An unpopular take on The Alpinist

caesar.salad wrote:

Exactly. What about Ueli Steck? Him too?  And every other rad alpinist who died in the mountains?

What would you call a record label that keeps giving money to their rockstar content creator and image maker who they know is addicted to crack?

Everyone knew a guy who made his living doing speed free solo ascents of the world's highest peaks was gonna die if he didn't stop.

Alex Honnold: "What did you expect"?

Crack is for poor people, terrible analogy.

Bettin' grooming & street cred has a impact on young mixed-soloing climbers. Maybe Matt Cornell will chime in and give us a first-hand perspective.

Right after Conrad says that climbers get greater cred the harder they climb, he cracks up (you'll notice he has a name tag covering the logo on his hat - so not TNF video). Conrad's BS meter is pretty high in this video.

Interesting story about one of Matt Cornell's climbs: a film crew refused to film his free solo of Nutcracker after Matt told them he was soloing (he did not ask them to film it). 

"Matt is on the road—three months in Patagonia, a month and a half in Alaska, four months in Yosemite. His parents lent him the old family Subaru when he left home at 18 to pursue the climbing lifestyle. Three years ago, he deemed automotive costs to be holding him back, and he’s been without a car ever since. Each spring he rides his bike from Bozeman to Yosemite, and each fall he rides back. In short, Matt is one of the last dirtbag soul climbers" according to this 2019 AAC trip report.

This is the conversation we would be having if Honnold fell. The film makers and sponsors should be ashamed of themselves.

I sincerely hope this is the last free solo documentary that is ever made.

Bill W wrote:

The film makers and sponsors should be ashamed of themselves.

I sincerely hope this is the last free solo documentary that is ever made.

I see no reason to keep all climbers under lock and key so that they can't exploit sponsors and make a living - like Honnold does. He knows the risks. Who are we to deny him his chosen lifestyle? He is pretty meticulous and calculating these days but certainly imperfect. He understands the numbers game. And pushing harder grades using protection is certainly very risky in the Alpine so soloing is just one of many ways to die. Here in the Tetons, avalanches kill plenty of skiers. Get rid of all the Warren Miller / TGR movies?

Football players with brain injuries set a better example? Boxers? Name your dangerous sport.

Teton Climber wrote:

I see no reason to keep all climbers under lock and key so that they can't exploit sponsors and make a living - like Honnold does. He knows the risks. Who are we to deny him his chosen lifestyle? He is pretty meticulous and calculating these days but certainly imperfect. He understands the numbers game. And pushing harder grades using protection is certainly very risky in the Alpine so soloing is just one of many ways to die. Here in the Tetons, avalanches kill plenty of skiers. Get rid of all the Warren Miller / TGR movies?

Football players with brain injuries set a better example? Boxers? Name your dangerous sport.

This is different. The climbing docs and their sponsors celebrate the risk as the reason why the climber is interesting then play off the drama if they die. 

Climbing is a sickness for some people and instead of highlighting the tradegy and sadness of it all these docs shrug and say "At least he died doing what he loved".

abandon moderation wrote:

Isn't that what any professional climber who dies is?

Aren't all us weekend warriors just climbing and taking risks to release some special chemicals in our brains? Aren't most of us adrenaline addicts in denial?

It's easy to point out these extreme risk takers as doing something completely different than ourselves, but in reality it's a curve that we're all on. Sure, they're further out the curve but exactly where on the curve you become "suicidal" is very relative.

It's also not obvious that someone like Marc Andre would have found a safer life without climbing... From the movie you get an impression he could have literally overdosed on something else.

Feed the rat

Bill W wrote:

This is different. The climbing docs and their sponsors celebrate the risk as the reason why the climber is interesting then play off the drama if they die. 

Really? Extreme sports professionals get different types of attention?

I disagree that the film makers of The Alpinist we're trying to exploit his death. I can't imagine why they would ignore it. If I made a film about anyone who died shortly after filming them, I would probably mention their death. 

If the film was made 20 years after Marc's death - exact same film - would that be better? The 2020 Alex Lowe film was made by his son. Exploitation? Sure. Tribute? Sure. Money making? Sure. Who cares.

