The Alpinist (Movie)

FrankPS wrote:

Pat,

Fear (being scared) can be a good thing. Fear can protect us. ("I'm afraid to solo that route" or "I don't want to walk across the street with all that traffic") 

However, there is a difference between justified fears and unfounded, or overblown, fears.

If someone is vaccinated and reasonably healthy, there is virtually no chance of being hospitalized or dying from COVID. 

More vulnerable people have good reasons to be scared of COVID.

So I both segments of society exist - people that are making rational decisions and people that are making decisions based on unfounded fears ("scared"). It's a wide spectrum.

Yeah, I think some people are making decisions based on unfounded fears and the mere thought of COVID rules their lives. Prevents them from making rational decisions. Like going to the movies or restaurants. That's their choice, though.

Sure. And if your primary instinct in these situations --- the first paradigm you fall into, time and time again --- is to draw a line between "scared and not scared" people and orient yourself loudly on the "not scared" side, with people who disagree on the "scared" side...what does that show people about the primary way you view the world and its problems? How seriously should an adult take you when it comes to solving problems at scale? 

Pat Light wrote:

COVID did a great job of separating the emotional thinkers from the non-emotional thinkers

Pro tip: Unlike the people shouting about how taking COVID precautions means you're "scared," a great many humans don't rely on whether they're "scared or not scared" to make decisions. A great many of us can count, read, think critically, open a middle-school science textbook, and understand research publications. This is called "relying on something other than your emotions to make your way through the world." If you're the kind of person who only lives in the "scared or not scared" paradigm, I invite you to take a deep breath and learn how to read and count. The world will open up to you in a way that you are (apparently) genuinely not capable of understanding. It's similar to climbing trad. 

There's certainly a trad climber out there who checks with his or her FEELINGS before he or she places a piece --- am I scared, am I worried, am I hungry, do I look cool, do I feel like Alex Honnold --- but the climbers with the most long-term success are measuring, counting, thinking critically, and looking ahead. An emotional climber might pass one making a gear placement and say, "Wow, what a pussy, this guy lives in FEAR," but the emotional climber's inability to understand how people make decisions without consulting their emotions has zero bearing on what's going on inside the safer climber's head.

It's not that other people are "scared or not scared."

It's that other people have discovered more reliable methods of solving problems than consulting their emotions.

Ok, but there are tools to be safer about Covid. Have you heard of the vaccine and masks? If you are vaxxed and wear a mask, and are still afraid to sit in a movie theater, then I’d say you’re still being emotional and need to turn off cnn 

It's great to hear so many folks saying we should make risk assessments with data instead of feelings. It's a little disheartening to then not see anyone offer any numbers. 

How much do masks actually protect you? How much protection do vaccines provide? If you follow those links, and assume those measures are independent, what number do you get? ("This is left as an exercise for the reader," as they say.) How about when we consider confidence intervals, or other studies (NOT news articles) people will surely link below?

Given these numbers, how does that compare to how much you want to see a movie? Not "given an emotional judgement of these numbers;" but given the actual numbers. I think once we get there, we'd be ready to start having an actual conversation about this. 

I have irrationally high hopes that page 4 of this thread will involve numbers instead of rhetoric. But looking at the actual number of times a MP thread went from feelings to data...

JonasMR wrote:

It's great to hear so many folks saying we should make risk assessments with data instead of feelings. It's a little disheartening to then not see anyone offer any numbers. 

How much do masks actually protect you? How much protection do vaccines provide? If you follow those links, and assume those measures are independent, what number do you get? ("This is left as an exercise for the reader," as they say.) How about when we consider confidence intervals, or other studies (NOT news articles) people will surely link below?

Given these numbers, how does that compare to how much you want to see a movie? Not "given an emotional judgement of these numbers;" but given the actual numbers. I think once we get there, we'd be ready to start having an actual conversation about this. 

I have irrationally high hopes that page 4 of this thread will involve numbers instead of rhetoric. But looking at the actual number of times a MP thread went from feelings to data...

now THIS is podracing!

Vaccines, quoted and then tidied up from the second link, which looks at effectiveness of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines against COVID-19 and its variants by using a data set from Minnesota: 

From January to July 2021 in Minnesota, the effectiveness estimates of mRNA-1273 [Moderna] and BNT162b2 [Pfizer] in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection with onset at least 14 days after the second dose were 86% (95% CI: 81-90.6%, p=1.6x10^-42) and 76% (95% CI: 69-81%, p=1.3x10^-31), respectively. 

Full vaccination with either vaccine was also highly effective against COVID-19 associated hospitalization (mRNA-1273: 91.6%, 95% CI: 81-97%, p=8.3x10^-14; BNT162b2: 85%, 95% CI: 73-93%, p=3.8x10^-12), ICU admission (mRNA-1273: 93.3%, 95% CI: 57-99.8%, p=5.0x10^-4 ; BNT162b2: 87%, 95% CI:46-98.6%, p=1.2x10^-3 ), and death (no deaths in either cohort) (Table 2, Figure S2B-C).

