User reviews

I really enjoyed this film. It is best to ignore any questions about the plot and whether it is a movie or a documentary and just sit back and be transported back in time. The island is a beautiful, yet harsh and isolated place and the people are a product of that environment. I just saw the film after returning from a trip to Ireland, where we spent several enchanting days on the island, hiking in the rain. The locals told me about the movie, I had only a vague knowledge before then.

What has really sold me on the movie was the DVD edition we viewed it on. There is a wealth of details about the movie, the director, the island, and much more now available. Fans wedded to todays ultra-slick color and CGI productions might be disappointed, but for the serious movie fan this is a gem!

If you were to ask passers-by on the street if they'd be interested in seeing a 1934 documentary about the harsh day-to-day existence of a tiny community living on a remote island off the coast of Ireland -- well, you'd be standing there all day before you could find someone who'd say, "sure!". Which is really a disappointment because they don't know what they're missing!

Think of every poem you've read about the sea and man's relation to it and you might get a clue as to the depths of feeling that this film has. It's like Hemingway, Pablo Neruda and W.B. Yeats all rolled into one. It's extremely simplistic, just shots of how a small family fishes, hauls seaweed for fertilizer (there is no soil on the island) and dodges waves so high that its foam sprays above the cliff-tops. Not to mention an incredible sequence where five fishermen try to catch and kill a shark that is a good deal larger than their boat!

What's most exhilarating about this film is that while you're watching it, you can't help but think that these people are crazy to choose to live in such a desolate and difficult place, but then you try to imagine them elsewhere and you know that they are as much a part of that environment as the stubborn sea-worn cliffs are. After even thirty minutes of the film, the roar of the ocean and the cries of the gulls fill your head to such an extreme that you know that such people could live no where else. This film is reminiscent of Roberto Rossellini's film, "Stromboli" about the inhabitants of a small village on a volcanic island. There are a few brief pockets of sentimentality due to the score, but the filmmakers thankfully left out the music during all of the film's most important scenes. Overall what you have is an incredible cinematic experience that makes you think and imagine what it would be like to live a life where every day is a struggle with the elements of nature and a fight for survival, yet filled with the deepest awe and respect for nature and for living.

This is a British documentary from Gaumont and Gainsborough Pictures, and directed by Robert Flaherty. The Aran Islands lie off the west coast of Ireland. They are nothing but craggy rock jutting out of the ocean, with no trees or soil. A handful of people live there, eking out a meager existence via fishing the treacherous waters and planting small food crops in piles of seaweed. They also hunt for basking sharks, a source of multiple items such as lamp oil, skins, and foodstuff.

It has stupendous location cinematography, but the endless shots of massive waves battering the rocky shore get old after about 30 minutes in, and there's still 45 minutes left. The basking shark hunt also goes on for about twice the length that it needed to. This is virtually a silent film, as all audio was added later, mainly the sounds of crashing waves and a smattering of mumbled words from the people depicted. The photography is enough to marginally recommend this, but there isn't a lot more to the proceedings other than wondering why these people choose to live this way . Some vague declaration of freedom is given as an answer.

I taped "Man of Aran" back in 1992 off a TV broadcast. I'm glad I still have it, because I'm certain I've never seen it on the air since. My father grew up on the smallest of the Aran Islands (hence my user ID), and I heard quite a bit about the film before finally seeing it. The baby girl in the crib, for instance, grew up to marry the brother of our one-time neighbor. Dad also assured me that Robert Flaherty didn't follow the islanders around unobtrusively with his camera, but staged all the action. Hunting sharks, for instance, may still have been done at the turn of the last century, but not by the 1930's. That same year (1992), Dad came across Robert Flaherty's daughter at an Irish festival. She mentioned that she had some unused footage from "Man of Aran" back home in New Hampshire. That would be great to see on a DVD version. Of course, who knows what kind of shape that film stock is in by now? Call it a 'documentary fantasy' if you will (which the British film magazine Sight & Sound did). To me, it will always be a powerful look at how harsh, and beautiful, it is to live off the sea.

Another movie by a master movie maker.

His documentaries make one feel the hardship his subjects undergo, whether real or not.

A must see along with Nanook.

The visuals are stunning as is the empathy of the director for his subjects.