Either way, sometimes risk is worth the reward. You can draw your own line. Don't draw it for me.

Teton Climber wrote:

Really? Extreme sports professionals get different types of attention?

I disagree that the film makers of The Alpinist we're trying to exploit his death. I can't imagine why they would ignore it. If I made a film about anyone who died shortly after filming them, I would probably mention their death. 

If the film was made 20 years after Marc's death - exact same film - would that be better? The 2020 Alex Lowe film was made by his son. Exploitation? Sure. Tribute? Sure. Money making? Sure. Who cares.

Either way, sometimes risk is worth the reward. You can draw your own line. Don't draw it for me.

I don't think it was their intention to exploit his death but their documentary style relies on the possibility of the climbers death for the narrative. Would they make even make a film about him if he was doing these routes with a rope?

Some of my thoughts:

I can't fault film makers for choosing to shoot dangerous sports. As if we need a reminder that race car drivers, bull fighters and mountain climbers can die, and even die while being filmed. Its not for me to judge the willingness of the participants, on either side of the cameras. They all have to shoulder the burdens of their own decisions. We live in a hard, cold cold world. 

Doesn't mean I have to watch it. While I don't fault others for watching it and or even celebrating it. I find the praise a compelling siren, drawing me in for a look. Thus far I have resisted their call.

Yall know of Anthony Bourdain, I'm sure. The celebrity chef who'd lived a hard, dirt-baggish, druggy/alchy world-roaming style for many years (decades?). I loved his show. Very tough for me to put my finger on why I loved it so, I mean it was just entertainment. But there was something in Bourdain's hard-won walked-his-talk perspectives, sort of a common man's dues-paying view of life that I could relate to - quite unlike some of the more urbane and civilized celebrity chefs, in fact nothing like them. A breath of fresh air.

I watched enough of his shows to know the man was haunted. I could see it his eyes; hell everyone could. Here was a guy at the center of a storm of attention, revisiting his old haunts and making a killing while doing it and yet the man? He seemed so utterly lonely and lost, all the time. His eyes, the way he would allow unguarded looks to surface. Anyway we all know his fate.

I haven't watched a single episode of his show since he died. I can't bring myself to do it. It's his eyes. I can no longer ignore what those eyes were telling me all those years. I can't hide from what those eyes have to say about me, and my attraction to them, for all those years. I won't like the reflection I see of myself in the mirror after doing that. I won't like my reflection I see in Bourdain's eyes, either. This may sound trite but its heartfelt. 

My suspicion is the part of me that was attracted to Bourdain shares far too many traits with the parts of Bourdain that, well..... I need to step away from the keyboard.

I hope that makes some sense.

Bryans,

You might have said this but what did you expect from the film?

bryans wrote:

I'll get roasted here, but that's OK. It's also "OK" to disagree with what I'm saying; if you simply agreed, this would be a boring thread with no insight to be gained by any of us. I'm also trying to be respectful, and nor provocative. I also mean no disrespect to the deceased. I'm trying to talk to the living, though, and offer another perspective beyond the hero worship in the other thread on the movie. I watched it with my youngest last night, who's 10 and finally getting focused on roped climbing and learning more about the history and details of climbing. So I had some bias, given the context of who I watched it with. 

He's clearly an awesome guy wo had much, much more ahead of him, but all I could think was, what a waste.  I also feel like he got exploited. He's portrayed as having come literally straight out of high school with no skills, no money, no career, no mention of a job, "living in a stairwell and a tent"  - and yet he is climbing in Patagonia, Baffin Island, and other places in between, just literally sleeping, eating and climbing, then dies in Alaska. Who paid for those trips? Gonna guess it was gear companies and media companies that made money off his daring exploits. Here's some free shit, now go do something reckless we can exploit, or the free gear and trips stop flowing.  He was exploited - willingly and eagerly - but exploited all the same. (and yes, obviously he didn't die soloing, but in an avalanche) 

 I'm twice his age and have done so much since I was 23, and I'm not talking about climbing. Marriage, trips, raising my kids to become decent people, concerts, experiences with loved ones, meaningful work in my career, coaching soccer, etc. the same shit any of us do. There is more to life than climbing. Right? I felt his mom basically gave up on him when he was 17 when she said "you're out of high school now and all you want to do is climb, what are you waiting for!" She knew he was soloing, she had to know most ambitious soloists die. I have magazines going back to 1999, I flip through them and so many of the "hot new things" with their sponsors and rad FAs are dead before they hit 30.

