An unpopular take on The Alpinist

I knew Marc well, he lived with me on and off for years. The Alpinist, and the other online material, covers only a fraction of his ascents, descents (bad ass skier), and accomplishments. Any critique of him based on the film or what's online, while interesting, is pointless in my opinion. Even the film, which I love and I'm in for a brief second (I was lucky enough to watch the premiere of it in Squamish with Brette), fails to do him justice. Cheers from Canmore, Brandon

Brandon Pullanwrote:

I knew Marc well, he lived with me on and off for years. The Alpinist, and the other online material, covers only a fraction of his ascents, descents (bad ass skier), and accomplishments. Any critique of him based on the film or what's online, while interesting, is pointless in my opinion. Even the film, which I love and I'm in for a brief second (I was lucky enough to watch the premiere of it in Squamish with Brette), fails to do him justice. Cheers from Canmore, Brandon

Thanks for your post, Brandon!

I’m wondering if you can mention more about Marc-André’s  ski descents?

Good to see noted climbing author and Griped editor, Mr Pullan checking in. 

John Clarkwrote:

Funny how quickly people forgot Eric’s “contributions” to the Charlie Barrett thread. So classic there is no longer a record of most of them.

I wish the record was there so honest people with rational brains could read and understand what I said, which is an ability beyond the capability of the MP mods. It must drive dishonest people like you, all the anonymous likers and MM crazy that men are currently sitting in prison because of detective work I've done on behalf of sexual assault victims. As far as I can tell, all you've done for sexual assault victims is throw stones at people who actually make a difference and can provide practical advice. 

bryan, I'm shocked that you and I essentially agree on the Alpinist but you're upset that my opinion is based on God. My channel is filled with very thinly-veiled conservative values. Family, marriage, God, truth, logic, reason, and I don't create content for anybody other than what I like to create, nor for the approval of any audience except honest people who like doing hard work and want to learn about a universally applicable style of hard trad climbing. I don't need dishonest followers, or any followers at all really, though I appreciate the people who appreciate and get psyched up by my content. 

I suspect you'll never headpoint a hard route in your life, which is totally fine. I would gladly dive under a falling climber who I agreed to belay on a dangerous route, especially if that person is my wife.

Eric Marxwrote:

I wish the record was there so honest people with rational brains could read and understand what I said, which is an ability beyond the capability of the MP mods. It must drive dishonest people like you, all the anonymous likers and MM crazy that men are currently sitting in prison because of detective work I've done on behalf of sexual assault victims. As far as I can tell, all you've done for sexual assault victims is throw stones at people who actually make a difference and can provide practical advice. 

bryan, my channel is filled with very thinly-veiled conservative values. Family, God, truth, logic, reason, and I don't create content for anybody other than what I like to create, nor for the approval of any audience except honest people who like doing hard work and want to learn about a universally applicable style of hard trad climbing. I don't need any money from any youtube channel, and I don't need dishonest followers, or any followers at all really, though I appreciate the people who appreciate and get psyched up by my content. I'm shocked that you and I essentially agree on the Alpinist but you're upset that my opinion is based on God.

I suspect you'll never headpoint a hard route in your life, which is totally fine. I would gladly dive under a falling climber who I agreed to belay on a dangerous route, especially if that person is my wife.

Those victims should have known better gosh darnit, you just don't get me! Youtube! Headpoint! 

Lol, thanks Eric, lock'em up!

Enough about The Alpinist - need to turn the conversation back to ME. 

Bruno Schullwrote:

Perhaps in this case the directors were trying to make the audience feel the death?

So you won’t feel it if you knew beforehand? After they go through the entirety of his life story, and that sudden call, the panic in BH, the world falling away in her eyes and voice… you wouldn’t feel that? That’s not enough for you? You need to have an extra surprise? This line of reasoning is not just shallow. It's disturbing. 

And let me flip the question to you that troubled me, while watching the film with a group of friends: Your watch party doesn't know, do you tell them, or is it a spoiler?

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

No, I think you’re confusing the objective and subjective relationship, as well as what a documentary is. As subjective creatures, when we perceive reality, we necessarily have a subjective experience. But that doesn’t mean as a documentarian, who takes on the job to display the objective, you have license to now intentionally introduce your personal lens to the story. 

The nontrivial goal of a documentary is to document reality, despite the fact that the creators are having a subjective experience. By trying to invert the subjective experience back to the objective, you are giving the audience a chance to have their own authentic response to the reality. This is a unique art requiring skill that I think should be highly praised.