Would there be a documentary director like him today -- except for Frederick Wiseman whom I am sure was inspired by Flaherty's movies such as Nanook (a picture of a long lost world) and Man of Aran.

I wonder if people are still farming Aran or if they have all left for the big city.

There are other documentaries by the BBC -- See South Georgia Island or the re-creations of Shackleton's unsuccessful trip to the South Pole and you will feel as well as ache along with them.

A true pioneer when making films was difficult at best, impossible at worst. But Flaherty make the impossible real and captured a world that no longer exists.

Next time you feel the need to gripe, complain, sit-back, loaf and refuse to get-up and get going, you need to watch this movie which expertly makes the point of you don't work you don't eat and it is not a threat but a reality. You got people living on what amounts to a giant rock of an island trying to make it all make sense in huts with weather, hardships and work being your everyday challenge to exist. If you enjoy it and it appears that they do, then they are living out their lives to their satisfaction. Nice shots of the background and how people respect what they have and become good stewards of it. It appears getting wet and cold is the price to pay for living and working on this island. Some fascinating events and surprises come-up of which I wont mention that cause intrigue and capture the viewer every step of the way. I had a couple of moments where I said "so that's what is going on and why they do that" which were very enjoyable. Remember, this movie goes back decades ago in a remote place meaning, no 7-11, TV, phones, Internet or bar visits. You work from sun-up to sun-down and retire to your little hut where animals, a hot liquid and rest awaits. Working together is a must or it gets even worse too. This is very well demonstrated. Good movie to snack with or have a sandwich with a tasty drink. Stop complaining about anything and everything and see how others live and love with less...

This review is being written by a man who absolutely despises everything about realist style films. However, Flaherty's depiction of life on the Isle of Aran captivated me from start to finish. Filled with inaccuracies and misrepresentations, Flaherty would have been lying through his teeth to have called this a documentary (the man of Aran wasn't even from Aran). Man of Aran remains realist however in that, I believe, in that it only speaks to you if you hold a connection to the sort of life it depicts. Flaherty brings forth the essence of that life but will only hold your interest if you actually care how someone might farm in a soilless field of broken rock.

If that isn't your bag, you can still at least enjoy Flaherty's visuals. Waves pound against rocky cliffs sending spray a hundred feet high. It is quite a spectacle.

I rented this from Netflix recently. Visually, this picture is stunning. Some of the finest filming of the sea I've ever seen. The minimalist story really isn't much, just an attempt to provide some excuse for various actions in the film. This film is really not a documentary at all. One of the special features on the DVD is a short film called "Making the Myth" (or something like that), which is all about how the film was made, how Flaherty scripted various scenes, etc. As noted in the a previous review, the entire shark scene was something Flaherty pushed, recognizing that shark hunting sells. However, according to "Making the Myth," basking shark hunting had gone out over 50 years earlier. Apparently Flaherty also thought that, if he got people hunting the sharks for his move, they might start it up again as a local industry. We found a good portion of the dialogue almost unintelligible. Especially at the start, we thought they we speaking Gaelic! Still, the dialogue is really unnecessary. Flaherty uses old fashioned dialogue cards, like in a silent film, to explain what's coming up. Overall, this was a very interesting film to watch. Since it's just over an hour long, it's a good one to see when you have some time but don't want to commit to any "Major Movie Event!"

The setting is simply spectacular. The characters acquire the heroic dimension, while remaining humble beings. The film shows the harmony between man and nature, chasing the right and living in symbiosis with it.

A silent movie with sounds added later, waves crashing and wind blowing and gulls calling and windy orchestral music based on Irish songs and people talking in heavy accents. Intertitles as well. There is no plot to speak of, just the rugged life on the Aran Isles, men going out to sea in small boats, women watching from the shore, a young boy eager to join the men, a shark hunt, big seas, and the men returning safely, but just barely. The photography is spectacular, giving a good sense of the near-barrenness of the islands and the old traditional life, not to mention providing amazing and frightening shots of huge waves thundering against cliffs and cascading back down in waterfalls all along the rim. All the men seem to wear the same outfit, work pants and a black wool sweater and a sort of tam with a big top-knot, and the almost too-cute boy wears the same. The dialogue must have been recorded separately and edited in: there's often none of the background noise we'd expect on location, and the lines have that tone of amateur improvisation. It might have been better to leave it as a silent movie—as brilliant as Flaherty was, he took longer to make the transition to sound than anybody. Another thing. I was wondering about the extent to which Flaherty orchestrated the doings of the Aran people to fit his story (and his conception of the primitive life). Notwithstanding these grumblings, I'd still have to rate this very high, largely because of the photography, including the many low-angle shots of the boy and his mother walking along the cliffs with the sky soaring above them, the ocean shots, the intercutting for continuity, and the loving attention to landscape and human detail.

