My kids even watched it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4759399&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310684",#41897647)

"Nanook" was in fact named Allakariallak (pronounced [al.la.ka.ɢi.al.lak]); Flaherty chose "Nanook" ("polar bear" in Inuktitut mythology) because he felt its seeming genuineness made it more marketable.[15] The "wife" shown in the film was not really his wife. According to Charlie Nayoumealuk, who was interviewed in Nanook Revisited (1990), "the two women in Nanook – Nyla (Alice [?] Nuvalinga) and Cunayou (whose real name we do not know) were not Allakariallak's wives, but were in fact common-law wives of Flaherty."[16] And although Allakariallak normally used a gun when hunting, Flaherty encouraged him to hunt after the fashion of his recent ancestors in order to capture the way the Inuit lived before European colonization of the Americas. Flaherty also exaggerated the peril to Inuit hunters with his claim, often repeated, that Allakariallak had died of starvation less than two years after the film was completed, whereas in fact he died at home, likely of tuberculosis.[17][18]

Furthermore, it has been criticized[by whom?] for portraying Inuit as without technology or culture, and situates them outside modern history. It was also criticized for comparing Inuit to animals. The film is considered by some to be an artifact of popular culture at the time and also a result of a historical fascination for Inuit performers in exhibitions, zoos, fairs, museums and early cinema.[19]

Flaherty defended his work by stating, "one often has to distort a thing in order to catch its true spirit."[20] Later filmmakers have pointed out that the only cameras available to Flaherty at the time were both large and immobile, making it impossible to effectively capture most interior shots or unstructured exterior scenes without significantly modifying the environment and subject action.[21]

Visit to the trading post

In one scene, Nanook and his family arrive in a kayak at the trading post. Going to trade his hunt from the year, including the skins of foxes, seals, and polar bears, Nanook comes in contact with white people and there is an amusing interaction as the two cultures meet. The trader plays music on a gramophone and tries to explain how a man 'cans' his voice. Bending forward and staring at the machine, Nanook puts his ear closer as the trader cranks the mechanism again. The trader removes the record and hands it to Nanook who at first peers at it and then puts it in his mouth and bites it. The scene is meant to be a comical one as the audience laughs at the naivete of Nanook and people isolated from Western culture. In truth, the scene was entirely scripted and Allakariallak knew what a gramophone was.[22]

Hunting of the walrus

It has been noted that in the 1920s, when Nanook was filmed, the Inuit had already begun integrating the use of Western clothing and were using rifles to hunt rather than harpoons,[8] but this does not negate that the Inuit knew how to make traditional clothing from animals found in their environment, could still fashion traditional weapons and were perfectly able to make use of them if found to be preferable for a given situation.

The film is not technically sophisticated; how could it be, with one camera, no lights, freezing cold, and everyone equally at the mercy of nature? But it has an authenticity that prevails over any complaints that some of the sequences were staged. If you stage a walrus hunt, it still involves hunting a walrus, and the walrus hasn't seen the script. What shines through is the humanity and optimism of the Inuit.[3]

— Roger Ebert

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4759399&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310684",#48104866)