According to Rothman, documentary films contain messages that filmmakers want audiences to accept. Filmmakers edit and shape the work to persuade the audience or make them intentionally feel a certain way. Rothman views documentarians as constructors of realities, and not simply documenters of reality. “Fiction films are really documentaries… [and] all documentary films are fictions, hence they do not fundamentally differ,” (Rothman 23).
Consequently, political motivations surrounding films make them equally liable to be instruments of repressive ideology in view of the fact that filmmakers can convey their own "truths," their own comprehensive knowledge, and their own ethical standards using cinema as a tool for mass political propaganda. Rothman states that Robert Flaherty, in Nanook of the North, did not simply film Nanook and his family going about their business, he had the family perform many actions for the camera. “The filmmaker actively involved his subjects in the filming, telling them what he wanted them to do, responding to their suggestions, and directing their performance for the camera” (Rothman 24).
The critiques Rothman makes apply to Hakani as well. Of the issues that surface when viewing the intertextual relationship between the two films, some stand out more than others -- such as, the enabling of certain messages and the shaping of the content by way of visual framing and the juxtaposition of the images. Like Flaherty, Cunningham uses the film to get across his message while presenting the film as a "True Story"
(the beginning opening statement in Hakani in Portuguese which means a true story). Like Flaherty, Cunningham judges his film to be indicative of how he views his own work, staking a claim to truth whether or not others agree because he thinks he has captured reality.
This reality, though, is compromised. The filmmaker has distorted reality by stripping the indigenous peoples’ surroundings of any connection to a Western conception of normalcy during the first thirty minutes of the film. Cunningham removed any artifacts that would disclose a time period as well as any connection the indigenous peoples might have had with other communities. At the end of the film, when the indigenous people are interviewed and they are corroborating with the filmmaker, they are seen in a completely different surrounding – a place with multiple connections to the civilized Western world.
Additionally, Hakani herself is seen clean and cared for while at the beginning she looks dirty and uncared for. 
Like Hakani, the semblance of normalcy was also breached when the filmmaker chose not to disclose the complexity of the social structures of the indigenous community.
Additionally, by severing any visual ties to the existence of a relationship between himself and the actors, himself and his cause, as well as the actors and the film (Cunningham hired actors for the docudrama), Cunningham displaces the indigenous people and places them in a space of ‘not belonging.’ This displacement of the protagonists of the film characterizes their lives not only as timeless but also as unchanging. The estrangement demonstrates the filmmaker’s need to distance himself from any claims of negative impacts of previous missions to indigenous communities. As Rothman stated, “if Western civilization is destroying the culture, the filmmaker’s project is implicated” (Rothman 24). Though Flaherty and Cunningham are both involved in different ways, they both are implicated in their denial of their complicity.
That is not to say that Cunningham was being insincere; however, Rothman indicates that Flaherty's sincerity did not reflect the innocence of the work. Similarly, with Hakani, the various problems with the film are not a sign of Cunningham’s insincerity. The visual representations are what render the film questionable. From the very beginning, various connections are created between the indigenous people and concealed messages. Visual representation in Hakani, as in Nanook of the North, renders the film harmful and dangerous because the filmmaker compares the indigenous people in the film to animals and savages by way of images; a fundamental notion that already exists regarding indigenous peoples. Not only are indigenous peoples placed side by side with images of children and monkeys,
they are also followed by images of fire ants, tarantulas, and snakes.The distinctive visual frames remind us of how indigenous peoples are viewed as lovable and happy-go-lucky like children, uncivilized like monkeys, fearless and savage like fire ants, murderous like tarantulas, and untrustworthy like snakes.
Even though the visual images of wildlife are used in part to set the film in the Amazon, the problems of representation occur when the images of animals are juxtaposed at random with the images of the indigenous people. This is again a parallel to the intertextual relationship between Nanook of the North and Hakani, since, according to Rothman, the representation is a patronizing way to demonstrate a happy-go-lucky people that possess qualities of civilized adults but are not fully capable of making their own decisions or of participating as equals in the decision-making processes.
