An unpopular take on The Alpinist

Carlisle DiValentinwrote:

What are you advocating here? The end of mountaineering? He died on a rope with a partner in an avalanche. This has happened to many mountaineers and is an accepted risk the same way that trusting sometimes sketchy toprope anchor setups is an accepted risk. People seem to forget that climbing is an inherently dangerous activity wether that be climbing in the gym, at your local crag, or on a large mountain. Is every instance of someone climbing a public suicide? Because while I can concede that soloing may be, Marc-Andre died while doing things the standard way for mountaineering?

This to me is the central defect of the movie. It leads the casual viewer to believe that Marc's death was related to his penchant for crazy solos, when really the accident, to all appearances, was the result of the everyday objective hazards that come with the territory in the mountains. 

There is certainly a valid discussion to be had about whether climbing mountains is morally justifiable-- and there is a ton of mountaineering literature devoted to this very question! But I think The Alpinist doesn't add anything meaningful to the discussion, and in fact adds confusion.

Nevertheless, the footage is amazing and I'm glad I watched it.

SethGwrote:

This to me is the central defect of the movie. It leads the casual viewer to believe that Marc's death was related to his penchant for crazy solos, when really the accident, to all appearances, was the result of the everyday objective hazards that come with the territory in the mountains. 

There is certainly a valid discussion to be had about whether climbing mountains is morally justifiable-- and there is a ton of mountaineering literature devoted to this very question! But I think The Alpinist doesn't add anything meaningful to the discussion, and in fact adds confusion.

Nevertheless, the footage is amazing and I'm glad I watched it.

I don't understand what you mean by this. What could the filmmakers have done to make the circumstances of his accident easier to understand for a casual viewer? I thought that they did a pretty good job of explaining it.

M Rox wrote:

I'm glad people like Marc exist. I'm glad there are a few brave people in the world willing to take big risks for their craft. That doesn't lesson the tragedy, but I do think the world would be a very boring place if we all did things the same way.

There are over 7 billion people on this planet. To imply that we should all adopt the same formula for happiness (spouse, kid, dog, 9-5) is naïve at best. Everyone is different and everyone is on a different path (and not all of those paths will be long). We all prioritize different things. We're all gonna die. We're all gonna hurt someone when we go. 

He didn't die soloing, so that whole argument is kind of null-and-void in this case. He died in an avalanche. Even with the best technology, crew, and safety measures, you may never stand a chance in a big enough slide. 

I see no evidence of exploitation. Marc wasn't famous. He did lots of things under the radar. 

All that said, I partly agree with the original post. Climbing media glorifies the "send at all costs" mentality and I've seen that have a very negative effect on new climbers. Lots of people are heading up mountains with all the stoke in the world, and no technical skills. I had this conversation with a climbing friend just yesterday; we both were concerned about the hoards of new climbers who are just going for it without preparation. It's cool to be bold and gritty sometimes, but those things alone won't save you when things go south, and they will go south. I wish people were more proactive about taking formal courses and seeking qualified mentors. But I'm not sure any of this is new. Does climbing media have a responsibility to warn those bright-eyed, bushy tailed newbies? Or are they just storytellers, telling a story worth telling? I don't know.

^said as an almost 30 female with no attachments other than a really great dog, so take it with a grain of salt. 

Best comment in this whole damn thread.

All of us here climb, right? We all take unnecessary risks pursuing this thing that we love, and we do it for myriad, often very personal reasons. If your risk tolerance is lower than someone else’s, check your ego at the door and don’t judge. Otherwise, you’re just proselytizing.

Money and exploitation affects all of us, it’s part of the human condition. Every single damn one of us has made decisions in life based on some internal calculus that money, or it’s lack thereof, has influenced. Most of us do it on a daily basis.

Climbs with objective hazards are subjective to your decision to undertake them.

Beckey batted what, 50%?

Dave Olsenwrote:

Climbs with objective hazards are subjective to your decision to undertake them.

Beckey batted what, 50%?

In baseball terms, you would write .500, which I think is pretty damn good in baseball and mountain climbing! 

And remember folks, we’re climbers in here discussing the nuances of risk.  To the general public, we are all perceived as fuking morons. 

when really the accident, to all appearances, was the result of the everyday objective hazards that come with the territory in the mountains.

Can't say I agree with the "everyday" part of your comment. 

Balewrote:

And remember folks, we’re climbers in here discussing the nuances of risk.  To the general public, we are all perceived as fuking morons. 

Its always nice to see something boiled down so well, thank you!

And to the gangster comment - many just want to look the part not play the part, that takes too much effort!

A K wrote:

Or as Honnolds, which to the public is almost  basically the same thing 

FTFY!

M Mwrote:

Its always nice to see something boiled down so well, thank you!

And to the gangster comment - many just want to look the part not play the part, that takes too much effort!