An example: When you see Marc-Andre summiting (the objective), only a cold soul wouldn’t feel that glory (subjective experience). Now imagine, Vertical Limit style, they edited in an eagle flying overhead, with an eagle screech mixed in. Sure it might make you feel even more awe, and it might relate what the cameramen felt. But in a documentary, as opposed to a biopic, I imagine all of us would find such things absurdly tasteless. Let the viewer decide for themselves that it’s glorious, it needs no augmentations.

And that example is completely inert in comparison to pretending that he is alive for an augmented, climactic gut shot. It’s antithetical for a documentary to suspend reality. It’s all the more disturbing to use someone’s death like that. He died in 2018, the film was released in 2021, that’s 3 years to add a single frame at the start of the trailer and film. Let the audience member decide for themselves that his death is tragic, it needs no augmentations. 

As for that platitude - “oh, but no documentary or history book is entirely perfect at objectivity” - so what? If there is a goal, but you know you will likely fall short, that doesn’t mean the goal itself should be subverted. “Well I know I won’t get 100 on this exam, so I’m gonna not try and fail on purpose.". Enough with this capricious 3rd grade thinking. Aim at the center, and the greater your skill, the less you will miss. A documentary is trying to do something special that no other modality does.

Matt, all I did was come in here and give an unpopular opinion, which was 99% not about God, and then like 10 people just started going off about it. I know you'd love if I was afraid to defend myself and my views in the face of all those scary anonymous likers, but I'm not. Honest people recognize that. Nobody made this thread about me except the 10 people who are enraged that I dare mention God, also came in and mentioned Trump(?), lied about my past comments on sexual assault victims, told me I was angry when I am in fact, not at all, and generally just told me to shut up, instead of talking directly to my ideas and maybe changing my mind with THEIR ideas. Which would be the point of this thread.

Edit:

Bruno Schullwrote:

@ 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.

Reading back, this is actually a really interesting take. I suppose it would depend on the motive, but even that can be jumbled. Money, emotive-storytelling, watching somebody on a crash course and desperately trying to capture it. It's a human endeavor and human endeavors can end in tragedy. 

I still think he'd be better served by receiving some kind of guidance and not dying the way he did, but I think you're right Bruno, in this aspect.

Still a little fuzzy there, need more detail.

Redacted Redactbergwrote:

No, I think you’re confusing the objective and subjective relationship, as well as what a documentary is. 

I get what you're saying David, I really do.  I even agree with you to some extent.  

I just think you have a really narrow definition of what a "documentary" is.  There is no one way to make a documentary, no one way to tell a story, there are just different narrative choices.  You are evaluating this movie based on your definition, which is fine, but there's no objective right/wrong.

One narrative structure I might have explored would have been to start with his death, and then work backwards from there.  Not saying that would have been better or worse, but it would have avoided these sorts of questions.

Anyway, it was a powerful, thought-proving, emoption-provoking movie.  

Eric Marx wrote:

I actually laugh raucously and hysterically out how you can double down and be so dishonest. You need some therapy my dude.

Matthew 7:1 bro, come one 

wow this thread is like dogs chasong their tails, you disresect Marc!

Todd Berlier wrote:

folks don't really understand that a belief or an opinion is not a "truth." 

Soapbox: what's wrong with the world is this type of thinking. These either/or positions cause a lot of anger and unproductive negativity.

Say it again for the folks in the back.

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

Matthew 7:1 bro, come one 

I deleted my post for post limit, not because of the content. I'm glad it's still preserved in your post.

Come on bro, you can't use a philosophy you don't understand or abide by to tell somebody how to practice it better. Matthew 7:1 AND 2 and 3 and 4 and 5(and 6)

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."

I'm not judging his soul, I'm saying he's a liar and should stop lying and that therapy helps with that. Matthew 7:5 above. It would benefit your life to stop lying and begin speaking the truth. BryanS also lied in his characterization of the fall into my wife, thankfully, the video is there for anybody to watch and listen to the key words and phrases that he left out because the fall scared him.

@Todd, Andy you seem to have used your rational human thought to arrive at the opinion, "that a belief is not truth." Is that a belief of yours? Is it true? Is it suddenly contradictory? Which one is it? You're objectively stating objective truth cannot be found, which is utter nonsense. In the case of God, it's entirely irrational to look at the world around you and think, "floating ball of meaninglessness that occurred of .0000infinity00001% random chance." 

Matthew 7:6 is relevant also “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."

and let's not forget Matthew 5.10: "And the Lord sayeth unto his people, "Yea, though thou mayest climb the rock, thou shalt not forget thy harness, lest thou plummet to the ground like a sack of potatoes.""

Eric Marxwrote:

I deleted my post for post limit, not because of the content. I'm glad it's still preserved in your post.

Come on bro, you can't use a philosophy you don't understand or abide by to tell somebody how to practice it better. Matthew 7:1 AND 2 and 3 and 4 and 5(and 6)

What happened to your lurking feeling that I was “some sort of Christian”?

