A personal view of the Flaherty Films
A personal view of the Flaherty Films
By Richard Leacock
I worked as Cameraman for Robert and Francis Flaherty on their last major film, Louisiana Story. We filmed for fourteen months. A tiny unit. Always the three of us. Sometimes an assistant cameraman. Sometimes another member of the family, Monica or Barbara, sketching or taking still photos. Often a carpenter who also took care of our boat. Never was what we did, done in a conventional film industry way. At first it drove me crazy. Didn't this world famous film director know how it should be done? "Should I tell him? Well now...lets wait a bit!"
I eventually began to understand what was going on. I tried and I am still trying. Was I a good student? I doubt it. I was a serious Marxist, or thought I was. I knew that the film we were making was paid for by Standard Oil of New Jersey and we all knew THAT was bad! Well, it has taken about forty years for me to come to the conclusion that it was not THAT bad; it just didn't give us the basis for a very good story and resulted in the latter part of the film getting pretty sloppy.
So why should we, you and I, but especially young film makers, be looking at these films? What has Flaherty to say to people making films in the 1990's? In order for us to be able to answer this question a few things must be placed in an historical perspective.
1. When these films were made there was only one place to show films and that was in commercial cinemas. There were no film clubs, no film schools, no television. The cinemas were run, in most cases, by the big movie producers and they were run for profit.
2. In the case of Nanook of the North (1921) and Moana (1925) the 35mm cameras had to be hand cranked and therefore had to be mounted on solid tripods. Panning and tilting was not easy when you were simultaneously hand cranking.
3. The photographic emulsions were slow by contemporary standards, hence the absolute need to construct an igloo which was open on one side to let daylight in and afford room to set up the tripod.
4. Though synchronous sound films took over the industry in about 1929 the systems were so delicate, clumsy and bulky that dialogue scenes had to be made in studios, under controlled conditions. On Man of Aran all the dialogue and sound effects had to be added later in a studio. On Louisiana Story (filmed in 1946-7) the dialogue scenes had to be made with a studio camera and the sound recorded on 16 inch acetate coated glass disks,each dialogue take had to be setup, "miked", lit, rehearsed and then filmed with "clap-sticks" at the head of each take... all"documentary" films of that period were enacted under controlled conditions.
5. The notion that the camera could act as a mirror of life; that reality could be observed without need of intervention, was not uncommon. Leo Tolstoy is reported to have commented to this effect on seeing reportage films, probably by one of Lumiere's men in 1906. Dziga Vertov in his impassioned if not very coherent manifesto of 1919 was the most belligerent to hold this view. However, Flaherty never claimed non-intervention but has been minutely examined and found to have intervened often and even rigged scenes. If you care to look carefully at Vertov's sequence of an early trial of "deviationists" in Moscow as an example of his "non-intervention" you should note with interest how a portly gentleman takes out his pocket-watch and holds it so that the camera can see the time... cut to exterior, as a tram car pulls up next to camera and a passenger leans out to buy a news paper which then passes the camera so that we can see the headline. Cut. Over shoulder shot of man on tram car reading same paper... etc. ad nauseam. By the time Vertov got to Man with a Movie Camera, there was not even a hint of non-intervention. Intervention had become the modus operandi of film. In the 1930’s and 40’s most scenes and in particular, all dialogue scenes were acted. In the case of Night Mail the sorting car scenes were shot in a car parked on a siding so as to accommodate the filming equipment and not disturb the sound recording system.
Flaherty was working, like the rest of us, with the technology available to him, as best he could, that is, he always used the smallest, most portable systems he could find. In Louisiana, to the horror of professional film makers, we used the new Arreflex cameras "liberated" from the German Wehrmacht! Much has been said in the available literature about Flaherty's "profligacy" with film and "his belief that everything can be done by panning". It is also claimed that "he knew nothing of modern scientific methods of editing... he only knew how to tell a simple story...".
I am not so interested in discussing whole films. When you do that you usually end up discussing things that lead you no place. The issues of whether the films depicted life as it was at that time or another time etc. What I find most rewarding is to look at sequences. What is a sequence? Perhaps it is a segment of the film that has a particular approach to telling a story within the film, in a particular way; a unique way.
