Man of Aran (1934)

From Wikipedia:
*quote*
Man of Aran is a 1934 British fictional documentary (ethnofiction) film directed by Robert J. Flaherty about life on the Aran Islands off the western coast of Ireland. It portrays characters living in premodern conditions, documenting their daily routines such as fishing off high cliffs, farming potatoes where there is little soil, and hunting for huge basking sharks to get liver oil for lamps. Some situations are fabricated, such as one scene in which the shark fishermen are almost lost at sea in a sudden gale. Additionally, the family members shown are not actually related, having been chosen from among the islanders for their photogenic qualities.
George Stoney's 1978 documentary How the Myth was Made, which is included in the special features of the DVD, relates that the Aran Islanders had not hunted sharks in this way for over fifty years at the time the film was made. Man of Aran is Flaherty's re-creation of culture on the edges of modern society, even though much of the primitive life depicted had been left behind by the 1930s.(...)
*end quote*

From IMDB:
*quote*
The islanders hunt a basking shark for its oil, but they hadn't done so in generations. The filmmakers had to bring an Inuit hunter to show them how to do it as their ancestors might have.
*end quote*

I liked the film. In addition to being enjoyable, it made me think. For starters, what is it that makes this kind of film (I am also thinking of Nanook of the North) aesthetically pleasing? I think it is because there is a nice balance of people and nature. Another question (which perhaps loses some of its appeal after  one reads the above information about all that is false in the movie) is, how do these people stand life in such conditions, and moreover seem happy? Well, never underestimate natural selection. I think they are genetically adapted to this kind of life. Anyway, I am not exactly happy in the environment I live in, so who knows if I too am genetically more adapted to live in a rougher one?

It is strange that Flaherty is credited on IMDB and Wikipedia as its sole writer. The credits that are shown at the beginning of the film credit John Goldman as editor (for which those two sites also give him credit) and scenarist (which is an old word for screenwriter).

Rating: 54