I'm not judging his soul

You told him to go to therapy. That’s mean. 

Matthew 7:6 is relevant also “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."

Please do not turn this into a dog thread. We have enough. 

Jabroni McChufferson wrote:

Am I miss remembering but isn’t the film time line chronological? So if you didn’t know who Marc was before the Alpinist you observed his life and the way he lived, his lifestyle, friends and family. Seems like a complete story to me 

Yeah this is a pretty distinct approach to the movie, and part of the reveal at the end when the viewer can see the whole story of Marc-Andre's climbing experience from start to end.

First, I think there's a decided lack of interview footage involving him throughout; I was personally unaware of the events, so getting an hour into the film I was asking myself, "There isn't much footage of the subject of the movie, that's kind of strange."

And second, from a narrative perspective, the movie takes the viewer through a smaller version of those who would have personally experienced the events; seeing impressive feats play out, growing recognition, skirting injury and death, and then surprise tragedy when you're thinking the danger has passed.  That's literally how life can work sometimes, and it's why this movie has struck so deeply with a lot of people - it's not even necessarily about climbing being dangerous, but how those you feel connected to can be taken from you in an instant, and when you're least expecting it.

To juxtapose the two - and I'll be flippant about it, but I don't really mean it quite like this - but Free Solo kind of thumbs its nose, where the entire point is skating close to death and coming out on top; it's man versus nature, and he wins LiKe A bOsS.  Literally, the film ends with a shrug and a smile and "I'm going to go hangboard in my van" like it's another day in the office.  It's an incredible impressive athletic feat that's non-relatable to basically anyone in the world.

The Alpinist is the highs and lows of someone trying to live a climbing lifestyle, and the realities of how dangerous it can be.  Everyone can relate to having someone you're close to and love taken from you; it's a story about the human condition, from the perspective of people who climb.

Todd Berlier wrote:

I find it interesting that folks don't really understand that a belief or an opinion is not a "truth." In that regard, Davids opinion and Eric's faith are quite similar.

Soapbox: what's wrong with the world is this type of thinking. These either/or positions cause a lot of anger and unproductive negativity. In this case both Bruno and myself have tried to validate Davids opinion while offering counterpoints, but to no avail.

Make the world a better place people, it's our obligation.

Going to plant some flowers, search for unicorns and find a rainbow to look at now.

Peace.

Soapbox: What’s wrong with this world is using tragedy for personal profit at the expense of human value and dignity. Neglecting to tell the majority uninformed viewer that your biographical subject is dead in the trailer and until the end of the movie is next level subversion of the audience. I can’t think of any other documentary I’ve ever watched that does something like this. 

Todd, I sincerely read and thought about all of yours and others ad hoc rationalizations, but they ranged from absurd to necrophilic. Talking about “feeling death" is one of the more memorable ones. Like Joker saying he gave himself a smile just so he could feel something.

I suspect the real reason you feel “a lot of anger and unproductive negativity” is cognitive dissonance. And maybe a bit of guilt too that you swallowed this poison, and even said “thank you!”

I think the world would be a better place if we told people’s stories without normalizing their tragedies as mere plot points in a “narrative” or for “artistry.” Like those primordial cavemen or dirtbag days when they'd sit around a campfire and tell stories about their tragic heroes, not for mere shock factor and social points, but in true love and elevation of human value and dignity, sharing our common quest for such kinds of dignity in the face of mortality.

Todd Berlier wrote:

I find it interesting that folks don't really understand that a belief or an opinion is not a "truth."

Psychiatrist Iain McGilchrist lays it out pretty well in Hidden Brain’s “One Head, Two Brains”. 

Denial is a left brain specialty (e.g., denial of other perspectives):  evaluating one’s self optimistically, more apt to stick to one’s existing point of view, at the extreme naively optimistic forecasting of outcomes, always a winner, ….

Extreme right-brain dominance has its’ own issues as well.

Collaboration of both is essential.

Redacted Redactbergwrote:

Soapbox: What’s wrong with this world is using tragedy for personal profit at the expense of human value and dignity. Neglecting to tell the majority uninformed viewer that your biographical subject is dead in the trailer and until the end of the movie is next level subversion of the audience. I can’t think of any other documentary I’ve ever watched that does something like this. 

You know how many documentaries are like this?  Post Humus documentaries are quite normal and tell a story chronologically many times. Or docs where they do not give away the "truth " until the end, or in general just slap ya in the face in the end. See: Plot twist.

Some Docs that come to mind:
Grizzly man
Streetwise
Capturing the Friedmans
Dear Zachary
The deepest breath
Running with the Devil: The Wild World of John McAfee

Nothing new here, just not your cup of tea.