I would start out selecting a sequence. In general I think that there are at least two kinds of sequences in each of the films. There are those that I think of as having been a challenge, that try to convey an important but subtle aspect of character, local or emotion. And there are those sequences that I find less interesting that I think were included more as an entertainment and these tend to recur; the tug of war scenes in Nanook, Man of Aran and Louisiana Story. I would wonder about how the sense of height was achieved in the coconut tree scene in Moana; the fishing from the cliff scene in Man of Aran and the introduction to the oil rig sequence in Louisiana Story. Take a
very careful look at the panning shots of the waves in the final storm sequence in Man of Aran. Ask yourself, how would I do this today? Could I do it better? Have I ever tried different ways of shooting a sequence whilst making a film? Why not?
These may sound like dumb questions. They are not. As I look at films today I seldom see a new approach to filming. I see an endless series of standard ways of doing things. I do not wish to suggest that you or I should constantly be looking for tricky new ways to do things; Heaven forbid! It took me months and months to fully realize that Flaherty thought of each sequence as a new sequence, that seldom bore any relationship to the making of past sequences. When I hear students and experienced film makers today speak of a "cut-away" as if there were such a thing, I shudder! I am not suggesting that we go back to the kind of documentary filming that we were forced to do in that era, with the bulky tripods and cameras and sound equipment which, because they made us clumsy, forced us to enact scenes and then reenact them. I don't want to do that. I think that today, when I shoot with my little video camera, I don't try shooting the same things over and over, I keep trying to shoot different things over and over, constantly looking for more revealing ways of seeing, constantly searching and questioning. That is what the Flahertys were doing. That is why you find that startling, extraordinary scene with the old man and the bell in the middle of The Land.
Ultimately I have to ask myself, why do these films look so modern, in the way that they are shot and edited. When I was growing up there was enormous admiration for the Soviet Cinema, for the works of Eisenstein, Pudovkin, Vertov et al. The first film that truly struck me as something wonderful, something that I could do myself, on my own, was Turk Sib (1929) by Victor Turin but today those films look frightening to me, their manipulative techniques belong more to the TV commercial and the MTV. To me,the most modern of the Flaherty films is the version of Moana created by Monica Flaherty by adding sound to the 1925 film without changing a frame of the picture. It is as if the film was made with synch sound in mind. However I can not admire the dialogue scenes in Louisiana Story. Flaherty knew that they were painful and blamed himself. Bryan Winston in his arrogant and ill informed "Review" of Rotha's book "Robert Flaherty: A Biography" cites Hellen van Dongen to the effect that Flaherty was ignorant of directing methods and returned with dialogue scenes where the actors said different things in different takes. I was there, we were desperately trying to achieve spontaneity by letting our non-professional actors choose their own words. Find a natural dialogue scene in this period of documentary filmmaking. Take a look at Humphry Jennings much admired A Diary for Timothy...it is all acted and all stilted. None of us were able to handle dialogue till the '60's with our new portable equipment.
So much for the technical end of the equation. What I find
that is constantly amazing, is the way that Flaherty filmed and edited his sequences in such a way as to encourage the participation of the viewer in the creation of the ultimate effect. The use of the close shot, especially at the start of a sequence, not so much to show detail, the classical view of its use, but to withhold information. To make the viewer want to see more. To create visual tension as the basis of story telling. In Moana there is not a single shot in the tree climbing sequence that reveals the whole coconut tree and in Louisiana Story there is not a single shot that shows the whole oil rig. How far into the wild boar scene in Moana are you before you know what is being hunted?
The human relationships in the films are remarkable in that they are so delicately indicated and convey kindness, self respect and mutual respect in work and in play. It was not until I saw Moana in Samoa, where Monica Flaherty and I projected the film in the village in which it had been filmed some 50 years before, with Pea, now in his 60's commenting as the film was shown, that I realized fully, the amount of humor and light banter in this film, and how much warmth. Look carefully and you will see for yourself. Good luck!
