"Nanuk in the North" is a 1922 documentary film that uses the lens of the art of beauty to tell the scenes of Inuit hunting and living in the northern polar regions. The power of the image that this documentary shows us is still continuously and clearly conveyed through the black-and-white images and silent subtitles that people have long been dissatisfied with in the post-industrial era, and through editing that is not high-level and gorgeous today. . In the contrast between modern Western civilization and the traditional life of the Inuit people, the photographer Vlahadi did not like the documentary filmmakers in the past, in the film with the marginalized society, the so-called "backward civilization." His condescending contempt, nor the curiosity and teasing of this completely different civilization. It can be said that the humanistic sentiments expressed in the film-the respect for the beautiful relationship between man and nature, the concern and respect for society, or the marginalized people of the world-are very valuable qualities so far. A person going deep into the polar region and living with the Nanuk family for more than a year is the foundation for the success of this film. Because of the "acquaintance and shooting", this is the same as Frahadi's subsequent filming of other similar documentaries. "Acquaintance" is completely different, and it can express the delicate and touching details, reflecting the humanistic care and respect for the Nanuk family. Living together is the main thing, but shooting becomes a secondary and less important content. The documentary film produced in life undoubtedly possesses more shocking "real" power.
Such images are moving, and while the work "Nanuk in the North" is praised, there are also many controversies. The focus of the controversy is: how to deal with both the real and the fiction in the documentary. The use of.
The answer given by "Nanuk of the North" is that fiction is to express a deeper level of artistic reality.
In the film, there are often close-ups of the protagonist Nanuk's face and the scene where Nanuk is facing the camera, which fully shows that the protagonist did not deliberately ignore the camera, and his activities are also in line with the needs of the shooting. From the understanding of the documentary after the film, it can be found that the filmmaker Vlahadi and the protagonist’s family have known each other for many years and actively cooperated with the shooting, even for Vlahadi’s original Inuit. For the needs of life, although it is very dangerous, I still chose to abandon the shotgun and use the fishing fork of the ancestors to hunt the seals weighing two tons; Nanuk spent several days to build an igloo (Igloo) which was much larger than usual for the filming. , Shooting only half of the igloo for lighting, and let the Nanuk family perform in the open, cold igloo; even the wife of Nanuk in the film is not his real wife, and It is Vlahadi's Inuit lover, this Nanuk family is fictitious and unreal. For a documentary viewer who is pursuing the ultimate pursuit of truth, these facts are "horrible" and cannot be forgiven. They are not even classified as "documentaries", but "feature films".
And this kind of documentary that requires "complete truth", may it really exist? After thinking for a while, I gave a negative answer. Obviously, documentaries are always the product of the subject’s intervention in the object, and it is a consistent relationship between the object and the subject’s judgment. Therefore, the content presented by the documentary, no matter how true is pursued, cannot be separated from every aspect of its artistic creation. The intervention of the subject is different only in the level and degree of the intervention of the subject. Therefore, "reality" in the full sense cannot be achieved, and absolute objective reality does not exist. [1] Since the editing of a documentary is done by humans, it is impossible to achieve complete objectivity, and it must have subjective factors. The theme it wants to express is also previously determined, and the pictures it expresses are also in line with its theme. , Then, the pictures shown in the documentary can be said to be a carefully woven "story" of people, which cannot be completely objective and true. Secondly, in addition to the contrast between the limitations of image expression itself and the complexity of the real world, the limitations of objective historical conditions have caused "breakpoints" in the documentary. Past historical events, private scenes, etc. are difficult to be shot. The captured images also caused blind spots to the documentary of the documentary. Therefore, fiction is reasonable and necessary. It is impossible for a documentary to capture all the details it wants to show, and it is impossible to record the history that has occurred. It is achieved through a "real" reduction simulation. Isn't such a documentary real? Doesn't "fiction" belong to the real "real" category?
The concept of “reality” here has quietly changed. The reality pursued by the documentary is not the reality of life in a narrow sense—people and things that actually exist in life. It is objective reality, but artistic reality—it is the artist’s truth. On the basis of his life experience, through the creativity of art, the essence and truth of actual life are revealed in the form of illusion.
Documentary is not a simple, original reproduction of objective reality. Instead, it focuses on people and their living conditions. It incorporates more subjective factors from creators, seeking personalized expression and creative styles. This makes the fictitious composition of the documentary based on the core of facts possible. [2]
"In a narrow sense, the fiction of a documentary is that in the creation of a documentary, the subject of creation is based on the'core of facts' and uses images of sound and pictures to perform, reproduce, and construct, so as to transcend historical time, real time and space, cultural differences, A subjective and creative reconstruction of the boundaries of ideology, cognitive expression, and psychological emotions." [3]
This kind of fiction based on the "core of facts" is better used in documentaries. It shows the artistic reality, a deeper reality that is not constrained by the appearance. Just as in "Nanuk of the North", Vlahadi better served the documentary's theme by recreating the primitive lifestyle of Inuit’s father’s fishing-fork hunting, "showing the dignity and wisdom of people on the margins of a civilized society." , Pay attention to the characters’ emotions and fate, and respect their cultural traditions.” It embodies the traditional Inuit culture and the charm of traditional methods. Second, in this film, the social life of the Nanuk family of the Inuit was completely erased deliberately, emphasizing the relationship between the Inuit and the polar regions, showing a kind of sublimation. The purity of his life.
Through the use of beautiful lenses, Flahadi added fiction to the documentary to express deeper truth. No wonder it is a milestone in the history of documentary. It not only created an anthropological documentary genre that uses images to record society, but also a world documentary. The glorious starting point.
Therefore, fiction and reality are unified in a certain sense in the documentary: fiction is better reality. The sublimated reality is the power of the fascinating, never-fading image brought to us by the documentary.
What "
Nanuk of the North" conveys to us is exactly the power of this deep-seated real image with great humanistic sentiment expressed by fiction.
References:
[1] [2] Xue Jie. "Inquiry into the Fictional Creation of Contemporary Documentary Films" [J]. "Journal of Jilin University of the Arts", 2014, (2): 27-29.
[3] Liu Jie, "The Fiction of Documentary Films" ——An Image Representation" Communication University of China Press, 2007 edition, P8
View more about Nanook of the North reviews
