Having looked over a lot of the comments on this site, I feel urged to point out that every one of you is looking at it from a Western Hollywood-based perspective. To criticise the editing is to say it's not a satisfyingly edited film in a way you're used to, it's not poorly edited, it's the way the attention of the director is focussed. Of course the director isn't making the film or caring about a Hollywood perspective, he's making films FOR the Inuit community. So in that way it's a home movie, as someone else pointed out. And while I'm not an Anthropology student, I feel a huge sense of privilege at being able to get an insight into the Inuit culture, hundreds of Anthropology students and professors have tried and failed to get an insight as good as this film gives us. I can't pretend to make one more person like this film, it will always look like a badly edited, poorly shot film to some people, but if you think about this film as a new style of filmmaking for a new, previously barely filmed culture, an underrepresented culture turning the camera on themselves and telling a timeless story in an environment that seems unchanged, then I think you'll get a lot more out of it than just being able to say "hey I saw that Eskimo film" as some people no doubt have. Plus, how often do you see a film that could have taken place anytime over the last 10 000 years? Truly a unique and marvellous film. Bring on the next one.