The disrespect and condescension is also apparent in the form of small gestures, such as the titles of the films. Hakani, which means smile, is a reminder of child-like, happy-go-lucky people. The name Nanook of the North was invented by Flaherty, Nanook wasn’t even allowed to use his real name. What these gestures reveal are not just cultural differences but the assumption of cultural superiority. Like Nanook of the North, in Hakani, the filmmaker focuses, for example, on moments when the characters are eating with their hands -- perfect for representing the ideas of a “dog eat dog world” and “eat or be eaten.” This is especially evident when the camera zooms in on Hakani and her brother eating ferociously while others of the tribe jealously look upon them because they are apparently hungry.
In both films, dogs are brought in to the setting at the right moment to make the distance between the animal world and the human world seem closer.
These gestures diminish the separation between the civilized and the uncivilized worlds.The messages are many. Throughout Hakani, the actors are seen doing literally nothing except for what the filmmaker deems necessary for the telling of the story. Only Bibi and his family, the protagonists of the story, are shown doing anything constructive. The remaining actors are engrossed in various negative acts, such as whipping the older brother, or hitting the logs in a rage,
or even simply looking on as Bibi’s parents kill themselves and as the two small children are buried alive. 
Besides the protagonist, only one person is seen doing a good deed. Muwaji, who later makes a statement in favor of YWAM’s work, is seen giving food to Hakani. The indigenous people are never seen collaborating in any way in the building or maintenance of the community.
By depicting the characters absorbed in their own activities, the filmmaker is signaling again to an association with animals. Animals go about life absorbed in their own activities without any thought to the future. The filmmaker, by denying any commonality between himself and the indigenous people, by equating them to tarantulas and snakes, and by figuratively representing them as evil incarnate by way of the visual images of baby burials,
borders on the verge of instilling genocidal thoughts. Rothman states “humanity has been shorn of its thin veneer of civilization” (Rothman 36).In addition to these representations is the issue of lack of disclosure. As in Nanook of the North, Hakani did not disclose information about actors that played the characters and later received payment. Nowhere does the filmmaker divulge their real names, and the relationship between the actors and the filmmaker is obscured. Cunningham never discloses the personal relationships he has to the actors, many of which work for his father’s organization Youth With a Mission (YWAM); neither does he disclose his personal ties to the organization behind the film. In view of these omissions, the filmmakers “factual” claims become increasingly objectionable. The only accurate “fact” is that the participants are real people who incarnate the characters within the filmmaker's reality.
By denying the existence of a reality apart from the film, the filmmaker reveals the reality of his own acts, the reality of his own existence. The camera and its relationship to human subjects would be revealed if the characters were revealed as real people who incarnate them. Subsequently, we can draw the conclusion, as Rothman did, that the filmmaker, like his characters, is out to execute his plan. According to Rothman, Flaherty’s weapon is a camera, he too is a hunter. Like in Nanook of the North where Nanook’s family are Flaherty’s prey, Hakani and her family fall prey to Cunningham’s hunt tactics because if the images and messages in the film are true – indigenous peoples are seemingly like children – then the film itself is evidence of the filmmaker’s exploitation of the actors who are also indigenous peoples.
In both films, the filmmakers betray the indigenous community by not divulging to either group what the film was all about. And, even if they had divulged the truth, according to their own framing of the indigenous peoples – they are like children – they couldn’t possibly know what the film was all about. Rothman states that a subject cannot give consent if they do not understand the full extent of the film's negative consequences. If, however, the reverse was true, then the filmmaker and the actors were betraying the indigenous community by mis-representing indigenous peoples as children and uncivilized savages not capable of making their own decisions.
At any rate, the connections between the two texts are quite clear, making it impossible to overstate the importance of critiquing innovative forms of cinema. The relation between Hakani and in Nanook of the North is a well thought-out, established, conventional relation that exposes us to our naïveté and gullibility in believing claims made without engaging in a critical analysis.
