An unpopular take on The Alpinist

Jabroni McChufferson wrote:

I don’t understand what you’re getting at? Marx?
im just pointing out that you/ others seem overly sensitive to people being sensitive. 

Who is the one being sensitive? People or Eric? A case could be made for both

Todd Berlier wrote:

I totally see your point and I guess all i can say to that is your interpretation of the filmaker's intent is 100% plausible. I don't see it that way. I think they made the choice to reveal his death as if it were happening in real time, in order to induce the profound emotion that they and those close to him felt; and as a cautionary position on soloing. 

And what purpose does it serve, at 2:05, to use his disapearance as a mysterious cliffhanger, a hook, a point of suspense?

Whatever their intention, I wholesale reject that documentarians are allowed to try to "induce profound emotion” by manipulating the narrative. In old school documentaries, journalist pieces, and history books, the highest virtue is neutrality, to tell the facts as they are, and let the audience decide on their own what their emotions should be. When it’s factual information that is in your hands, interviews and real footage, morality play is a betrayal. You have a responsibility to tell the story as is. 

I know its a lost art, or maybe honesty doesn’t sell as well anymore, but have people really become such heartless psychopaths that they need to be tricked into thinking someone is alive to feel that their death is all the more tragic?

And I’m surprised you concluded that it’s a cautionary position on soloing. They emphasized that he died by avalanche with a partner on the descent. He actually was a successful soloist, and if anything, the good faith view would be that they wanted people to appreciate his soloing without the possibility of the confusion that his death was because of his soloing, which I admit would be a disservice. 

But there has to be a better solution to that than “surprise, he died!"

I blame faux news...

No more poetic license? Truth always wins over quality? Youth and skill over age and treachery every time? 

The idea that photos and film are capturing reality, and convey a truth that isn’t displayed with any other medium - this is a misconception that’s existed since the invention of photography.  The precision makes the viewer believe that they’re seeing events unfold as they happened, but the artist’s bias always exists. You can certainly be critical of the specific interpretation or narrative that the artist took, but the idea that there was once a “pure” or “unadulterated” version of photo and video creation is nonsense. 

John Clarkwrote:

Who is the one being sensitive? People or Eric? A case could be made for both

I feel sensitive about Marc and Ryan’s deaths and the way Marc is being portrayed by some people.

I guess these days with all the contention over free/policing speech it’s harder to ask for restraint.

I don’t think anyone has said anything in this thread that can’t or shouldn’t be said in our country. In my view Internet forums are like bars… still should follow the rules and norms of the establishment.

I believe the death of someone in our community should always be treated with respect  The community still feels small to me.  I try to think of those we’ve lost and the fellow community members they have left behind. 

I’m realizing this is my problem to expect everyone on mp to approach it that way. I think most people do.  Maybe there are some climbing or outdoor forum spaces that are more geared toward the sensitive folks like myself? 

John Clarkwrote:

It isn’t automatic.

I didn't just say automatic, I said it automatically gets kicked to the MP overlords(the site owners) and they decide.

But they always defer to the offended party right off and delete that post or route name so in a fairly direct way it is automatic.

Crag dogs are unethical.

Hank Caylorwrote:

I didn't just say automatic, I said it automatically gets kicked to the MP overlords(the site owners) and they decide.

But they always defer to the offended party right off and delete that post or route name so in a fairly direct way it is automatic.

You know people can just go back and read the quoted text and see that is not what you said, right?

Matt. there is zero question that its both more prevalent and much easier to manipulate photography than it used to be.  What you can do in a darkroom and still look normal is very limited. there is no limit to photoshop.  additionally there was strong ethic of not altering images and it could get you kicked out of the news room. if you go way back to the 1860s that was not the case and many photos were staged. By the time WW11 came around it was very much established that staging photos was not acceptable and you had to get the shot. the good ones used wider lenses and worked close and often died. 

I'm not referring to journalistic integrity specifically, but your notes about Matthew Brady and the work in the 1860s are certainly true; the creators had a specific narrative they were trying to tell, and that was the cost of bloody war, the righteousness of the side of the conflict that was paying them, and public support on the importance of pushing for a victory.  Vietnam was the start of questions about the practice of embedded journalists and their ability to tell a story that laid bare the atrocities committed by their friends, which poses a problem up to this day.

My point is that viewers should always understand that any work created should be viewed through the perspective of the person creating it.  Cameras and movies aren't a "reality capturing device".  Skepticism is a healthy trait to have in 2024 when as your say photoshop makes it easier to bend the truth for photographic work, and with the proliferation of AI generated material, it's only going to get worse.  Pandora's Box is open for that one, and I think a rational understanding of what message you're viewing, who created it, and what influence it's attempting to have on you is a better path forward than expecting people to play by any set of rules.

