I've always appreciated "White Shadows in the South Seas" (1928), but especially "Nanook of the North" (1922), although today both are being rejected and criticized for being "false", "faked", "white man's interpretation outside of his realm, and biased, and, therefore, a misrepresentation", etc., etc., etc. So far, for both of these I retain my fierce admiration of them, and I think that they're masterpieces of their day which deserve modern accolades for their art AND their representation, though qualified as all historical understanding improves, modifies, and justly represents what is learned or understood or even equalized justly in the interim. Some representations of the past - most certainly on film, too - justly deserve to be criticized heavily for biases that were ugly or prejudiced purposefully wrongly or just plain pitifully stupidly.
I watched "Eskimo" (1933) for the first time last night. For 1 hour and 57 minutes I was riveted to the picture. It's been a long time since I was so taken with a film. Directed by W. S. "Woody" Van Dyke (Woody-One-Take as he is remembered), he'd had much experience with on-location shooting for such films as "White Shadows" with Robert J. Flaherty and "Trader Horn", and here he puts that experience to outstanding use and creates a docu-drama style film that was a horrendous flop when it first came out. It premiered in December of 1933 in New York City, but didn't get general release for another month. Good that it got at least that, for by the middle of the year the Code went into effect, and a film like "Eskimo" would have been crushed. It opens with a scene of a native taking her breast out of her clothing and feeding her baby. Within a few minutes a husband is granting his wife permission to "lie" with his good friend, the "somebody" in a nearby summer abode. We are quickly introduced - as a typical white 1933/4 audience - to a culture that is very foreign and which allows/permits/is culturally raised to/even smiles at practices which are strictly forbidden or secreted or whatever in the culture of the viewer audience. The story proceeds documentarily for several minutes, then at about the 25 minute mark suddenly we're offered some wonderful cultural material, but it's back-lit. I must admit that I was startled a bit. After all, the film is a sound film, and the speech is totally (has been so far) in the native language of the "northern Eskimo", though translated with sub-titles at the bottom, and has been basically purely documentary. Then a story about "the white man" is introduced. Here, I must interject that when reading Woody Van Dyke's "Journal" he wrote for a possible publication someday about the making of "White Shadows" one is struck by his near condemnation of Flaherty's "faking" in the making of "Nanook" and "Moana", yet here Van Dyke begins a narrative based on a book by Peter Freuchen, a man who plays the ultimate bad white man in the film! Now the film turns to a scripted narrative that tells a purposed story, rather than views the culture in a purely documentary fashion. It's about the bad white men and how they rape and kill. The story is purposefully exploitative, but it's done very, very well nevertheless. The native, Mala, kills the sea captain of a boat who's raped his wife after giving her liquor, and she's been killed (actually, accidentally) and the captain doesn't care a whit because she's a native. Now it's time for the newly formed (in the area) RCMP to bring Mala in and try him, where he'll possibly be hanged for his "crime". Where Mala's come from is 500 miles away. We see him make this journey over snow ridden plains and hills and frozen waters several times. I don't think I need to narrate the story. Trust me, it's really a magnificent piece!
So highly recommended that most should see it if you enjoy fabulous photography and a very gripping story, mixed with genuine documentary filming of a society of what were called the northern Eskimo in 1934. It's gripping as can be. Now, some warnings: the killing of the whale(s) is genuine! The killing of the polar bear is genuine! The killing of the caribou is genuine! The caribou herd scenes are genuine, and they're so amazing your jaw will drop. The fact that they're real, and that nothing is faked, and that the camera people lived to see it on film is jaw-dropping. The hunting with the dogs is very real. Some of the scenes could not be done today for a "story" on film. This is a Warner Archive release from a couple of years ago. Rush to find it if you can't find this showing another way.
The "story" that's added to the documentary parts actually stars real actors, beginning with Joe Sauers (later Sawyer), Edgar Dearing, Lotus Long, Lulu Wong Wing (Anna May Wong's sister), Edward Hearn, Peter Freuchen, and the main star Mala (his real name, though he went by Ray Wise), a man born in Alaska who became a cameraman in silent films, later an actor. The film was predominately done near Teller, Alaska, not really the Arctic, though some scenes were actually filmed there. Sources vary as to legitimacy of which scenes were filmed where. The acting throughout is as good as it gets. Only the Royal Canadian Mounted Police scenes are more perfunctory Hollywood 1930s. Still, there's nothing bad about them.
