Visual Sovereignty in Atanarjuat
By Krystal Kaai, with comments by Erin Thorn, Andrew Tye, Nicholas Alakel, Taara Ness-Cochinwala, and Samuel Olsen
Inuit people are storytellers. . . . It is important we tell our stories from our Inuit point of view.
--Director Zacharias Kunuk
[1] A year after winning the Camera d'Or award at the Cannes Film Festival for his film Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner, Director and Producer Zacharias Kunuk spoke at the 2002 Spry Memorial Lecture series about the profound way in which film technology has revolutionized the art of traditional Inuit storytelling. Though Inuit legends have survived for millennia, passed down through the tradition of oral storytelling, Atanarjuat is the first production of its kind to document a uniquely Inuit legend through the visual medium of film. By creating a film centralized around a seminal Inuit legend, produced by an Inuit film company, spoken entirely in Inuktitut [the Inuit language], and comprised of an all-Inuit cast, Kunuk and his production staff grant agency to a people who have long been misrepresented by the media. This tactic of utilizing a cinematic production both to challenge degrading visual portrayals of Native Americans and to recast the image of these traditionally misrepresented people in an authentic manner is what Michelle Raheja refers to as “visual sovereignty.†According to Raheja, “[b]y making their own films and videos, [the Inuit] speak for themselves, no longer aliens in an industry which for a century has used them for its own ends†(1168).
[2] This essay will explore the way in which the film Atanarjuat utilizes “visual sovereignty†both to dispel common stereotypes about the Inuit people and to preserve and perpetuate Inuit culture through a “new†form of visual storytelling. Additionally, by examining Atanarjuat in relation to Robert J. Flaherty’s documentary Nanook of the North --a classic film that, for nearly a century, has informed Western perceptions of Inuit life --I will illustrate how Director Zacharias Kunuk and his production staff attempt to recast images of Inuit life that challenge modern audiences, both Inuit and non-Inuit, to think differently about traditional representations of Inuit life.
Nanook of the North: The Inuit Stereotype
[3] The Inuit have long been portrayed in films throughout the decades -- the earliest, and arguably best-known, of which dates back to 1922 when Robert J. Flaherty released his documentary Nanook of the North. Despite Nanook’s classification as a “documentary†film, Shari Huhndorf argues that, far from documenting the Inuit in an objective and authentic manner, Flaherty’s film produced stereotypes of the Inuit that merely catered to Western perceptions of “Eskimo†life:
By the time Robert Flaherty released his widely acclaimed and now classic documentary Nanook of the North in 1922, the American public was hooked on tales of Eskimos and Arctic life. Nanook of the North became a kind of watershed, the point after which no imagining of the Far North was without the full panoply of stereotypes born in the later nineteenth century, developed in the 1900s and 1910s, and brought to fruition in Flaherty’s work. (124)
Flaherty’s documentary thus reified many stereotypes about the Inuit people that, for decades since, have been conceptualized as accurate portrayals of Inuit life.
[4] Two common stereotypes of the Inuit people in particular--that of the “blood thirsty†savage and the “noble†savage--manifest continuously throughout Nanook of the North. According to Huhndorf, “These dual images--that of the peaceful, happy-go-lucky Eskimo and that of the brave hunter struggling to survive in a harsh environment--were met with particular enthusiasm in the U.S.†(134). Therefore, although Flaherty’s documentary “promised viewers truth and objectivity, it instead delivered a product shaped by Western--rather than Eskimo--realities and desires" (Huhndorf 144). Additionally, because Flaherty’s documentary locates authentic Inuit culture in an unadulterated, historical past, Huhndorf claims that the documentary also perpetuated the myth of a “vanishing†native people and culture that had no place in the future (128). These stereotypes are problematic because, not only do they portray the Inuit people as socially and mentally inferior to Westerners, but they also characterize the Inuit as a primitive people who lack the capability to evolve beyond the bounds of a traditional, hunter-gatherer society.
[5] From its opening scenes, Nanook of the North objectifies both the vast, Arctic landscape and the Inuit people who inhabit it. Because the documentary is a silent film, we as viewers rely on Flaherty’s title cards to contextualize the visual images that unfold before us. One of the first title cards to appear in the documentary refers to Nanook (whose real name was actually Allakariallak) as a “kindly, brave, simple Eskimo†(0:01:54). A later title card states:
The sterility of the soil and the rigor of the climate no other race could survive; yet here, utterly dependent upon animal life, which is their sole source of food, live the most cheerful people in all the world -- the fearless, lovable, happy-go-lucky Eskimo. (00:03:05)
Therefore, within the first few minutes of his film, Flaherty establishes two stereotypes of the Inuit people that, for nearly a century, have constituted the basis of Western perceptions of Inuit life.
[6] As the documentary progresses, the camera focuses on Nanook for about ten seconds (0:04:20), who, “in an unconventional gesture repeated several times in the film, looks directly at the camera and, through it, meets the eyes of the viewer†(Huhndorf 139). The camera then focuses on his wife, “Nyla -- The Smiling One,†for roughly the same amount of time (0:04:35). In just the first five minutes of the documentary, then, both the Arctic landscape and its people are established as objects upon which the audience is asked to gaze. According to Huhndorf, “To 1920s audiences, frontal photography would have signaled the lack of sophistication and even the subjugation of its subjects†(140). Therefore, one can see the way in which the ten second clips of Nanook and Nyla, coupled with subsequent clips in which the characters either look directly toward the camera or move toward the camera, illustrate Flaherty’s deliberate attempts to portray the Inuit as an inferior people.
[7] Flaherty’s documentary also creates and perpetuates negative stereotypes of the Inuit through several staged scenes that humorously, though inaccurately, portray aspects of Inuit life. One such scene occurs fairly early in the film when Nanook gets out of his kayak, followed by his child, his wife Nyla, their baby, his second wife, and a dog (0:04:56). The clown-car effect used in this scene, though undoubtedly created as a form of comedic entertainment, seems to mock the Inuit culture by portraying it in a laughable manner. Another such scene occurs later in the film when Nanook attempts to catch a seal (0:56:45). After Nanook sticks his spear into a tiny, seal hole, rather than pull the seal out right away, Nanook engages in a comedic tug-of-war with his catch. Because the seal is still under the ice, we never see the actual seal until the scene’s end when Nanook, with the help of others, finally pulls out the dead seal from under the ice. Therefore, the majority of this scene plays out as a power struggle between Nanook and an invisible nemesis that continuously pulls him down and drags him across the ice. Though both the kayak scene and the hunting scene add comedic entertainment to Flaherty’s documentary, they do little to depict the Inuit in a culturally authentic manner. The kayak scene in particular is one that the producers of Atanarjuat found particularly offensive, which is the reason why they recreate a very similar scene in their film that I will address later in this essay.
[8] Lastly, the documentary ends with what Huhndorf refers to as a “metaphorical death scene†that represents the eventual disappearance of the Inuit people (143). As an incoming blizzard approaches, Nanook and his family take shelter in an abandoned igloo and prepare to sleep for the night. One of the last images we see is that of Nanook’s dogs howling outside of the igloo as the camera pans to reveal the desolate, Arctic landscape and the harsh blizzard that threatens to bury the igloo and its sleeping inhabitants. According to Huhndorf, “In this scene, Flaherty, like other filmmakers and writers of his generation, foretold the ‘inevitable’ disappearance of the Eskimos†(143). When interpreted in this way, one can see how Flaherty’s film perpetuates the myth of the “vanishing†native by attributing the inevitable disappearance of the Inuit people to natural elements, such as the harsh Arctic climate, while essentially ignoring the history of colonialism that drastically affected Inuit life.
Atanarjuat: Filmmaking the “Inuit†Way
[9] In light of the copious stereotypes produced by films like Nanook of the North, Atanarjuat becomes particularly significant because, unlike its predecessors, it grounds itself in an unprecedented devotion to cultural authenticity. Like many indigenous filmmakers, Kunuk grew tired of seeing the Inuit people continuously misrepresented by filmmakers who lacked the cultural sensitivity to portray his people in an authentic manner. For this reason, Kunuk emphasized the importance of the way in which Atanarjuat enabled him to tell a culturally cherished Inuit legend in an authentic and uniquely Inuit way:
Our legend [about Atanarjuat] is a universal story: about love, jealousy, murder, revenge, forgiveness -- the same for everybody everywhere. Not like Hollywood films. It was shot, acted, edited in our own style. Everything is authentic….We are just trying to wake up our audience, to get the story right. (see comment by Samuel Olsen)
Screenplay writer Paul Apak similarly commented on the way in which Atanarjuat portrays Inuit culture in an authentic way that challenges many Hollywood stereotypes:
There are a number of differences between what we are doing and other movies that have been produced regarding our Inuit culture. This movie will be based on an Inuit legend, and also it is all going to be in Inuktitut. And also, all of the actors will have to be Inuk. No Japanese or whoever else who pretend to be Inuit. You know. It will be done the Inuit way.
Additionally, the film’s official Web site states, Atanarjuat’s objective “was not to impose southern filmmaking conventions on our unique story, but to let the story shape the filmmaking process in an Inuit way.†This emphasis on creating a culturally authentic film in an “Inuit way†is a common thread throughout most interviews with the film’s director, actors, and producers.
[10] To ensure the film’s cultural authenticity, Kunuk and his production staff consulted with several elders before writing the screenplay, which they originally wrote entirely in Inuktitut. Throughout the writing and production process, Apak said they continued to use elders as cultural advisors to maintain the film’s authenticity:
We go to the elders and ask information about the old ways, about religion, about things that a lot of people have no remembrance of now. . . . We have two elders. They are our cultural advisors or consultants. They are working on our screenplay with us, like, they are helping us write down what people would have said and acted in the past, and what the dialogue would have been like.
Additionally, they filmed with an all-Inuit cast on location under extreme weather conditions. Though Atanarjuat by no means incorporates the glitz, glamour, and special effects that we are accustomed to seeing in modern, Hollywood-made films, it accomplishes its purpose in that it “compels non-Inuit spectators to think differently, not only about what constitutes indigenous content in films and more conventional representations of Native Americans in cinematic history, but also about indigenous visual aesthetics†(Raheja 1168). (see comment by Taara Ness-Cochinwala)
Visual Sovereignty and Cultural Continuity
[11] According to Raheja’s theory of visual sovereignty:
The visual, particularly film, video, and new media is a germinal and exciting site for exploring how sovereignty is a creative act of self-representation that has the potential to both undermine stereotypes of indigenous peoples and to strengthen what Robert Warrior has called the “intellectual health†of communities in the wake of genocide and colonialism. (1161)
Therefore, by telling a seminal Inuit legend in an uniquely “Inuit way,†Atanarjuat exercises visual sovereignty as a means to accomplish two main objectives: first, to dispel stereotypes about the Inuit people and challenge modern audiences to reassess the way in which they think about indigenous people in general and Inuit people more specifically (see comment by Erin Thorn); and, secondly, to preserve and perpetuate the Inuit culture through a visual form of storytelling accessible to both Inuit and non-Inuit audiences.
[12] Through the use of visual sovereignty, Atanarjuat actively challenges modern viewers to reassess their understanding of the Inuit people and culture. As Varga argues:
The conceptualization of the north through southern eyes is of an undifferentiated frozen mass sparsely populated by a vanishing primitive people characterized by a life of humorless grim survival. What [Atanarjuat] demonstrates is the complexity of culture as lived practice and the differentiation of characters in contrast to the dominant stereotype of either noble or blood thirsty savage, in either case contained by the ideological assumption of disappearance. (228-29)
By using film as a medium through which they assert their visual sovereignty, the Inuit ensure that their stories are passed on to others, just as they were passed down to them. Therefore, far from depicting the Inuit as “contained by the ideological assumption of disappearance,†Atanarjuat compels modern viewers to reassess the stereotypes established in Nanook of the North--a form of “reel†history that, for too long, has been mistaken as a “real†portrayal of Inuit life.
[13] Additionally, Atanarjuat utilizes visual sovereignty to capture the unique stories vital to the preservation and perpetuation of Inuit culture. In an interview with Nancy Wachowich, for instance, writer Paul Apak reiterated the importance of using new ways of storytelling to perpetuate culturally important legends like Atanarjuat:
Can Inuit bring story telling into the new millennium? Can we listen to our elders before they all pass away? Can producing community t.v. in Igloolik make our community, region, and country stronger? Is there room in Canadian filmmaking for our way of seeing ourselves? To try to answer these questions, we want to show how our ancestors survived by the strength of their community and their wits, and how new ways of storytelling today can help our community survive another thousand years.
Given Apak’s statement, perhaps the most significant aspect of an entirely Inuit-production like Atanarjuat is the way in which the film enables the Inuit people to leave their mark on history, portrayed not as stereotyped entities of an antiquated age, but as the thriving culture that still exists today.
Comments
There is absolutely no doubt that Inuit people should be able to craft an image of themselves in the mainstream that they feel truly represents them and their cultural heritage. It is extremely difficult for one group of people to successfully portray the lives of another group of people in an unbiased manner. Atanarjuat is a film about Inuit people over a millennium ago. Accordingly, the film shows Inuit people the way they lived their lives a millennium ago. Except for the credits, in which we see the actors in modern dress, there is no reference to the ways in which Inuit people have opened themselves up to modernization, making the practices in this film, though culturally and historically relevant, pretty obsolete. That said, I have a difficult time agreeing with the idea that Atanarjuat successfully dispels stereotypes, because I think the stereotype exists that Inuit people live this way today, unchanged from these practices. I certainly appreciate the cultural aspects brought out in this film and agree to a point that this film successfully portrays this culture without the “savagery†or “backwardness†so often attributed to it, but I believe a film about modern Inuit people would do even better to truly challenge modern audiences. (see comment by Andrew Tye) (see comment by Nicholas Alakel)
Although Erin points out that a modern Inuit movie would be more successful challenging modern audiences, I think in comparison to such older films about the Inuit as The Savage Innocents (1960), The Fast Runner excels at dispelling these stereotypes. More specifically, the drumming ritual that occurs in both movies serves as a baseline for comparison. In The Fast Runner, the drumming ritual is portrayed as it should have been--traditional, respectful, and important. In The Savage Innocents, the drummer was playing almost to impress the women and was beating the drum looking like a fool (for lack of a better term). I also thought The Fast Runner was successfully able to capture the severity of the harsh climate the Inuit survived in. The Inuit in The Fast Runner could be seen inside bundled up, in the dark, hovered around a fire. In the second film, the Inuit are all half-dressed and live in an igloo that has many commodities a normal house would have.
The fact that Kunuk admits that the Inuit are trying to reach out to western culture through the telling of an Inuit legend that relates to western tales suggests that while he is interested in telling his story his underlying motivation may be in convincing the western (or I suppose southern) viewer that the Inuit are a familiar people rather than the exposed and dwindling people that they have been portrayed as. This can be seen when Kunuk re-films the classic clown-car boat scene showing Atanarjuat's wife and child coming down from the land to greet him. The scene added little to the story, and I found myself wondering why it was in the movie. This is clearly because Kunuk allowed telling of this Inuit legend to be altered in an unnecessary way solely so that he may dispel rumors about how many people can fit into a canoe. His eagerness to include mundane filler slowly ate away at my desire to watch the film. By the end of the movie I was acutely aware that it had been produced by the Inuit in an attempt to show their people in a friendly light. While I find it hard to condemn them for wishing for equality, I may have gone about writing a script that did not seem to be, if not propaganda in of itself, working to disprove past propaganda.
It is important to the overall effect of the film to dispel stereotypes and promote accurate teachings of Inuit Eskimo tradition. I think witnessing the harsh but beautiful landscape that is the home of native Inuits creates an appreciation for the lifestyle of these people. In addition to observing and appreciating their survival tactics, more importantly, we are privy to their most intimate relations and family bonds both broken and created. Viewing the interactive social dilemmas in light of the barren landscape, the audience understands how integral each member of the family unit is, on a personal and collective level. In my experience viewing the film, this aspect allowed me to accept and comprehend the initial forgiving of Puja, which I previously would have had issues with. Also, the ultimate decision to ban Puja, Oki, and the other conspirators from the tribe is understood in light of this vital dependency on one another, and therefore seen as a more severe and fitting consequence for the attempted and committed murders of Atanarjuat and his brother. For these reasons, I think that the natural indigenous aesthetic landscape is vital to the understanding of the lifestyles, values, and familial relations of the Inuit people in the film, and in reality.
I agree with Erin that a film depicting the contemporary life of the Inuit could be helpful in discrediting present-day stereotypes concerning the Inuit. However, given that these stereotypes arise out of inaccurate portrayals of historical Inuit life, it was extremely important to these filmmakers that they (the Inuit people) were able to depict their own history without the bias of outsiders. It is possible that if the filmmakers sought to portray modern Inuit society, it would have little effect on the perception of Inuit history, tradition, and culture. Additionally, presenting a modernized Inuit society through film may cause the western viewer to believe the Inuit to have adopted an assimilationist stance and abandoned much of their cultural heritage. For this reason any presentation of modern Inuit life would have to include many aspects of their culture and historical tradition in order to have the effect of discrediting stereotypes and presenting an accurate portrayal of the Inuit.
----------------------------------------
Angilirq, Paul Apak, et al. Atanarjuat, The Fast Runner: Inspired by a Traditional Inuit Legend of Igloolik. Toronto: Coach House Books & Isuma Publishing, 2002.
Huhndorf, Shari M. "Nanook and His Contemporaries: Imagining Eskimos in American Culture, 1897-1922." Critical Inquiry 27.1 (2000): 122-48.
Kunuk, Zacharias, "The Public Art of Storytelling." http://www.com.umontreal.ca/spry/old/spry-kz-lec.html
Raheja, Michelle H. "Reading Nanook's Smile: Visual Sovereignty, Indigenous Revisions of Ethnography, and Atanarjuat (The Fast Runner)." American Quarterly 59.4 (2007): 1159-87.
Varga, Darrell. "Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner. Zacharias Kunuk, 2001." The Cinema of Canada. London: Wallflower, 2006. 225-33.