I'll be the first to admit I got tunnel vision once I started climbing at 23. I haven't learned many new sports or hobby since then. As has been said, climbing is a jealous mistress. To get good and stay good you have to put in the time, and it costs money to travel and keep buying ropes and shoes and gear and month at the gym. I totally relate to the feeling of "all I want to do is climb." But id that a healthy desire? I get this was his life to lead, but if he was right here, right now, would he have said he was glad to be dead at 23, that it was worth it all just to take crazy risk after crazy risk until just once he didn't have good luck? Or would he say "you know, I wish I had dialed it in a bit and lived a longer life and enjoyed more about life than just climbing." We'll never know. I "enjoyed" the movie and his exploits "impressed" me but I was also was left with sadness and the feeling that maybe his friends or family could have given him perspective instead of basically throwing gasoline on his fire.

EDITS due to post limits I can't reply to individual comments but to clarify things I didn't say but people read into my short comment, and to add things I thought were obvious but apparently aren't, all in the service of trying to be as respectful as possible to the deceased:

-Marc sounds like a great guy. I am not criticizing Marc, and obviously I wish he were alive to do further things in life in addition to his climbing exploits. I am not saying he doesn't have a well-rounded personality, but of course I didn't know him. I did not say that (likely) accepting free gear and airfare from sponsors meant he wasn't "hard working" or that climbing wasn't his "job." I would never want to speak ill of the deceased. His death and this movie just made me grapple with some of these thoughts about climbing. And if I die climbing, please feel free to respectfully discuss my death for lessons learned.

It sounds like you're trying to say that "you're very sad he died".

Me too.

John Tuttle wrote:

Sani has saved Alex's life when it was on the brink and he appears to be a safer climber due to their marriage and future parenthood. Grand adventure and challenge with a happy ending and future due to stepping back from the addiction.

Bahahaha, taking a break from silently scrolling to share how hilarious this "statement of fact" is to those of us close to them

I eat these types of movies up, and I love that there is footage of wingsuit flying and kids willing to huck cliffs in Redbull Rampage and folks skiing K2. 

As a consumer of this media, I am part of the problem...if it is a problem.  

I actually respect the mothers of Honnold and MAL. They see that their kids have a gift, and know that they are going to climb regardless, so they choose to support them  

I appreciate the OP’s attempt to make sense of it, though it seems kinda futile, no? 

One thing not mentioned here is that in alpine climbing, using a rope is mostly an illusion of safety. This is especially true in the Canadian Rockies. Little or no pro for the leader and crap belays are the norm. Better not take any lead falls. The rope and gear will help to rap off or perhaps aid or hang when gear can be had. Soloing just means one person goes for the ride instead of two or three 

phylp phylp wrote:

I don't agree with all of your interpretations, but my husband and I were also left feeling very sad by that movie.  Then again, we are probably in the small minority of people who haven't watched and have no interest in watching Honnold's Solo.

There is always this difficulty/dichotomy of being inspired and awed by people who push the cutting edge of various climbing and alpine disciplines, and wanting no one to get hurt or die doing it.  I don't know what the answer is.  I don't think he was exploited.  He was doing exactly what he wanted to do.  For all we know, maybe some friends and family did ask him to pull back, with no effect.  I hate the f*&king saying "he died doing what he loved".  I do agree with you, what a waste.   I'm sure this will also be an unpopular opinion, but I came away from the movie thinking he was self-medicating with his pursuits. Just sad all around. I wish he had done less amazing things and lived a long life.  Rest in peace.

See, whenever someone brings up these arguments it makes me think "what a waste"...what waste by whose standards?  And by WHAT standards?  What did he waste?  