By Richard Leacock
I worked as Cameraman for Robert and Francis Flaherty on their last major film, Louisiana Story. We filmed for fourteen months. A tiny unit. Always the three of us. Sometimes an assistant cameraman. Sometimes another member of the family, Monica or Barbara, sketching or taking still photos. Often a carpenter who also took care of our boat. Never was what we did, done in a conventional film industry way. At first it drove me crazy. Didn't this world famous film director know how it should be done? "Should I tell him? Well now...lets wait a bit!"
I eventually began to understand what was going on. I tried and I am still trying. Was I a good student? I doubt it. I was a serious Marxist, or thought I was. I knew that the film we were making was paid for by Standard Oil of New Jersey and we all knew THAT was bad! Well, it has taken about forty years for me to come to the conclusion that it was not THAT bad; it just didn't give us the basis for a very good story and resulted in the latter part of the film getting pretty sloppy.
So why should we, you and I, but especially young film makers, be looking at these films? What has Flaherty to say to people making films in the 1990's? In order for us to be able to answer this question a few things must be placed in an historical perspective.
1. When these films were made there was only one place to show films and that was in commercial cinemas. There were no film clubs, no film schools, no television. The cinemas were run, in most cases, by the big movie producers and they were run for profit.
2. In the case of Nanook of the North (1921) and Moana (1925) the 35mm cameras had to be hand cranked and therefore had to be mounted on solid tripods. Panning and tilting was not easy when you were simultaneously hand cranking.
3. The photographic emulsions were slow by contemporary standards, hence the absolute need to construct an igloo which was open on one side to let daylight in and afford room to set up the tripod.
4. Though synchronous sound films took over the industry in about 1929 the systems were so delicate, clumsy and bulky that dialogue scenes had to be made in studios, under controlled conditions. On Man of Aran all the dialogue and sound effects had to be added later in a studio. On Louisiana Story (filmed in 1946-7) the dialogue scenes had to be made with a studio camera and the sound recorded on 16 inch acetate coated glass disks,each dialogue take had to be setup, "miked", lit, rehearsed and then filmed with "clap-sticks" at the head of each take... all"documentary" films of that period were enacted under controlled conditions.
5. The notion that the camera could act as a mirror of life; that reality could be observed without need of intervention, was not uncommon. Leo Tolstoy is reported to have commented to this effect on seeing reportage films, probably by one of Lumiere's men in 1906. Dziga Vertov in his impassioned if not very coherent manifesto of 1919 was the most belligerent to hold this view. However, Flaherty never claimed non-intervention but has been minutely examined and found to have intervened often and even rigged scenes. If you care to look carefully at Vertov's sequence of an early trial of "deviationists" in Moscow as an example of his "non-intervention" you should note with interest how a portly gentleman takes out his pocket-watch and holds it so that the camera can see the time... cut to exterior, as a tram car pulls up next to camera and a passenger leans out to buy a news paper which then passes the camera so that we can see the headline. Cut. Over shoulder shot of man on tram car reading same paper... etc. ad nauseam. By the time Vertov got to Man with a Movie Camera, there was not even a hint of non-intervention. Intervention had become the modus operandi of film. In the 1930’s and 40’s most scenes and in particular, all dialogue scenes were acted. In the case of Night Mail the sorting car scenes were shot in a car parked on a siding so as to accommodate the filming equipment and not disturb the sound recording system.
Flaherty was working, like the rest of us, with the technology available to him, as best he could, that is, he always used the smallest, most portable systems he could find. In Louisiana, to the horror of professional film makers, we used the new Arreflex cameras "liberated" from the German Wehrmacht! Much has been said in the available literature about Flaherty's "profligacy" with film and "his belief that everything can be done by panning". It is also claimed that "he knew nothing of modern scientific methods of editing... he only knew how to tell a simple story...".
I am not so interested in discussing whole films. When you do that you usually end up discussing things that lead you no place. The issues of whether the films depicted life as it was at that time or another time etc. What I find most rewarding is to look at sequences. What is a sequence? Perhaps it is a segment of the film that has a particular approach to telling a story within the film, in a particular way; a unique way.
