Marcus and Ruby

Nanook of the North…Travelogue? Ethnographic film? Documentary?  Just what is this 1922 film? Alan Marcus answers this question by proposing an entirely new genre, he names Primal Drama.  A name, a term, for the coterie of films that when they portray, “representations of the Other” they do so in manner that that has a heavy emphasis on a presumed shared world’s view that places man in a instinctual struggle for survival against nature” (Marcus 2006:202-203).  By exploring the making of filmmaker producer Robert Flaherty’s classic film, Nanook of the North, Marcus posits to the reader the idea that the film can teach us as much about ourselves as it does about the other. And he is so right.  All representation of the other is also a representation of self. 

The same week I watched Nanook I also watched the Edward Curtis film, In the Land of the Head-Hunters [1914], which purports to be about on/about the Kwakiutl Indians of Vancouver Island. Nanook qualifies as primal drama as it is designed to display man and his epic struggle to survive. In the Land of Head-Hunters is really more of a melodrama although both do a good job of maintaining clichéd stereotypes of Native North Americans. In Curtis’ film we are treated to the in the way other who is presented as savages with incomprehensible ways, while Flaherty gives us an out of the way other who is shown subduing an incomprehensible savage land. The Inuit “survival is linked to the acquisition of special skills and adaptability to one’s environment,” while the Kwakiutl are shown as barbaric head hunters (Marcus 2006 :210).

As Marcus chronicles Flaherty’s path I could see why he is revered by so many. “Rather he took his camera to a distant environment and trained an indigenous cast of non-actors and technicians to assist him in crafting the narrative and devising scenes closely drawn from their personal experiences” (Marcus 2006 :203). Having non-whites involved in crafting the narrative was unheard of at that time…maybe even in this time. 

Marcus does an admirable job demonstrating to the reader the importance of a message driven cinematic vision as he recounts Nanook of the North”s reception in the world and its impact in terms of creating and consolidating the western view of Eskimo identity.   At the end of the essay Marcus has driven home the lesson of how one man’s vision can change the world. 

In his paper from the December 2, 1998, Philadelphia meeting of the American Anthropological Association, entitled “The Death of Ethnographic Film”, anthropologist Jay Ruby takes to task the liberal use of the application of the term ethnographic on films that are truly not ethnographic.

 “The thesis of this talk is that the term, ethnographic, should be confined to those works in which the maker has formal training in ethnography, intended to produce an ethnography, employed ethnographic field practices, and sought validation among those competent to judge the work as an ethnography. The goal of an ethnographic film should be similar to the goal of a written ethnography - to contribute to an anthropological discourse about culture” (Ruby 1998:2)

I have no problem with filmmakers making movies about whatever they want, just don’t present them as ethnographic.  Call them something else.  It bothers me that these films purport to provide real information about various cultures.  Real information has verifiable vetted context. I say cease and desist!  What is missing when these charlatans produce film is the context that can only be provided by an informed anthropological study.   So my sentiments are somewhat aligned with those expressed by Jay Ruby in his paper..  But unlike Ruby, I say recapture the term and educate people to what the word ethnographic means. Define and find an ethnographic study standard for films.

However learning to control and work the technology will merely enable anthropologists to go back in time and channel a Robert Flaherty-like relationship, in where the Other, in Flaherty’s case the Inuit, is shown their images being created and have a direct influence in their own  portrayal (Ruby 1998:3, Marcus 2006 :203). 

Ruby misses the real reason that anthropologists themselves just don’t produce ethnographic film…it is because they don’t have to, in order to reach and add to the anthropological discourse as the traditional audience for an anthropologist’s ethnography is usually another anthropologist.  Ethnographies are written in an elitist esoteric academise that often can only be understood other anthropologists.  Film is all about accessibility.  Anthropologists in order to produce ethnographic film of any kind, theoried or not must first want to reach out to the common people. I don’t think they want, I think that they are satisfied with a discussion that can only be understood by other scientists.  Jay Ruby’s talk/essay should be called the dearth of ethnographic film not the death of. 

Ruby, Jay (1998) The Death of Ethnographic Film. American Anthropological Association paper. Accessed 8/15/11 6:41 PM http://astro.temple.edu/~ruby/aaa/ruby.html (Ind.)

Nanook of the North as Primal Drama, Alan Marcus, Visual Anthropology, 19: 201–222, 2006 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0894-9468 print=1545-5920 online DOI: 10.1080/08949460600656543