sixteen years ago) link
but what if I hate PTA and DDL both
― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 17 January 2008 19:57 (sixteen years ago) link
boys lovin' morbid and sadistic
The Wind That Shakes the Barley >>>>>>> Zodiac = TWBB
― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 17 January 2008 19:57 (sixteen years ago) link
I don't think TLJ's performance was any more phoned in than DDL's frankly (if we are talking about performances these guys can do in their sleep.)
― Alex in SF, Thursday, 17 January 2008 19:58 (sixteen years ago) link
these were my three favourite movies of the year. i tied them at #1.
― s1ocki, Thursday, 17 January 2008 19:59 (sixteen years ago) link
Zodiac >> The Wind That Shakes the Barley > No Country for Old Men >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TWBB
― Alex in SF, Thursday, 17 January 2008 19:59 (sixteen years ago) link
the wind that shakes the barley was good but a little too earnest and on the nose for me.
I can't imagine what you would want to change.
caring what happens at any point to anyone?
xpost: disagree completely about tlj vs. ddl, i think ddl's been working on that performance for years and finally got to do it. (butcher bill was about halfway there.)
― tipsy mothra, Thursday, 17 January 2008 19:59 (sixteen years ago) link
enough with the fuckin triangular brackets already.
^^^^^^
― omar little, Thursday, 17 January 2008 20:05 (sixteen years ago) link
i mean i guess the point of no country is to do with fate and the persistence of evil in the world and the morally compromised nature of human existence and all that stuff mccarthy has done better in other books, but the story is really problematic. people do stupid shit all the way through it, and we're supposed to buy their bad ends as "fate"? i think mccarthy only committed to the genre halfway, he didn't let himself go all the way pulp, which leaves it as kind of po-faced pulp, just self-aware enough to be ineffectual. coens made the same mistake, even though they didn't have to -- they could have taken the ridiculous story and had fun with it. (i think the reason the road is a better book than no country is that mccarthy really does commit to the post-apocalyptic thing and for the most part does not clutter it with rumination. that will probably make it a better movie too, although probably armond white won't think so.)
― tipsy mothra, Thursday, 17 January 2008 20:05 (sixteen years ago) link
the wind that shakes the barley was about as good as the best of the irish troubles flicks. reminded me of 'soldier of orange' for some reason. still not as good as zodiac or no country for old men (which is awesomely directed and acted if nothing else).
― omar little, Thursday, 17 January 2008 20:08 (sixteen years ago) link
Armond taking Woody Allen, Dargis and AO Scott to the woodshed this week is funny stuff.
http://www.nypress.com/21/3/film/ArmondWhite.cfm
gimme Loach "earnestness" any day if you feel the cost of bloodletting in your throat.
― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 17 January 2008 20:13 (sixteen years ago) link