I would start out selecting a sequence. In general I think that there are at least two kinds of sequences in each of the films. There are those that I think of as having been a challenge, that try to convey an important but subtle aspect of character, local or emotion. And there are those sequences that I find less interesting that I think were included more as an entertainment and these tend to recur; the tug of war scenes in Nanook, Man of Aran and Louisiana Story. I would wonder about how the sense of height was achieved in the coconut tree scene in Moana; the fishing from the cliff scene in Man of Aran and the introduction to the oil rig sequence in Louisiana Story. Take a
very careful look at the panning shots of the waves in the final storm sequence in Man of Aran. Ask yourself, how would I do this today? Could I do it better? Have I ever tried different ways of shooting a sequence whilst making a film? Why not?
These may sound like dumb questions. They are not. As I look at films today I seldom see a new approach to filming. I see an endless series of standard ways of doing things. I do not wish to suggest that you or I should constantly be looking for tricky new ways to do things; Heaven forbid! It took me months and months to fully realize that Flaherty thought of each sequence as a new sequence, that seldom bore any relationship to the making of past sequences. When I hear students and experienced film makers today speak of a "cut-away" as if there were such a thing, I shudder! I am not suggesting that we go back to the kind of documentary filming that we were forced to do in that era, with the bulky tripods and cameras and sound equipment which, because they made us clumsy, forced us to enact scenes and then reenact them. I don't want to do that. I think that today, when I shoot with my little video camera, I don't try shooting the same things over and over, I keep trying to shoot different things over and over, constantly looking for more revealing ways of seeing, constantly searching and questioning. That is what the Flahertys were doing. That is why you find that startling, extraordinary scene with the old man and the bell in the middle of The Land.
Ultimately I have to ask myself, why do these films look so modern, in the way that they are shot and edited. When I was growing up there was enormous admiration for the Soviet Cinema, for the works of Eisenstein, Pudovkin, Vertov et al. The first film that truly struck me as something wonderful, something that I could do myself, on my own, was Turk Sib (1929) by Victor Turin but today those films look frightening to me, their manipulative techniques belong more to the TV commercial and the MTV. To me,the most modern of the Flaherty films is the version of Moana created by Monica Flaherty by adding sound to the 1925 film without changing a frame of the picture. It is as if the film was made with synch sound in mind. However I can not admire the dialogue scenes in Louisiana Story. Flaherty knew that they were painful and blamed himself. Bryan Winston in his arrogant and ill informed "Review" of Rotha's book "Robert Flaherty: A Biography" cites Hellen van Dongen to the effect that Flaherty was ignorant of directing methods and returned with dialogue scenes where the actors said different things in different takes. I was there, we were desperately trying to achieve spontaneity by letting our non-professional actors choose their own words. Find a natural dialogue scene in this period of documentary filmmaking. Take a look at Humphry Jennings much admired A Diary for Timothy...it is all acted and all stilted. None of us were able to handle dialogue till the '60's with our new portable equipment.
So much for the technical end of the equation. What I find
that is constantly amazing, is the way that Flaherty filmed and edited his sequences in such a way as to encourage the participation of the viewer in the creation of the ultimate effect. The use of the close shot, especially at the start of a sequence, not so much to show detail, the classical view of its use, but to withhold information. To make the viewer want to see more. To create visual tension as the basis of story telling. In Moana there is not a single shot in the tree climbing sequence that reveals the whole coconut tree and in Louisiana Story there is not a single shot that shows the whole oil rig. How far into the wild boar scene in Moana are you before you know what is being hunted?
The human relationships in the films are remarkable in that they are so delicately indicated and convey kindness, self respect and mutual respect in work and in play. It was not until I saw Moana in Samoa, where Monica Flaherty and I projected the film in the village in which it had been filmed some 50 years before, with Pea, now in his 60's commenting as the film was shown, that I realized fully, the amount of humor and light banter in this film, and how much warmth. Look carefully and you will see for yourself. Good luck!