These criticisms have been leveled at several of his films but they are quite pronounced in the case of Nanook and Man of Aran. Among the more grievous scenes are:

All this leads to the question of how much of the film can one trust to be accurate? The fact that a film is presented as "non-filction" leads the audience to believe it is trustworthy and the film is regarded as such. But it is apparent from films from Nanook to Bowling for Columbine and beyond this is a false assumption, and film makers, like scientists who fake data are not above manipulation to their own ends.

Nanook did well at the box office, and is hailed as the first non-fiction work on this scale, but one needs to ask, why is it non-fiction given all these problems?

A comparison with an earlier film In the Land of the Head Hunters (1914) (a.k.a. In the Land of the War Canoes shows some similaities and some differences.

This film made by Edward Sheriff Curtis was the result of his becoming familiar with North American Indians in his epic 20 year photographic journey. Funded at $75,000 by J.P. Morgan to travel around the country for 5 years doing still photography which would result in a 20 volume set with 1500 pictures, .the work lasted 20, because he not only photographed, but documented everything he shot.

Curtis made the film in part to help himself financially. but also felt that the technology of film making had developed enough to make a film of sufficient length. He chose the Kawkiutl (now called the Kwakwaka"wakw). The cast was made up entirely of Native Americans and is the first film to so so,

The film is quite narrative and is a misture of indigenous materials and orally transmitted stoires. and possibly restructured by Curtis. It has been called "A flawed documentary" since it clearly was constructed to show many accurate aspects of the culture - art and technology. There are instances of painting, dance, carving, along with clothing, ouses and canoes shown. One of the more interesting things is the portrayal; of the Potlatch, a ritual, which along with some others had been outlawed by the Canadian government since 1884. (The law against performing the rituals was not recinded in 1951!)

In the Land of the Headhunters is a film whose position as a documentary is somewhat complex. Certainly its rather melodramatic story complete with aspects of magic and a wild boat ride near the end involved characters who undergo changes (have a trajectory) during the film. In this sense it is quite different from either Nanook or Man of Aran. While the appearance of character development may indicate some difference between an ethnographic film and a fictional narrative film, it certainly does not differentiare films like biographies from fictional films. More complex is the fact the there are biographies which are documenteries and their are "bio pics" which are not.

So the problem of trying to decide what is a fiction film and a non- fiction film continues. Some other films which are interesting to look at relative to this problem are Woody Allen's Zelig, Morris Engel's Little Fugitive and Ed Wood Jr.'s Glen or Glenda.

In the end, Flaherty had a huge impact on film makers, even those who were not happy with what he did. His combining of documentary subjects with fiction film type narratives handled poetically opened up many new avencues for film makers. A documentary film from 2010 called A Boatload of Wild Irishmen directed by Mac Dara O'Curraidhin looks at the problems of the kinds of "controlled actuality" done by Flaherty. (The title is based on the fact that Flaherty had been accused of "trying to drown a boatload of wild Irishmen" in the climatic (but somewhat staged" sequence that ends Man of Aran.

There are serious questions about the impact of this kind of historical reconstruction - some negative some perhaps positive, Flaherty was aware of the poverty on Aran and thought the film might encourage the people to take up shark hunting again as a way of making more money. Another problem deals with how do you recreate the past? From where does such information come? Native recollections, texts? Some people felt that the film gave them a connection with their own past and had an impact on the way tey viewed their own ancestors' lives. Such things have been reported from many cultures around rhe workd where revitalization has occured of some aspect of former times.

There are going to be restrictions placed on all film makers which include:

Raising money for films is always a problem. As an investment there is great risk Non fiction films have a smaller audience and hence the ability to realize a profit it slim. It is hard to estimate a budget since it is not clear from the start where the film is going or how long (and hence how much) it will take to complete it. In addition, the people funding the film, may want some say in what the film finally "says" (not that they always get what they want). Standard Oil which funded Louisiana Story may have been partially responsibile for the films attitude to the drilling rig which is the centerpeice of the film. Basically the film seems to indicate there is no real problem to the environment setting up a oil rig the in the middle of the bayou.

Since a film maker like Flaherty wanted to live for a year or more with the people he was going to film, it meant that there would be nothing to show for at least a year. When the studios wanted to see dailies there were none,

An additional part of the problem is based on the shooting ratio - how much film is shot and how much is used? Flaherty had a high shooting ratio which drove up the price of the film. Man of Aran was originally planned so as to cost about 10,000 pounds, but actually came in at about 25,000. Such overruns can cause people and companies to cut their losses and simply terminate the film.

Because in many cases documentarians don't know "where the film is going" they are not sure what to do with the footage. Dead Birds a film about Nwe Guinea warfare was completed before the warfare was actually understood so it appears that there isn't much to say about the gootage except try to was poetic.In some cases, the fiml makers may be well trained in film making but not so well trained in analyzing what they are looking at! Non the less they present an analysis.

BIASES

Both personal and cultural biases find there way in films. In non fiction films this can be very problematical. Data can ve easily skewed by minimizing it or omitting it completely. There are lies of omission and commission. Narration in ethnographic and other films. What is the role of the narrator? Who should the narrator be who brings the “enlightment” to the audience. Is watching the film without narration enough? Doesn't the selection of material by the film maker is already biasing the film.

What biases (cultural and personal) does the film maker bring with them. There was a (mercifully) short period of time where authors were telling you all about themselves before chapter one so you could guess at their biases and so on. There seems little doubt that author bias is significant, but the problem is far more complex (Is the media liberal or not? Journalists say they are, but others say that right wing paper owners stop them from showing it. The big question was about sexual, gender and ethnic biases.

The newspaper problem about stealing and getting food in Katrina. The Times reported that Whites overwhelming voted for Romney, (54%) but did not have a headline showing the lowest percentage of Blacks that voted for Obama was 92%!

NARRATION

The question of how information is given to the audience is a question of narration. Is the audience to simply "guess" at what is going on? Are the people being filmed going to be the ones who talk about the film or is the narrator going to be the film maker, who after all is in effect making the film for their own purposes.

In the case of the audience being allowed to figure out for themselves what is happening, there are serious problems because wrong assumptions can not be checked with the "natives" (whoever they may be). How could you do it anyway? Film is not interactive so you can't talk to the people on the screen. Were there questions raised in your mind about the ceremonies in Land of the Headhunters? What does it mean to give the dance priveleges to another group? What are neck rings and what do they mean? What is the meaning of the Winter Ceremonials and the appearance of the masks? What is the ceremony about putting out the fire? They are all there - but what do you know about them? Would it have been better to ask the natives and have a film of talking heads? Does the film maker or scientists explain in short title cards? Is that possible?

These are questions which generations of film makers have struggled with.

IMPACT

Flaherty's work become the inspiration for a number of ethnographic film makers who followed. Among them the anthropologist, Margaret Mead who used film in her field studies in the Pacidic. Mead who worked at both Columbia University and the American Museum of Natural History shot a great deal of film in her work in Trance and Dance in Bali and well as Polynesia and New Guinea. The Margaret Mead Ethnographic Film Festival occurs every year at the American Museum of Natural History in the fall.