Frank Hurley: The Man Who Made History

Archaeology and Frank Hurley: the Man Who Made History both deal with the personal impact of discovery. Archaeology (1973) is a poem by W. H. Auden. Frank Hurley: The Man Who Made History (2004) is a documentary written and directed by Simon Nasht, starring Australian photographer Frank Hurley (1885-1962). The subjects of the texts gain knowledge and personal and creative insight through their discoveries. Archaeology's subject, although not immediately clear, could be considered to be the narrator. Also in the texts, evidence is shown as unreliable with certain questions about the past being unanswerable. However, this does not keep figures within the texts, and perhaps the responder, from drawing meaning from them. Overall, the texts deal

with how physical discoveries can lead to intellectual and emotional discoveries about oneself and others. In doing this, they also allow the reader or viewer to evaluate or re-evaluate their own perspective of history.
The first chapter of the documentary shows how physical discoveries can lead to new understanding or insight. This is evident in Frank Hurley's rediscovery of his circumstances in Antarctica through art, and ultimately his invention of the documentary. These circumstances are emphasised through the use of both modern and historical footage. The modern footage of Mawson's hut allows for higher-definition, colour images of snow, while the worn-down, abandoned building gives an image of greater desolation than it might have when it was new. At the same time, the visual 'snow' and limited definition in Hurley's documentary footage exaggerates the white of the real snow. Additional sound effects, such as the noise of blowing wind, were also added. Overall, these techniques create a sense of cold, desolation, and despair, which contrasting with the sense of wonder in the previous segment. This increases the impact of the discovery of the documentary when it turns the situation around. Voiceovers from experts emphasise the importance of this discovery, which Hurley is not shown to have recognised at the time. It also explains the context to the viewer, as they may not have known that documentaries weren’t already present. Photographs, like that of the man with the snow in his hood, demonstrate how Hurley shared his discoveries with the public while twisting them into a compelling narrative. Essentially, this emphasises how Hurley's seemingly detrimental physical discoveries - concerning the climate of Antarctica - had a positive creative and intellectual impact by letting him rediscover it through art.
In Archaeology, the archaeologist makes intellectual discoveries through observation of evidence. This is more analytical and purposeful than the exploration used throughout Frank Hurley. The reader is lead to view these discoveries in a different light, emphasising stories over facts - this theme is also present in the documentary. When first described, the archaeologist is described as "unearthing evidence of life-ways". This reminds the reader that the leavers of this evidence were once alive, something referenced throughout the poem. The use of non-verbs like adjectives as verbs – e.g. "blanded" – focuses the poem on action and the moment. This description paints a picture of those aspects of history archaeology cannot cover. This contrasts with the documentary, where Hurley successfully captures feeling through photography. Language is used to create a contrast between the intellectual process of analysing evidence and what the evidence actually represents. More scientific language is used for the former: "or a human horde / agog for slaves and glory / is visually patent." The uncertainty of the past, meanwhile, is shown through the use of rhetorical questions and the repetition of words such as 'Maybe'. This, too, contrasts with the evidence: a tangible object. This aspect of Archaeology helps compare the intellectual discoveries made by the archaeologist with the emotional/spiritual reality and, later, with the impacts of discovery. Like the documentary, it shows intellectual discovery through physical discovery (of evidence).
The first chapter of the documentary presents a view of how physical discoveries can lead to new discoveries about, or perceptions of, oneself.

In particular, this is shown when Frank Hurley encounters Macquarie Island and is thus confronted with the power of nature. This leads to his passion for both travelling and photography. Initially, the modern colour images of Macquarie Island are juxtaposed with the black-and-white footage of the ship and with earlier footage of the city. This causes it to feel vibrant in comparison, mirroring Hurley's own sense of wonder, also evident in words from his diary. This tone carries over into the next part of the story (Antarctica), where it is subverted by the freezing conditions. Combining colour footage with Hurley's photographs shows the viewer how discovery impacted his work, also done in the rest of the documentary. However, here, the comparison between them demonstrates the technical limitations Hurley was under and the difficulties in capturing reality. This is addressed later when it is his justification for forgery. The use of footage from 50 years later, when Hurley is describing the incident, shows the lasting impact of the expedition. It also prepares the viewer for the rest of the story, which continues through these years. As such, this part references many aspects shown later in the documentary. Simultaneously, both the viewer and Hurley are introduced to his passion for travelling. This is fitting, as the experience acted

as part of the foundation for his career.
Although the discoveries of the archaeologist are part of the poem, its main emphasis is on those other, intellectual discoveries made because of them.

These are the philosophical conclusions the narrator comes to and then summarises in the coda. This essentially states that archaeology is unimportant due to its failure to capture the human spirit. The archaeologist himself, therefore, might be a personification of archaeologists or archaeology as a whole. Exact details about his study are not included, and the ambiguity of his conclusions, the most emphasized fact, applies to all ancient history. Personification of concepts or large groups are present the poem: e.g. "the criminal in us." This simplifies the concepts being referred to, both making them more accessible, and expressing them in fewer words. Therefore, doing this tightens the structure of the poem. The archaeologist’s inability to answer the questions posed by the narrator both parallels his lack of awareness of the narrator's viewpoint, and discredits him to the audience. This vindicates the narrator's final dismissal of 'history'. The narrator, of course, can only make discoveries if they are a character themself, with a unique perspective which may or may not reflect the authors. If not, they are a persona used to consider an issue from a new perspective. The visibility of the narrator is demonstrated through their use of colloquial language - "that's a stumper". In the coda and title, attention is also

drawn to how the narrator has “proven” that archaeology is unimportant by studying archaeological evidence. "From Archaeology, / one moral, at least, may be drawn... /" The reader might consider this as either supporting or refuting the narrator's argument. Like the above scenes of the documentary, the poem deals with the impact of a physical discovery on the emotional and intellectual world. The discovery of the narrator impacts them, causing them to form an opinion - those made by Frank Hurley more directly change the course of his life.