You’re welcome;) I wonder if public perception of climbing has changed lately with the popularity of Meru, Dawn Wall, Free Solo, and The Alpinist, which are obviously waaaay more accurate depictions than the silliness of Cliffhanger and Vertical Limit, not that I give a shit. 

And has anybody seen sketchier footage than that of Ueli Steck’s crampons skating around on the North Face of the Eiger in “Swiss Machine”?  When I saw that I feared that Ueli was not long for this world, R.I.P.  

Was hoping when I opened this thread it would read the movie isn’t very good

Famous Raymuswrote:

Was hoping when I opened this thread it would read the movie isn’t very good

You were hoping? 

Plenty of posters clearly hate the movie because of its "message". Apparently, they think that 1000's of climbers are going to drop everything and run solo up ice faces. Or that the public will think less of us all. LOL 

c'est la vie

Teton Climberwrote:

You were hoping? 

Plenty of posters clearly hate the movie because of its "message". Apparently, they think that 1000's of climbers are going to drop everything and run solo up ice faces. Or that the public will think less of us all. LOL 

c'est la vie

The movie is lame because it fails to address the mental health issues of the protagonist.

Bill Wwrote:

The movie is lame because it fails to address the mental health issues of the protagonist.

That's an interesting point - but I don't know if that's a required role for this particular film - and I don't know if Peter Mortimer is the film maker to create that film. 

But it doesn't track to me that just because the film isn't what you specifically want, it's lame. I think the topic you want to have explored is a little broader than this one guy, and sponsors pushing this one guy to do bolder objectives - which I do honestly feel is on shaky ground for this particular example. I don't feel that what, if any pressure the Dead Bird Company put towards Marc, and how that may have affected his thought process, which is what you're implying.

But there's probably countless other examples you can cite when it comes to emotional mental trauma or just mental health in general as it relates to the pressures to perform. Something like the Nike Oregon Project documentary would even slot into this. 

Long Rangerwrote:

That's an interesting point - but I don't know if that's a required role for this particular film - and I don't know if Peter Mortimer is the film maker to create that film. 

But it doesn't track to me that just because the film isn't what you specifically want, it's lame. I think the topic you want to have explored is a little broader than this one guy, and sponsors pushing this one guy to do bolder objectives - which I do honestly feel is on shaky ground for this particular example. I don't feel that what, if any pressure the Dead Bird Company put towards Marc, and how that may have affected his thought process, which is what you're implying.

But there's probably countless other examples you can cite when it comes to emotional mental trauma or just mental health in general as it relates to the pressures to perform. Something like the Nike Oregon Project documentary would even slot into this. 

By engaging Marc and filming his exploits Mortimer is obligated to explore the mental wellness of his subjects to protect their safety. He and his film crew wade into dangerous waters when they insert themselves into the lives of soloists, they don't know what effect they are having on their decisions. 

I think the film crew's presence and sponsorship plus the hype that surrounds that reinforces the soloists thoughts of invincibility causing them to let down their guard.

Bill Wwrote:

By engaging Marc and filming his exploits Mortimer is obligated to explore the mental wellness of his subjects to protect their safety.

Lol. Clearly you don’t recognize what the word obligated means. The chances that Mortimer is qualified to explore Marc’s mental wellness is exceedingly low and the obligation of a guy with a camera is generally limited to footage.

Bill Wwrote:

By engaging Marc and filming his exploits Mortimer is obligated to explore the mental wellness of his subjects to protect their safety.

Lol. Clearly you don’t recognize what the word obligated means. The chances that Mortimer is qualified to explore Marc’s mental wellness is exceedingly low and the obligation of a guy with a camera is generally limited to footage.

jdejacewrote:

It's interesting how as a collective we judge the death of some 23 year olds as acceptable, necessary and heroic (war) and others as shameful (a certain kind of climbing, because cragging accidents are sad but unavoidable). Marc-Andre lived a hell of a life. Value isn't judged solely on longevity. 

I always appreciated Will Gadd's eulogy. I think he agrees with others who shrug and say we're all wired differently. 

I am fully on board with climbing appealing to addictive tendencies but I suspect the person making heroin analogies doesn't know very many heroin users. 

I've had dozens and dozens of patients who were heroin addicts as I trained as an MD at SF General Hospital and the stories I could tell you about their pimps, parents, husband's, wives and hangers on would make you puke. Basically they had the run of the place running fixes in and out of patient rooms.

What do I know about heroin users? More than most, less than some.

I expected this thread to degenerate into reductive mano-a-mano exchanges (like all the rest) but I'm disappointed we haven't heard from Mikey Schaefer yet. The man who (among others) filmed Honnold in Free Solo may just have had a thing or two to say on the various issues bandied about here. Then again he may be smart enough to watch from a safe distance.

Nano Tradgressor wrote:

How about he is obligated to consider the mental health of the filming subjects? By filming Marc they inserted themselves into his world and seemingly failed to consider how that would effect him and his climbing.

You have no idea what Peter did or did no consider in regards to filming Marc and the effect it would have on him. You are just making stuff up to fit your narrative.