I watched "Eskimo" (1933) for the first time last night. For 1 hour and 57 minutes I was riveted to the picture. It's been a long time since I was so taken with a film. Directed by W. S. "Woody" Van Dyke (Woody-One-Take as he is remembered), he'd had much experience with on-location shooting for such films as "White Shadows" with Robert J. Flaherty and "Trader Horn", and here he puts that experience to outstanding use and creates a docu-drama style film that was a horrendous flop when it first came out. It premiered in December of 1933 in New York City, but didn't get general release for another month. Good that it got at least that, for by the middle of the year the Code went into effect, and a film like "Eskimo" would have been crushed. It opens with a scene of a native taking her breast out of her clothing and feeding her baby. Within a few minutes a husband is granting his wife permission to "lie" with his good friend, the "somebody" in a nearby summer abode. We are quickly introduced - as a typical white 1933/4 audience - to a culture that is very foreign and which allows/permits/is culturally raised to/even smiles at practices which are strictly forbidden or secreted or whatever in the culture of the viewer audience. The story proceeds documentarily for several minutes, then at about the 25 minute mark suddenly we're offered some wonderful cultural material, but it's back-lit. I must admit that I was startled a bit. After all, the film is a sound film, and the speech is totally (has been so far) in the native language of the "northern Eskimo", though translated with sub-titles at the bottom, and has been basically purely documentary. Then a story about "the white man" is introduced. Here, I must interject that when reading Woody Van Dyke's "Journal" he wrote for a possible publication someday about the making of "White Shadows" one is struck by his near condemnation of Flaherty's "faking" in the making of "Nanook" and "Moana", yet here Van Dyke begins a narrative based on a book by Peter Freuchen, a man who plays the ultimate bad white man in the film! Now the film turns to a scripted narrative that tells a purposed story, rather than views the culture in a purely documentary fashion. It's about the bad white men and how they rape and kill. The story is purposefully exploitative, but it's done very, very well nevertheless. The native, Mala, kills the sea captain of a boat who's raped his wife after giving her liquor, and she's been killed (actually, accidentally) and the captain doesn't care a whit because she's a native. Now it's time for the newly formed (in the area) RCMP to bring Mala in and try him, where he'll possibly be hanged for his "crime". Where Mala's come from is 500 miles away. We see him make this journey over snow ridden plains and hills and frozen waters several times. I don't think I need to narrate the story. Trust me, it's really a magnificent piece!
So highly recommended that most should see it if you enjoy fabulous photography and a very gripping story, mixed with genuine documentary filming of a society of what were called the northern Eskimo in 1934. It's gripping as can be. Now, some warnings: the killing of the whale(s) is genuine! The killing of the polar bear is genuine! The killing of the caribou is genuine! The caribou herd scenes are genuine, and they're so amazing your jaw will drop. The fact that they're real, and that nothing is faked, and that the camera people lived to see it on film is jaw-dropping. The hunting with the dogs is very real. Some of the scenes could not be done today for a "story" on film. This is a Warner Archive release from a couple of years ago. Rush to find it if you can't find this showing another way.
The "story" that's added to the documentary parts actually stars real actors, beginning with Joe Sauers (later Sawyer), Edgar Dearing, Lotus Long, Lulu Wong Wing (Anna May Wong's sister), Edward Hearn, Peter Freuchen, and the main star Mala (his real name, though he went by Ray Wise), a man born in Alaska who became a cameraman in silent films, later an actor. The film was predominately done near Teller, Alaska, not really the Arctic, though some scenes were actually filmed there. Sources vary as to legitimacy of which scenes were filmed where. The acting throughout is as good as it gets. Only the Royal Canadian Mounted Police scenes are more perfunctory Hollywood 1930s. Still, there's nothing bad about them.