1. Focusing on Rony’s text, begin by listing all the ways that Nanook, and the Inuit more generally, are represented in Nanook of the North. What is the purpose and the consequence of each representation?
2. Again drawing on Rony’s text, list all the moments (details, scenes) within the film that may be regarded as lies.
3. Reflecting on your lists for 1 and 2, consider the following quotations. “One often has to distort a thing to catch its true spirit.” (Flaherty cited in Rony 1996, 116). “The irony […] is that “reality” filmed does not appear real. The filmmaker must use artifice to convey truth.” Do you agree? Does it matter if film is not truthful?
4. Central to Rony’s argument is the concept of ethnographic taxidermy. What does she mean by this? And can you think of other examples of the taxidermic?
5. Centrally, today’s readings prompt us to reflect on the representation of history. On page 102, Rony sets out a critique of the use, within anthropology, of the “ethnographic present.” What is this? And what are its consequences? However, this said, it is conventional — within art criticism—to write about pieces of art in the present tense too. Why might art historians do this? And does this convention have the same consequences in art criticism as it does in anthropology?
6. Rony mentions both Franz Boas and Bronislaw Malinowski. Who were these people and why do they matter?
7. select one idea from Rony’s article that you found particularly thought-provoking and be ready to share it with the class.