No doubt there will be many UK film lovers and USA movie lovers also, who have never heard of this first ever Irish documentary film and its equally famous director ? Plus the very illustrious well known English gent Harry Watt, a household name for us Brits that revelled in anything and everything.

Cinema wise ! Watt started as an assistant which was his role on Man Of Aran. He clearly was a quick learner, and I had no idea he worked on this film until now. To make life easier, from here on in lets refer to MOA ! Very soon after this doco, Watt began his fascinating professional role of director .

As for MOA from what I have only read, controversy continues unabated , and likely quite vitriolic !? From an early age I took an interest in docos, such as Nanook of the North plus others and Flaherty has remained a name engraved in my heart and soul since my teenage years. My passion has continued , albeit my viewing today is the first since over 45 years earlier ? I woke up this morning with pulsing Flaherty light bulbs , so had to view again and marvelled , even more appreciatively than 45 years ago , possibly due to my closeness to.an octogenarian life ? The audio was greatly enhanced by h/phones ,albeit the images are as true as has ever been said , a well framed image is worth a thousand words. Narrative wise is precisely that, wise ! One viewing is not enough to really deeply get your head in to fully appreciating ? I will continue viewing on an ad hoc basis, thereby learning and acclimatising my visual senses in perspective to angles, close ups, long shots , mediums , highs and lows .Bearing in mind , i have no idea what equipment was used, although I think it probably unlikely they used cranes or cherry pickers which i assume did not exist in those days ?

Apparently 35mm which meant either Flaherty was as muscular as a gorilla, or was that Harry Watt ? Someone had to be in charge and also focus, lens changes and if 1000 ft. Rolls rewinding and renewing was all a huge undertaking by all IMDB accounts was a fairly small crew .?

Trivia tells us about the required Inuit gent as the oil required for lamps had not been taken for some years and so sadly Islanders had lost that skill !

I have read that an American gent travelled specially to Aran investigating as many details as were remembered by survivors in 1977 ?

In conclusion, I strongly advise all viewers of this film should read all the reviews and also hopefully take some small notice of my comments here ?

Unequivocally and without any reservation, this doco is highly recommended , and truly worth every one of your more than 70 minutes time !

Although proudly described in the credits as 'A Gainsborough Picture', it's entirely absent from the index of Pam Cook's 'Gainsborough Pictures' (1997), appearing only in the filmography (significantly described as a drama rather than a documentary).

Basically a silent film (depending for exposition upon titles, with its brief snatches of dialogue used more as sound effects as in the films of Jacques Tati in succeeding decades), it resembles the French rural dramas of the twenties.

Despite the title, it's Maggie Dirrane with her strong Irish face as the wife that's the fulcrum upon which this classic precursor of neo-realism actually rests.

I watched this film in my documentary film class and was bored to tears. This film is supposedly a documentary, but most of it looked staged, which is Flaherty's style. Watching people search for soil in the cracks between rocks with very little dialogue is not the most exciting thing to see on the screen, however the time frame needs to be taken into account. This was probably some exciting stuff back in the 1930s. The big dramatic man versus nature scene at the end was snooze worthy. It was, perhaps, the most boring thing I have ever sat through. Nanook of the North was a better made film of Flaherty's, however that is not a true 'documentary' either.

We had jounced across Galway bay in a 45 minute ferry ride, boarded a pony trap for an hour's ride in a two-wheeled carriage, upholstered with leather and duct tape and driven by an ancient Irishman named Tom Flaherty, whose first language was Gaelic. He deposited us at the Atlantic side of the island at a tiny museum for break. My husband opted for the hike to the headland to view a crumbling 20th century fort, while I browsed the museum. It was there that I spied a poster for "Man of Aran" - only 2.50 Euros per person. It sounded vaguely interesting, a way to pass time til the pony trap driver returned to take us bouncing back to the ferry boat landing.