Josh Z wrote:

See, whenever someone brings up these arguments it makes me think "what a waste"...what waste by whose standards?  And by WHAT standards?  What did he waste?  

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful & difficult for others." - Rickey Gervais 

(this is, actually, part of the quote).

amarius wrote:

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful & difficult for others." - Rickey Gervais 

Without death, life would have no meaning.  Time is a finite resource and we risk losing it while traveling/commuting, working, and watching T.V.   If we don't die climbing maybe diabetes will get us?  Cancer is always lurking in the shadows.  Maybe you don't drive drunk but that drunk driver took you out.  You need to support yourself and/or your family so you work a stressful job that opens the door for other health issues.

Suffering is the driver in life. We're all meant to suffer. We want to avoid unwanted suffering.

 What you do with your finite time is up to you.  Carpe Fucking Diem! 

OP here. I appreciate seeing the wide range of responses. Depending on your age and genetic disposition and past experiences we are all going to interpret the movie differently. I get that if you are in your 20s and have no spouse or kids and perhaps less attachment to/investment in your life and don't feel super accountable to stay alive, you are in the headspace to do dangerous routes because they make you feel badass/alive/cool/satisfied/not depressed/whatever - and so you'll obviously stand up for Marc and his decisions because you see yourself in him. You want to be him, maybe, or at least live out his espoused values. Like 'Evy Duty says in the movie, if you aren't hot blooded and bold between 17 and 24, you may as well just shoot yourself because you're not living anyway (I'm paraphrasing, probably badly, sorry) Maybe that's all the movie boils down. He and Brett soloing because they are young and don't have responsibilities and just really, really like climbing enough to die for it. 

Also, I think the comments here are almost entirely by men (phylyp phylyp is maybe the only woman who posted?) I know MP is overwhelmingly male, but still, what does that say? 

Josh Z wrote:

See, whenever someone brings up these arguments it makes me think "what a waste"...what waste by whose standards?  And by WHAT standards?  What did he waste?  

As I have followed through this thread, I have looked at many of the profiles of people who don't get this sense of "waste" I and the OP are sad about.  It's interesting to me that most of the people who don't get why we have these feelings are young men in their 20s and 30s.

When I was in my 30s and driving in the dark of night towards a climbing destination I had a terrible car accident.  In the few microseconds where the car had left the road and was hurling at 60 mph into the unknown - a cliff, a rock face? - I knew with certainty that I was going to die. Images of all the people I loved flashed through my mind.  Three words came crystal clear - "what a waste".  The waste was the waste of the long life I wanted to have so that I could continue to have that love.  Then the no-airbag car hit a giant conifer and was it was totaled, but I lived. Even since, no possession or experience has been as valuable to me as the experience of sharing that feeling of love with other beings.

With all these deaths of people at such a young age, whether it's from a climbing accident, or some kid in their bedroom who gets killed by a gangbangers stray bullet, or a car accident, I feel the sadness of "what a waste".  Not for the suffering of those left behind, but that that human being won't have the precious time to experience the joy of just being alive.  At my age, 69, I appreciate even more every day what a gift that time is.  It's not the way that he died that bothers me especially much, it's that he died so young.

Anyway, I've never argued that people should not climb.  Everything has risk. I myself am fully aware of the risks of climbing and all the other risks of life.  I have probably done hundreds more "leader must not fall" pitches in my life that you will ever do in yours.  We, as climbers, are constantly making that assessment of what we can do "safely" even though we know it is never safe.  That's the analysis and internal bargain that we make to allow us to experience something that gives us joy. 

In climbing, if you find the right balance for yourself and your skills, sometimes you get lucky and you have a long and wonderful life.  Sometimes you get unlucky and you get injured or die. Sometimes shit just happens. But there is also this saying "you make your own luck".  You notice in the film none of the other accomplished alpinists seemed to be saying - "oh yeah what he's doing is great, keep going for it dude".

BTW, I didn't know what or who the film was about when I started watching it.  I thought it was going to be filled with beautiful mountains and somebody like Conrad Anker doing a narration.  Or something funny but awesome like Sean Villanueva O'Driscoll.  If I had know it was going to feature film of that type of soloing, I would not have watched it.