Masks, quoted and emphasized from the first link, which measures the effects of a variety of interventions during a non-COVID-19 SARS outbreak in Beijing in 2003:

After other factors were controlled for, visiting a fever clinic and having a chronic medical condition remained significantly associated with a risk for SARS. After other variables were adjusted for, having visited a hospital was not associated with acquiring SARS. Other factors associated with an increased risk for SARS were eating outside the home and taking taxis more than once a week. Always wearing a mask when going out was associated with a 70% reduction in risk compared with never wearing a mask. Wearing a mask intermittently was associated with a smaller yet significant reduction in risk. Going to the farmer’s market and owning a pet were both protective factors.  

The data, such as they are, collated:

Always wearing a mask: 70% reduction in risk for getting clinically diagnosed SARS
Pfizer: 76% effective in preventing COVID-19 infection
Moderna: 86% effective in preventing COVID-19 infection

So, Frank and Mike: You genuinely cannot imagine a reason someone wouldn't want to rely on those prevention strategies alone, except that the person lives in simple fear and watches too much television? 

Pat Light wrote:

So, Frank and Mike: You genuinely cannot imagine a reason someone wouldn't want to rely on those prevention strategies alone, except that the person lives in simple fear and watches too much television? 

You're taking my general comments, not directed at a particular person, and making a pointed assertion. "It's Frank and Mike against all the cautious people," right?

I've hit my post limit, but it seems like you aren't capable of making a nuanced argument,  

The OP said he wasn't comfortable. That's fine.

The OP said he didn't like being "forced" to go to the theater. That is untrue.

And I didn't say anything about TV.

It sounds like you're all in favor of hunkering down in the bunker til this passes. That's fine, too, but a bit fearful.

Anyway, I hope you find the answers you are looking for.

Pat Light wrote:

COVID did a great job of separating the emotional thinkers from the non-emotional thinkers

Pro tip: Unlike the people shouting about how taking COVID precautions means you're "scared," a great many humans don't rely on whether they're "scared or not scared" to make decisions. A great many of us can count, read, think critically, open a middle-school science textbook, and understand research publications. This is called "relying on something other than your emotions to make your way through the world." If you're the kind of person who only lives in the "scared or not scared" paradigm, I invite you to take a deep breath and learn how to read and count. The world will open up to you in a way that you are (apparently) genuinely not capable of understanding. It's similar to climbing trad. 

There's certainly a trad climber out there who checks with his or her FEELINGS before he or she places a piece --- am I scared, am I worried, am I hungry, do I look cool, do I feel like Alex Honnold --- but the climbers with the most long-term success are measuring, counting, thinking critically, and looking ahead. An emotional climber might pass one making a gear placement and say, "Wow, what a pussy, this guy lives in FEAR," but the emotional climber's inability to understand how people make decisions without consulting their emotions has zero bearing on what's going on inside the safer climber's head.

It's not that other people are "scared or not scared."

It's that other people have discovered more reliable methods of solving problems than consulting their emotions.

Most COVID-related spray on social media is driven by feelings (not emotion) and certainly not by rational decision-making. I suspect that that's probably at the core of our collectively abysmal response to the disease. That said, I have to object to the statement about the unreliability of problem-solving based on emotions: First, I'd argue that you're confusing feelings with emotion. Emotions are a physiological response to social or environmental conditions, while feelings are how we understand our emotions. In some, even many, instances, emotions are likely to help humans and other animals summon a more nuanced approach to problem-solving; they have evolutionary advantages. Primatologist Frans de Waal's last book, Mama's Last Hug, is fantastic exploration of the importance of emotion in the evolution of animal behavior. It may seem that this is woefully off the subject, but I wonder if it isn't (wasn't) Honnold's and Leclerc's ability to reject an instinctual response to danger in favor of a particularly sophisticated ability to handle emotion that allows them to solo these climbs, particularly efforts that take place over hours. Instinct (literally knee-jerk) is critically important in the short-term, but a more nuanced approach to one's environment is usually better over the longer-term. 

So umm...  The Alpinist was a great film, right?

Gumby King wrote:

So umm...  The Alpinist was a great film, right?

Yes. I just saw it in theaters. I’ve never heard of Marc Andre Leclerc before, but he was a silent crusher. He pushed the limits of alpinism and didn’t care about fame or clout. A different breed than all of the sensitive folks you find on MP nowadays   

Just saw the movie last night, it was fantastic. Does anyone know how they got some of the footage of him climbing? When he was on the crack climb the camera was so close, and moving with him as he climbed. A drone maybe?

The Alpinist was a great film.