Nick Goldsmithwrote:

Matt. there is zero question that its both more prevalent and much easier to manipulate photography than it used to be.  What you can do in a darkroom and still look normal is very limited. there is no limit to photoshop.  additionally there was strong ethic of not altering images and it could get you kicked out of the news room. if you go way back to the 1860s that was not the case and many photos were staged. By the time WW11 came around it was very much established that staging photos was not acceptable and you had to get the shot. the good ones used wider lenses and worked close and often died. 

WW11?

What happened to 3-10?

Staged photos are very different than alteration/post. Same umbrella, but very different. 

Not sure what triggered this lala-land discussion on photography, but if it was a response to me, I suspect it’s a confusion of what I meant by “real footage.” It's a reference to a part of my initial post some 8 pages ago:

Redacted Redactbergwrote:

Documentaries, unlike biopics, should lay the facts as they are, rather than milking the tears of the viewer so as to have a lasting psychological effect for one dimensional narrative resolution. 

The relevant distinction is documentaries vs. biopics. Nonfiction footage versus fictional footage, maybe that’s a better way of describing it. A camera pointed at real life unscripted events, as opposed to a camera pointed at fictional film sets with actors and preplanned plot or diologue, costumes, makeup, etc. 

If you believe there is an objective reality, namely that Marc-Andre is dead, then intentionally concealing that truth from the audience till the ripest possible climax isn’t a matter of “flawed photographs” or “specific interpretation.” Documentaries are non-fiction, and therefore must serve the truth. You can play such interpretive and poetic games all you want in biopics, though it might, regardless, come across as shallow.

But tricking the audience into thinking someone is alive when they are not for a more exciting narrative in a documentary is not just a matter of dishonesty: it's anti-human.

@ David, that's a strong statement, and I always apreciate a well-expressed view.  But I don't really agree with you.  In fact, I would probably say exactly the opposite: relating objective truth without emotion is anti-human.

You've expressed one view about how stories should be told, but that's just your opinion.

Perhaps the goal of a director/writer/artist isn't simply to relate facts but to convey emotions?  Perhaps in this case the directors were trying to make the audience feel the death? Perhaps stories in which the audience feels emotions will always be more lasting, powerful, and personal? Perhaps humans instinctively invest emotions in stories--this is probably a deeply human need.

If you insist on only objective truth and full disclosure from the outset, you ignore the great majority of powerful narratives throughout human history. 

The directors or this movie told an emotive tale, as evidenced by this thread.  

I don't think creating stories like this and being sympathetic to and respectful of subjects are mutually exclusive.

To be honest, I disliked the surprise ending.  Still, “dislike” is as far as it goes with me. Almost certainly there was some discussion about how to present his untimely death. 

In other words, I don’t see this as an ethics issue, or a crime against humanity so to speak. Just a different decision than I would have made which alienates some percent.

Rolling Stones served it well. “You Can’t Always Get What You Want”. Bruno’s take is better still IMO.

I have no idea on the filming/timing details, but is it possible that his death occurred part way through the filming and the original film intention…..and as it was also a shock and surprise to them, they attempted to convey some of that in the film?

Sudden untimely deaths are hard to process.  Just had one here at work.  Guy gone in an instant without warning.  All the previous discussions and plans just evaporate.  It messes with your head. 

David, there is really no such thing as a truly 'objective' documentary ( or written history either). Even if the filmmaker ( writer) is trying to be as objective as possible they are still influenced ( even if unconsciously) by their own perspectives, opinions, preferences etc. Additionally, they always have more material and information than they can fit into any film, so must always be making editing decisions about what to include. This has always been true. Obviously with such 'tools' as AI , in addition to more 'producers' being willing to be consciously manipulative, things today are even more uncertain than they ever have been before.

I'm not specifically referring to The Alpinist here, just responding to David's earlier comments concerning documentaries in general.

Yes Marc died before filming was done. He also dropped off the map a couple of times during that time too. I recall an article or discussion from movie makers about the dilemma - continue on to publish the movie, or not.

They chose to publish. I’m glad they did. They brought this beautiful man and climber to us in a stunning movie with a known ending. Lets not pretend we all didn’t know what happened.

Let it go guys.

If the claim is that documentaries should be a retelling of the facts in a series of events verbatim, then The Alpinist may be the best documentary ever made. It takes this instruction to the extreme and presents to the viewer Marc-Andre’s life in the strictest linear narrative possible.

But, on the other hand, I’d also argue that the claim that documentaries should present the facts as they happened in a “by the books” delivery is conflating documentaries for the nightly news, and also ignores the reality of what they are and how they’ve been made since the invention of documentaries.