Flaherty and Grierson are both very credible filmmakers from early documentary film history. Though Flaherty is known as the first “father of documentary,” both artists are seen as important pioneers or “fathers” of the industry. Flaherty first produced Nannook of the North, which appealed to a Hollywood audience and was a documentary film made for entertainment, outlining the intimacy of culture. In the Barnouw text, it is discussed that while Grierson admired Flaherty as the father of documentary, he often took a different approach to the industry. John Grierson’s determination was to “bring the citizen’s eye in from the ends of the earth to the story, his own story, of what was happening under his nose…the drama of the door-step” (Barnouw 85). Grierson’s mission focused on dramatizing issues and exploiting social issues in a meaningful way. One of Grierson’s favorite topics was the situation as a mandate to explore the entire role of communication in a modern society. Robert Flaherty was more involved in capturing the intimacy, communication between cultures, and way of life in documentary making the film more light hearted for the audience. He often uses reenactment and staged scenes, which some people argue about truth in using these techniques.
Flaherty is known for feature-length, close up portrait of a group of people, remotely located but familiar in their humanity. Grierson criticizes Flaherty’s approach calling it remote and primitive. For example, when Flaherty filmed Nanook in 1922, with no voiceover or commentary, the film was produced for a Hollywood audience. It was playful and enjoyable to watch because it outlined Inuit culture as American’s knew it. Flaherty writes about the film Nanook: “What I want to show is the former majesty and character of these people, while it was still possible, before the white man has destroyed not only their character, but the people as well” (Barnouw 45). Barnouw states that part of the satisfaction when watching the Nanook film lies in the fact the audience has been permitted to be an explorer and discoverer, like Flaherty himself. Flaherty includes the audience. Grierson would have taken a different approach, I suspect, by outlining the social issue of how the white man changed the culture for the Inuit’s or how they had a lack of food and supplies. This approach would have given the film a different feel, making the documentary more political to a modern issue. Grierson shows or teaches the audience about a social issue, where the film would have been more persuasive than intimate.
Grierson’s films appeal to a smaller audience, more “private groups.” For example, The Battleship Potemkin, forbidden in theaters by British censorship decision, was more issue- oriented and considered unfit for the public eye. On the other hand, Drifters filmed by Grierson was less obtrusive, more Flaherty style. Drifters brought to life the daily routine of workers and there was nothing doctrinally radical about it (89). The success of Drifters is what brought Grierson, a deviation from Flaherty, to find his new career. Grierson in the British filmmaking industry, focuses on personal matters for the audience. He tells his film crew that they are, “Propagandists first, filmmakers second” (90). Some major characteristics that are noticed in Grierson filmmaking is he dealt with impersonal social process; usually shorter film with the use of commentary or voice over that articulated a point of view. Flaherty, for example in filming Man of Aran, is known for a feature-length, close up portrait of a group of people, remotely located but familiar in their humanity.
Grierson critiques Flaherty’s filming technique in Man of Aran arguing that he ignored the social issue going on at the time, stating: “Flaherty ignored, amid a world economic crisis, the social context in which Aran islanders carried struggles” (99). Grierson would have fixated on a more modern approach and outlined the important issues going on in Aran at the time rather than focusing on an earlier period, which is what Flaherty did. This film can be compared to Grierson’s film Night Mail and Cole Face, in which he focused on the process of the cole miners life at the exact time, an account of the difficulties during the Depression. Returning to Great Britain, Grierson used film to build national morale to deal with the problems during the Great Depression.
John Grierson has changed or shaped the documentary genre by taking a more a realistic approach, reporting social issues rather than documentary for pleasure. Grierson makes his films more political reasons rather than for a Hollywood audience, which was more Flaherty’s style. Documentaties today are more informative, outlining a social issue rather than capturing the essence, beauty and intimacy of life, like Flaherty did. I think both filmmakers have contributed a great deal and devoted a perfect balance and example for documentary film today. I feel that filmmakers today can contribute aspects of both Grierson and Flaherty’s techniques to teach the audience about a social issue while also capturing a personal account, and intimate culture of the scene. This was portrayed well in modern day documentary The Act of Killing. The film both presented a social issue to the audience where scenes were very intense, but also showed the happiness of the culture, like when the families are all joking around together. Grierson and Flaherty have contributed an important balance of aspects to filmmaking in which modern day artists still use today.