>About my query on shooting of Nanook: > >Ken Nolley wrote: >>Flaherty was not alone when he shot Nanook. >>[...] >>But you don't need to read background information to know that he was not >>alone; the film (as is usually the case) bears eloquent testimony to the >>method of its production. Some of the most famous action sequences are >>quite obviously shot from two camera setups; the walrus hunt comes to mind >>immediately as an obvious example. Look at the film again for the >>sequences which are constructed by intercutting between two camera >>positions... > >Mark Langer wrote: >>Flaherty was assisted by Bob Stewart, the Revillion agent at Port Harrison >>who is seen in the trading post sequence, and by a number of the natives >>on site, including Allakariallik who plays Nanook. He used one motion >>picture camera -- an Akeley -- and also took still photos with a Graflex. >>The equipment was maintained in part by the natives and in part >>by Flaherty. > >Mike Pounds wrote: >>Obvious Flaherty wasn't alone! But his approach to filmmaking was= decidedly >>primative. His background was engineering, not filmmaking so his >>expedition was not well equipped. If you read his book, imagine reading >>the subject's book as a basic part the research, he states that Nanook >>saved the film project when the camera jammed -- due to the extreme cold >>-- by taking the camera apart and repairing it. > >Morgan wrote: >>Flaherty was alone, in the sense of white, proffessional assistants, >>but he utilised the the local community when and where he could. He gave >>great credence to the local population for bringing him the vast= quantitites >>of clean water he needed for developing (he developed and edited on >>site) and for generally helping out. > >Rolf W. Brandis wrote: >>He brought with him 75,000 ft of film, a Haulberg electric light plant and >>projector, plus two Akeley cameras and a printing machine. >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>He shot all of the footage himself. > >And Yves Lever wrote to me: >>Evidemment, Flaherty =E9tait seul, avec une seule cam=E9ra, sans aucun >>=E9clairage artificiel... >>[Translation: Obviously, Flaherty was alone, with only one camera, without >any >artificial ligths...] > > >So who's right? Although almost everyone gives me literature references to >sustain his point, it seems that the knowledge on this question is not= quite >clear... Ken Nolley is probably the one that point out precisely the= problem >that I wanted to raise by my question. Does we have to conclude that >Flaherty had two cameras (and consequently some operator with him, whether >it was native or white one) from the observation that there's a lot of >scenes which use the intercutting technique? In my point of view, I cannot >agree with him when he says that "the film (as is usually the case) bears >eloquent testimony to the method of its production", at least not as a >general rule. For example, the "shot/reverse shot" cutting between to >characters can be done either with one or two camera (tv reporters always >use just one camera for their interviews), and it's generally the same= thing >with a lot of intercutting techniques. The result on the film is often the >same for a "naive eye" (like we all are most of the time), whether it has >been shot with one or two cameras. But having an extratextual knowledge on >how a scene was shot can be very revealing of the kind of strategies that >have been adopt to reach this result, and it can change the way we view= this >result. This is specially true in the case of documentary productions. And >that's why I was asking myself how Flaherty shot some of Nanook scenes, >because it may really change the way I look at them. I think I'll have to >continue my inquiry on that... Anyone have any more suggestion about this? > >Denis > >DENIS SIMARD | [log in to unmask] > | http://mistral.ere.umontreal.ca:9091/ >Litterature comparee | Tel: (514) 271-4136 >Universite de Montreal | Fax: (514) 343-2393 > >---- >To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L >in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask] > >One final note...re: Nanook: In Flaherty's own words...from "How I Filmed Nanook of the North" THE WORLD'S WORK, September 1922 "Behind the crest, I mounted the camera and Nanook, stringing his harpoon, began slowly snaking over the crest." The above, re: the walrus scene. Re: the battle with the walrus: "For a long time it was nip and tuck - repeatedly the crew called me to use the gun- but the camera crank was my only interest then and I pretended not to understand." More: "For at least twenty minutes that tug-'o-war went on. I say twenty minutes advisedly for I ground out 1,200 feet of film" No mention is made by Flaherty of a second camera being used or of an operator other than himself. Can we believe him? Will we ever really know? Rolf W. Brandis ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]