--Documentaries often affect our perceptions of reality. Because of this, producers are given the daunting task of manufacturing films that not only inform us but also give us a sense of truth and unequivocal authenticity. This idea, however, has been eroding steadily and had become more the exception to the norm. Now, more than ever, movies have turned out to be greatly exaggerated and sensationalized in order to shock and illicit horror from audiences. On the other hand, the truth must also be scrutinized for what is true to some may not exactly be true to another. The idea of family structure, for example, is a concept that varies from culture to culture. To us, the idea of family (although it is rapidly changing) comprises a father, a mother, and children (the nuclear family to be more specific). While in other cultures, a family may be made up of other members outside immediate relations and even people unrelated altogether. Because of this, movie producers must not only be aware of presenting the truth to the audience but also note what kind of truth they are imparting depending on who is watching the movie.

--An example of such can be observed between two movies that deal with small Irish villages. The first one, a film produced by Robert Flaherty entitled Man of Aron, and another, a much later movie entitled The Village (the making of which was overseen by anthropologist Paul Hockings).

--Because the movie Man of Aron was geared towards the everyday American audience, Flaherty had to make the film palatable to his patrons hence making the protagonists members of a relatable if not recognizable nuclear family. A stout-hearted husband who would risk his life to provide for his family, a loving and devoted wife who did everything in her power to keep her family pacified in times of uncertainty especially when her husband is in peril, and a young, eager son whose spirit for adventure and desire to help makes up more than enough for his lack of size. A family struggling for survival and sticking together in times of hardship and want, truly this is what prize-winning movies are made of. A perfect movie for a nation that is undergoing an economic depression during that time and Flaherty knew it. He knew exactly what he was doing when he staged just about every detail of the movie making it seem like the family’s seemingly impoverished lifestyle was caused by a similar economic depression America was enduring. He also made it appear that their last hope for survival was to hunt for the ever dangerous basking shark (which is in fact a plankton eater--genus Cetorhinus--and is therefore utterly harmless!). Because of this, the father had to brave tempestuous waves and sharp rocks in order to engage in mortal combat the ferocious “filter feeder” that is to be the salvation of his family and the entire village (actually the only use the shark had, as depicted in the movie, was for lamp fuel--hardly the deliverance of an impoverished village).

--Action, drama, even comedy, the perfect formula for a successful movie, but sadly, not for a documentary. Although Flaherty depicted almost to the letter how sharks were hunted by this maritime village, this practice, however, has not been performed for years because of the availability of kerosene lamps. Furthermore, some of the “alleged” everyday routines the representative family from Aron carried-on was in fact outdated if not never practiced at all. A few examples of such are as follows: As the mother prepared her cauldron in order to cook the shark’s liver for fuel, her child had to go to their house to fetch a flaming piece of peat when it would have been easier for them to light the fire with a match. Another example of the film’s inaccuracy was the depiction of the child’s putting on the “wet booties” which is in fact a practice done through out Ireland except for this Gaelic speaking village.

--As can be observed, Man of Aron made by Robert Flaherty had plenty of inaccuracies which he in point did on purpose. He presented a family quite similar to the struggling American family of the time he produced this film perhaps hoping to make the film relatable to the Depression suffering masses. Nonetheless, Flaherty still depicted the old way of hunting for sharks quite accurately although it was not practiced anymore hence showing that he had some capability as a documentary producer.

--Because the movie The Village was directed by a practicing anthropologist named Paul Hockings, it is quite observable that this film can be merited as a better documentary that studied a Gaelic community rather than Flaherty’s work. Because Hockings did not stage any portion of the movie, the audience can see clearly how the villagers (of Dunquin)interacted with each other and with tourists alike. Furthermore, because this film was meant to be used for education, it did not have to cater to any specific audience thus the movie did not have to be relatable to anyone at all. Because of this, the village’s true family dynamics can be documented accurately without having to stage a none present family structure (although I recognize the fact that the movie Man of Aron was made much earlier than this movie, hence the family unit may have changed since then, I would still reserve suspicion on how Flaherty had staged the family for he had done this before-- ie. Nanook’s seemingly monogamous family). Compared to Man of Aron, in the movie The Village, we can readily examine how the make-up (or lack there of) of the family is established. Because the life of a farmer and fisherman is quite arduous, many women preferred to marry outside the village and find husbands in neighboring, well-enough, villages such as Dingle. If this was not at all possible (for one can only find so many shop-keepers to marry), they would prefer not to marry at all or fly to another country (as can be seen in the movie) instead. Due to this, the actual family structure within this Gaelic speaking village actually consisted of unmarried siblings. As a result of this, it can be observed that there were hardly any children in the movie and that the majority of the population consisted of old citizens and visiting tourists.

--Although quite unusual, Hockings did not try to alter such an irregularity although audiences may not be able to believe this initially. Such is the true mark of a credible documentary. Furthermore, he also did not try to stage events that would have been important in a documentary such as weddings, funerals and many others knowing that had he done so, the credibility of the film would have suffered.

--In conclusion, the movie directed by Paul Hockings showed the true make-up of a specific Gaelic speaking village compared to Flaherty’s Man of Aron (this however may not be representative of all villages around the area). Because, Flaherty tried to make his movie relatable to his audience, he staged many of the occurrences throughout the movie. Knowing this, he may have even manufactured the family being documented. In comparison, Hockings showed how a true family may in fact consist in a Gaelic village (Dunquin to be exact). Although not quite comparable to the notion of family as we know it, he nonetheless documented this knowing that in making an accurate documentary, one should not interfere with the occurrences in the subject’s true routines.

return to anthropology page

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws