Morality vs Vision.

Usually, there's a very granite line between fiction and reality, between what's truth and not, especially in films, books, and media. At least, that's what most people feel they believe. The majority of people will tell you that they feel lying, even in small definitions of the word, is wrong and shameful. However, 'White Lies', small exaggerations or omissions of the truth, shape our daily lives in order to better let us tolerate the drone of routine. It's much the same with film and media. Small exaggerations and alterations to the way things are in actuality to make them seem more exciting and entertaining, the essence of the industry. 

Taking a specific example: Documentaries. A more specific criteria: the documentary 'Nanook of the North'. 

This film was widely hailed as the 'first documentary', covering the daily routine and life of a small tribal community. However, as the years passed, certain discrepancies to reality came to light. Some things small, such as the use of outdated spears and bows in place of their more modern and presently used firearms, or the custom construction of a 3 walled igloo to accommodate the use of the ancient bulky film equipment. Other things were much more substantial, such as the false name of the main character Nanook, his fabricated "Family", or the exaggeration of his death shortly after the filming due to famine/starvation. 


Smaller changes can be excused using basic explanation. The use of the outdated weaponry was to symbolize the tribal life before western influence. The construction of the false home was unavoidable, since the ancient equipment would not be able to get enough light for a shot were the igloo not custom built with it in mind. However, some of the larger, more serious differences can only be explained through selfish convenience. The name of the character to be easier on the tongue and more recognizable. The family to make him easier to relate to. The exaggeration of his death in order to bring sympathy towards the film. All were tactics designed to better suit the future sales and fame of the documentary.


This is where personal opinion obscures the definition of what should be allowed and what not. Obviously circumstance can morally balance indiscretions in some cases, such as to bring awareness and help to a subject that might otherwise be ignored. This particular instance is not a solid example of this, but can be argued to have been done in order to better make western civilization aware of the differences and hardships of the 'savage' lifestyles they knew so little about. 


It all comes down to personal opinion, as with most anything to do with the interpretation of any form of media. I believe the film was, despite its faults, very informative and crucial to the early awareness of non-western, tribal communities and life. Should it be called a documentary by the standards of its time or today's? Perhaps not, if you would like to make a distinction between a documentary and a fairly accurate depiction with real subjects. I, however, cannot condemn the reasons behind trying to raise empathy and interest for the film and what it portraits.