Pete Nelson wrote:

Saw it last night and definitely recommend watching it. (FWIW, my wife and I saw it in a theatre...with one other person!) Aside from the merits and the dangers, I'm curious if anyone has insight on this minor aspect: Some of the footage of Leclerc's climb on Cerro Egger was shot from above, apparently quite high on the route. They explain in the film that Austin would be tagging along on the lower portion and that Marc carried a camera to film some of the upper portion. The sequences I'm referring to sure don't look like something that Leclerc pre-placed his camera on and then re-climbed just for all of us, and, like I said, it appeared to be well above where Austin was going to climb. I find the Nat Geo style of climbing videography where adventurous climbers are shown on the first ascent of Route A on Mount X, filmed from above rather irritating: Why doesn't the camera-person get credit for their climbing?! No problem if the film description reads something like, "Watch as Han Solo and Luke Skywalker complete the second ascent, following the lead of their truly intrepid camera crew who wished for credit only in the name of their videography."

Could be a drone?

Pete Nelson wrote:

Saw it last night and definitely recommend watching it. (FWIW, my wife and I saw it in a theatre...with one other person!) Aside from the merits and the dangers, I'm curious if anyone has insight on this minor aspect: Some of the footage of Leclerc's climb on Cerro Egger was shot from above, apparently quite high on the route. They explain in the film that Austin would be tagging along on the lower portion and that Marc carried a camera to film some of the upper portion. The sequences I'm referring to sure don't look like something that Leclerc pre-placed his camera on and then re-climbed just for all of us, and, like I said, it appeared to be well above where Austin was going to climb. I find the Nat Geo style of climbing videography where adventurous climbers are shown on the first ascent of Route A on Mount X, filmed from above rather irritating: Why doesn't the camera-person get credit for their climbing?! No problem if the film description reads something like, "Watch as Han Solo and Luke Skywalker complete the second ascent, following the lead of their truly intrepid camera crew who wished for credit only in the name of their videography."

I think like they explained on Mt. Robson, they recreated the footage at a later date - the only difference is that they were completely transparent that that's what they were doing, as the "why" was important to them. This happens all the time. Ueli Steck has a good video of documenting the recreation. He + team get choppered into various parts of the mountain and get the shots they need. Doing a speed run and also needing to get the perfect shots is just not realistic. As far as I understand the route isn't superbly hard, except that it was done completely solo, off season, and out of condition.

Movie Magic!

One film where they didn't do this is Free Solo and that took pre-placed cameras on route, Jimmey on the top, and Mr. Schaefer on the meadows with that massive lens.  

If Sender films reads this:

I would love to watch/very willingly pay to see more uncut footage of the solo's, especially the footage of the Grand Wall, Slesse, Robson

Meanwhile, I'm becoming less interested in future films from Sender each year after watching this. Sure, a significant portion of the climbing fil industry follows their lead, but still.

For me, this was just more of the same from Sender, whereas Stone Locals was a way better way to bring a whole human into a climbing film.

The music changes stereotypically at several points. Family, friends, and romantic partners interviewed. Peter Mortimer inserting himself and the film crew into the story more and more blatantly as the years go on. A segment where someone claims their preferred form of climbing is higher and purer than all others because blah blah blah. A segment with lots of handwringing over ethical qualms, which is purely ceremonial or else they wouldn't have made the film.

Glad the thread is off covid and back on the film and Marc-Andre.

Think some of the sender films criticisms may be fair, although I really appreciate what they do and offer, and how long they’ve been at it. hopefully it’s more lucrative than it used to be. I will say in terms of the films photography, climbing photography still feels like it has a long ways it can go, and that tracking shot of Marc Andre soloing on the grand wall, assuming it was a drone, was freaking incredible. I can’t say I’ve seen that shot, or a shot like it before.

now onto the content;

10/10. What an incredible guy. Also some of the footage of Brette and what she had to say, gutted me.

Everyone that has a Mountain Project account should go see this movie. And see it in theaters if you can. 

This was the least Sender Films-like Sender Films in a while. Pacing was WAY different, as the footage was allowed to BREATHE, which really helped out with the suspense. 

Not formulaic at all - and that's why it worked. Peter's narrative, although heavy at times, makes sense. Part of the film was just literally about how difficult making this film was, and that happened on a few different levels. 

Yeah, I think it's great, and I've been critical of Sender Films stuff in the past, being a fan of the scrappy old stuff and not really turned on by the polished new stuff.

I especially liked the gold "route tracker" thing they did. So many movies show a wide angle shot of big walls and I have no idea what actual route got climbed. 

The footage of the Stanley Headwall was unreal. 

I just saw the film and the footage was indeed astonishing. 

But the most outrageous thing to me was that Marc-Andre laybacked the Split Pillar!! 

Fucking incredible film. What a life well-lived.