We climbed the steep stairs and were seated in a room overlooking the centuries old stone walls that crawl haphazardly over the rugged terrain. A large high definition television sat before us, and we waited for the lady at the downstairs desk to come turn it on. We were joined by four more people, the blinds were drawn and the warbly, scratchy sound track and grainy black and white documentary began. We were gripped immediately by the story - part adventure, part documentary, part drama. It was easy to believe the severe conditions, the arduous, back breaking work of gathering kelp, fishing in the heaving surf, rocky, slippery shores, having just witnessed them in person. A few of the scenes are a little fakey, but we're talking 1934 here, and if you'd ever seen that pounding surf at the foot of that towering cliff, you'd know why they perhaps went Hollywood in the shark hunting scene. If you can't see it in its place of origin, by all means make the effort to find a print. This is a classic. By the way, our driver, Tom Flaherty, would have been 12 years old when the film was made but the director/producer Flaherty was an American from Hollywood, and much distrusted by the natives. He had one heck of a time making the movie, so the brochure at the desk informed us. In typical local resident style, our driver had never seen the movie and did not claim to be related to the director. He dropped us at the ferry and, speaking endearing terms in Gaelic to Brownie, his faithful cart horse, urged her back up the path to the pub for his daily pint of Guinness.

both allmovie.com and imdb.com call this a documentary, but that's a bit iffy. it's real footage of real people, but the action is sorta directed and the people aren't portrayed as they are in real life - the three main characters are supposed to be related, but aren't really. it's more of a documentary than "kids," which is a feature film that is shot like a documentary and most of the actors weren't doing much acting - rather they were sort of just playing themselves. maybe it's a documentary like koyaanisqatsi (or man with a movie camera) is a documentary - things are distorted or shaped by the director, but it's still real life; tough to say. enough of that though, on to the review. the photography is much better in this film than it was in flaherty's first (nanook of the north, which i also own). the black and white images are much sharper and the cinematography is far more advanced. nanook of the north was sort of an accident film for flaherty - he was in northern canada on some sort of expedition and sort of fell into being a filmmaker. at any rate, this film is a definite step up (in a technical sense) from nanook of the north. he uses montage, at least a couple different cameras, and has gotten even better at editing, making this film truly good - especially for its time (1934). i mentioned a few reviews ago that 'triumph of the will' was hardly impressing, even when taking into account the year of release. here's a film that proves my point - it was released in the same year, it's also a documentary (mostly), and it's probably ten to eleven times better than 'triumph of the will.' B+.

This is a magnificent portrait not only of a dying way of life (dying in 1934 and still dying) but a portrait of the human struggle to find life in the most desolate of places. The photography is magnificent, the pacing is perfect and the piece transcends culture and even the very idea of "documentary" film. But this is true of all of Flaherty's films. Flaherty wasn't a documentarian. He didn't purport to be a disinterested observer (whatever that is). He staged his films, this has never been in dispute and he never made any attempts to hide the fact. He referred to films he made as "travel films", a phrase common in the 1930s. Make no mistake this film is a piece of art.

