Bloodthirsty Animals or Loyal Companions? A Study in Contrast Regarding the Depiction of Dogs in Nanook of the North and At the Winter Sea Ice Camp
by Giovanni J.R.C.
--The development of the process of moving picture projection has been one of the greatest innovations known to man. Through this, many imaginative individuals filmed and developed vast arrays of movies for the purpose of entertainment and amusement. Film-shorts such as tumbling acrobats, running horses, muscular men showing off their prowess and other such oddities were commonplace in movie houses during the early development of this industry. In addition, another use of this innovation was initiated by unsuspecting pioneers of visual anthropology as they scoured the world in search for cultures seemingly unnatural to their western audiences and filming it for their enjoyment. This reason, however, prompted many of the filmmakers to show inaccurate; if not ethnocentrically prejudiced accounts of that culture’s every day routine. One of these early traveling filmmakers was Robert Flaherty. In 1922, along with the collaboration of some Inuit natives, he filmed and brought to the western world a short glimpse, albeit a somewhat inaccurate one, of the hunting, trading and family practices of an Inuit group he dubbed “Nanook’s tribe.” Because its purpose was to entertain paying audiences, the above movie, although widely popular, was not as accurate as it might have been due to minor embellishments. Furthermore, because of Nanook’s (not his real name) flare for the theatrics (the comical seal hunting expedition for example), the Inuit were not depicted quite as seriously as possible. This, however, did not take anything away from the importance of the movie for although quite comical; it showed a glimpse of a whole new culture that was once only accessible through one’s biased imagination.
--In comparison, Asen Balikci’s movie entitled “At the Winter Sea Ice Camp,” which was made a few decades after Flaherty’s work, depicted a somewhat different account of the Inuit, the Netsilik of Northern Canada to be more specific. Because it was made for the purpose of scholastic research, the movie did not cater to the predilections of any specific group of mass audiences. The producer and the crew merely recorded what they witnessed and conveyed this information via the moving picture projection that had at this time become more advanced than when Flaherty first used it.
--Because of the varying reasons the two movies were made, there are henceforth striking differences between the works as can be observed by watching them closely. The most telling of which (which coincidentally will be the topic of this paper) was the way the two movies depicted the relationship between the men and their animals. In Flaherty’s work, the dogs were shown as ravenous beasts, ready to pounce at their merely tolerated masters as soon as the opportunity arises. While on Balikci's movie, the sled dogs were depicted as tame, loyal and loving pets who jumped at the chance at serving their human companions in every way they can. Through these variations, the Inuit were perceived by the audiences differently depending on which movie they saw.
--Because Flaherty aimed to shock and put awe-struck fear on his audiences’ minds, he may have instigated the dogs to act savage and defiant at every chance they got. Hence, through such aggravations, he may have induced the dogs to growl, fight, howl, and even snap at their own masters (who had raised them from infancy) without any remorse. In addition, they even show-cased the pack’s alleged savagery and “blood-lust” by dangling pieces of raw meat in front of their faces and having the whole pack fight for small scraps in the hopes of eliciting the desired insubordinate response. Through this, Flaherty unwittingly (or wittingly) depicted the Inuit as incapable of domesticating their own animals, which was after all the first step to civility. Hence, due to their portrayed incapacity to keep their domesticates in-line, the Inuit, through Flaherty’s vision, appeared to the audience as savages merely tolerated by their own animals.
--In contrast, Balikci's none invasive recording of the Inuit rendered a completely different image of the relationship between the semi-nomadic masters and their sled-pulling animals. Furthermore, in his work, there were few to no instances when the animals showed anger nor disrespect to their keepers neither instigated nor otherwise. In actuality, the complete opposite can be observed as the loyalty of their dogs was displayed in many occasions throughout the movie. One such example was when the men patiently hunted for seal. Throughout this lengthy and arduous task, each dog can be seen dutifully and quietly waiting by their master’s side without showing any sign of neither blood lust nor ravenous appetite especially when the quarry was reeled in. Such loyalty was never portrayed in Flaherty’s work due perhaps to it’s none appalling quality. Nevertheless, Balikci's work still gave testament to the Inuit’s ability to domesticate their dogs hence owing to their civility regardless of what they were perceived as in the Western World.
--Although the differences are quite obvious, it is however quite difficult not to spy any similarities between the two works (hence showing Flaherty’s anthropological sense when doing these kinds of movies). One of the more striking parallels is in the way people always laughed. In Balikci's film, there was a part in the movie when men and women giggled and guffawed for almost an hour (in various instances of course). This can also be seen in more separate accounts in Flaherty’s movie. Another observable similarity was in the way they hunted for seal. In Flaherty’s work, Nanook was shown comically reeling in a large seal as if it was putting up a horrendous fight, while in Balikci’s movie, the Inuit were shown patiently and steadfastly waiting for their quarry to fall prey to their lures. Although the presentation was quite dissimilar, the hunting technique shown in both movies were vastly similar nonetheless. Because of these similarities, and many others, the audience can find evidence that the two movies actually dealt with the same people therefore giving them license to compare the two works and realizing which depictions hold true and which do not.
--In conclusion, as the development of moving picture projection swept throughout the Western World, the scramble to find new and exotic subjects for the purpose of entertaining audiences reached outside the West to more remote countries. Because of this, the recording of strange and new cultures rendered the initial stages of Visual Anthropology. As an example, two of the more popular works by Robert Flaherty and Balikci dealt with the same subject although not in the same manner. Flaherty, whose purpose was to entertain mass audiences, embellished the truth in order to invoke fear and awe in his patrons. This, however, created a somewhat false representation of the Inuit especially regarding their ability to domesticate their animals hence bringing unnecessary doubt on their civility. Balikci on the other hand, who intervened minimally in the recording of Inuit life, portrayed perhaps a more accurate rendition of their routines. In light of this, it can then be said that anthropological movies vary in many levels depending on the motives of the producers and to whom the movie is produced for.