I've heard of Man of Aran, but never watched it. Essentially a silent movie from the 30s. It's pioneering filmmaker Robert Flaherty's love letter to the often brutal and beautiful Aran islands off the coast of Ireland. Men toiling with the sea, toiling with the land. Aran looks like a tough place, harsh and unforgiving. It could be interpreted as documentary, but it's cut in dramatic fashion and it is very dramatic. Waves crashing, young fishermen wresting nets in the surf. I'm guessing, but I wouldn't be surprised if this where the inspiration for that classic Guinness advert with the horses galloping out of the waves. The film follows the inhabitants of Aran in their daily lives. If the power of the sea seems relentless, the same can be said for the rocky landscape inland too. It's a barren place, with fertile soil harvested like gold from the ground in cracks between the rocks, then used to create man made fields to grow their diet of potatoes. Some of scenery is staggering, even in old slightly blurry black and white. A young boy fishing with a line off a ridiculously high cliff, 100ft or so. To my modern safety conscious eyes it looks crazy. He looks completely free though, independent, in control, full of joy, fearless. It's called Man of Aran and the cast is overwhelmingly male, but there's one matriarchal figure who if there is one, is the lynchpin. She's the one pulling the strings if not the nets of ores. Between her and the young boy we feel the connection to the place. The men are almost indistinguishable, but these two, bound to the land, feel like our eyes. The boy wants to go to sea, but isn't allowed. Staying home instead with his mother, in a stone dwelling, heated by fire, lit by oil lamps, wrapped in tough work clothes. Indeed Aran sweaters, but you wouldn't find these in a catalogue. Everything is practice, although all the men do wear nifty matching bobble hats. I've watched this twice. The first with the sound of the film off, instead playing British Sea Power's 'Man of Aran' album, designed to score the film and boy does it! You've got to be careful to get it lined up properly, but being shot in the 30s, there are title cards that introduce each new scene and these help keep you in time. Their score is gorgeous, utterly majestic. Reminiscent of GY!BE, the tone and atmosphere it brings is incredible. Beautiful haunting underwater sounds amplified through strings as the young boy spots a shark and driving percussion as he chases it along the rugged coastline. As a small fishing boat harpoons the creature and tries to bring it in, it's stunning and spectacular. The boat twisting and turning with the movement of the beast and the band wrestling right along with the men in the boat. When watching with the BSP score, the score does take over. I'm fine with that, it's gorgeous, but watching with the film's original sound is a different experience again. Featuring a score by John Greenwood, based on Irish Folk songs. It's much more immediate and literal. BSP have gone big, Greenwood has a lighter touch, music with a spring in its step. It's a full orchestra too, which gives it a much more rounded sound. The opening scenes are gentle, focusing on the boy, his mother and a baby in a crib that I inexplicably missed first time round. The music sign posts nearly every action. What's surprising after watching with the BSP score though, is here the music ebbs away as we get our first glimpses of the fishermen. The sounds of the sea are brought in, along with voices. It's all added sound of course, no other way to do it in the early 30s recording process. The voices are used like gestures, not too many distinguishable words, partly because of the thick Irish accent, but it definitely adds that documentary feel. It also hammers home the mother's dominance. This really should've been called Woman of Aran. There's some truly mind-boggling cinematography and editing. Especially on the boats where the cameras must've been pretty unruly, with some fantastic shots of them hunting basque sharks, which look enormous compared to the small boats. Some sequences are cut so fast, they must've been mere slivers of film, it's really a stunning piece of work. I guess I need to say which score I prefer. It's an easy call really, British Sea Power's. It's got much more clout and has that powerful swell of sound that I love. Greenwood's original score through feels more well suited. Yes it's much more traditional and not especially inventive, but it helps the narrative much more, with its joyful sweeping strings. True it's more sporadic, making way for the foley sound, but that only helps make it appear more considered. As it begins with the boy gently crab fishing, it ends with real dramatic tension as his father and two others struggle with a boat in a raging storm, desperately trying to get safely to shore. It's edge of your seat stuff, genuine life and death playing out on screen. Man of Aran is a fantastic piece of early cinema. Whether you watch it with its original score and sound or with British Sea Power's reinterpretation, it's a treat for the eyes and ears.

An amazing document and well worth seeing.

It is strange to watch a classic documentary film on this brave community and not get a single chance to hear them speak one word in their own language (Irish Gaelic). The voice-overs were all in English, for the audience of course. But we would not have been harmed by even a smattering of dialog in Irish.

I also missed seeing a little more of domestic life. What did they eat, how did they cook, what was their religious life like? We see only the sea, the source of their existence, but not much of what they did beyond it.

A magic film that you can watch again and again for its majesty and drama. I cannot recall another black and white movie that so well captured the terrifying grandeur of the sea. If you saw and enjoyed "Ryan's Daughter", do see this classic of cinema and compare it's storm sequence. What magic Flaherty captured in astonishing cinematography and editing! The setting is wonderful, so do see this film, and hope you too get the opportunity to see the West coast of Ireland when the sea is up and the wind is shrieking. Times may have changed even these more remote parts of Ireland, but nothing will ever overcome the stark and rugged beauty of this glorious landscape so ably captured in "Man of Aran".

British film producer Michael Balcon knew the quality of his country's motion pictures didn't compare to Hollywood's slick, well-made presentations. Working for the London studio of Gaumont Picture Corporation, he proposed to its Paris headquarters to hire noted documentarian Robert Flaherty to create a documentary on par with its United States competitors. What emerged from two years of filming in the Aran Islands off the coast of Ireland's Galway Bay was October 1934 "Man of Aran."

Judging from its critical response, the 76-minute movie gave exactly what Balcon had intended. Flaherty's focus on a fisherman's family reflects the hardships these isolated Irish islanders endured daily to survive the harsh elements of the rocky-dominated group of islands off the western Irish coast. Film critic Paul Rotha infused in his 1934 review, "There are moments in the film which are among the greatest things that cinema can show, which means at the least that they provide both a mental and a physical experience which is unforgettable."

For two years Flaherty and his small film crew set up a studio and processing lab, and shot over 200,000 feet of footage on the biggest of the Aran Islands, Inishmore. Using a long focal lens to capture sweeping shots of the family against the turbulent backgrounds, Flaherty captured in one breathtaking frame the mother trudging a huge bundle of seaweed by walking on precarious stone ledges while gigantic waves broke close by. Flaherty purposely shot his film without audio, creating sound effects and brief spoken passages in a post-production facility.

As the writer and director, Flaherty, known for his popular documentaries of the Inuit in 1922's "Nanook of the North" and the Pacific Ocean islanders in 1926's "Moana," has been criticized for manipulating a number of scene tableaus to create his narrative. Film reviewer Scott Tobias notes, "Flaherty was accused of being a showman who fudged authenticity for the sort of eye-catching cinematic spectacle and drama that could rope in crowds like a carnival barker." Instead, Tobias writes, he wasn't so much of a documentarian as he was a myth maker and imaginist. His work is a perfect example of poetic realism cinema.

"Man of Aran" was no exception to Flaherty's previous works. The family depicted in the movie consisted of 'actors,' known more for their photogenic faces than the actual genetic connections. One of the highlights of the film is when the fisherman, accompanied by several colleagues, hunt down a gigantic shark. The scene is thrilling at its core. However, shark and whale hunting for their oil had been non-existence for a number of years in the area. Flaherty brought a shark where they were accessible and dumped in it in the Galway Bay waters. Those 'actors' in his movie were taught by veteran shark hunters on the techniques of harpooning. Flaherty's limited his scope on the fishing of the islanders rather than other aspects of their daily lives, seeing the islands' frothing sea waves the most dramatic visuals he felt would make an exciting film.

Instead of an authentic documentary, many claim "Man of Aran" is more what is termed, "salvage ethnography." Flaherty was a circumstantial researcher, uncovering past cultural traditions that had no longer been practiced. He felt by recreating the past, he was preserving those vanishing and outdated primitivism. As S. T. Kimball wrote, "in a cosmic anthropological sense it could be counted as an artistic rendition of the struggle of man against nature." Looking at the lasting images Flaherty captured, "Man of Aran" effectively gets that message across.

As a child, I saw Man of Aran in my grandfather's living room. I didn;t understand why he seemed so moved by the Man of Aran. I recently learned that Colman King (the star) was my grandfather's first cousin. Delia King Donahue was my great grandmother, and her nephew was Colman King. As far as the film goes, it is what it is, the life and times of those trying to eek out a living under very adverse circumstances.

Does anyone know where I might obtain a poster(reproduction) of the movie? Yah, nostalgia)

Thanks, Sue

Robert Flaherty, known as the Father of the Documentary, made his directorial debut with this look at life on the island of Aran, off the coast of Ireland. The people on the island spend their days digging through the rocks to get soil to grow crops, and also hunting basking sharks. Every step of the way it looks like a tough existence, but the inhabitants do what they can to survive.

It's an impressive documentary in every sense. A number of the scenes look as if they must have been hard to film, especially when the boy climbs down the cliff. But they accomplished it. I definitely recommend "Man of Aran".

The DVD includes an interview with Flaherty's widow Frances years after they made "Man of Aran". She comments on the construction of a nuclear plant not far from her house in Vermont, and worries about how safe nuclear plants are (in fact, this was a few years before Three Mile Island; since then of course, we've had Chernobyl and Fukushima).