Wettlauf zum Pol

Let me start out by agreeing with everyone who has previously written: it is the best drama about polar adventure ever made.

The viewer should be very skeptical about the Scott defenders because it is evident their homework is shallowly researched and based on a very limited interpretation of Scott's polar problem: that bad luck and bad weather caused his downfall.

I've read Huntford's book 3 times, read the weather article and seen the PBS episode where the young scientist tried to resurrect Scott as a noble, if unfortunate hero. Also, Huntford and his fellow professionals have posted excellent rebuttals regarding these spurious claims about Scott and the weather.

The questions that should put an end to the argument is this: who would get you through safely and who exhibited a breadth of polar knowledge sufficient to AVOID the problems of travel in the brutal Antarctic?

If you said Scott, then you probably thought the Charge of the Light Brigade was a wonderful jaunt through Russian cannon fire just to show how noble and brave you were. Above all else, don't let these half-informed reviewers go without a serious look into the counter-points made to their weak arguments.

Still, the series is a breath-taking look at the human struggle to survive and to seek glory and the dreadful price it takes in lives and in the judgment of history.

Roland Huntford's definitive saga of polar exploration, "Scott and Amundsen", is brought very faithfully to film in this 7-episode BBC series. Huntford was the former Scandinavian correspondent for London's "Observer", and his book was the first to debunk Scott's supposed heroic martyrdom.

Beautiful cinematography and several very solid performances by Sverre Anker Ousdal as the introspective and driven Amundsen; Martin Shaw nails the effete martinet, Scott; Michael Maloney is great as Scott's betrayed 2nd Officer, Teddy Evans; Toralv Maurstad as the outspoken Norwegian polar veteran, Hjalmer Johanssen; and, Richard Morant as, W.E.G. Oates, the army officer in a Navy environment and apparently the only man in Scott's party capable of independent thought.

Roland Huntford's meticulous and exhaustive research of Scott and Amudsen's Antarctic exploration efforts for winning the South Pole help make the making of this film a Directors dream and challenge. Outstanding cinematography and period costume design push this great story to the highest level of viewing. The film should be mandatory viewing for all highschoolers. The historical and geographical values will enhance ones knowledge of this very special period of Antarctic exploration in the early 1900s. The British and Norwegian actors perform their skills with convincing emotion. The film, based on Huntford's documentary brilliance, gives us all time to ponder what really happened in claiming the South Pole and lays to rest a good deal of sentimental nonsense,which some of us were subjected to during our high school days.

I have spent 45 years or more reading Arctic and Antarctic histories and I'm famiiar with most of the important written works on these subjects. I believe it's generally unfair to compare the Amundsen and Scott expeditions of 1911-12. Amundsen set one objective: to be the first to reach the south geographuc pole. This too was A Scott's objective but he other goals too. Scott didn't go south with the expectation of being in a race to the South Pole but arriving in Melbourne he found himself in just such a race. It was a race that he unfortunately could never win. This film explains why.

I don't like denigrating a supremely brave man, even if Scott was arrogrant, over-confident, not an effective leader, and poorly organized owing to the former attributes. Scott's Royal Navy career was prematurely curtailed when Sir Jackie Fisher, First Sea Lord, held him responsible for a ship's collision. Fisher told Scott that he would receive no further promotions and that was that. Early in his naval career, Scottw was befriended by Sir Clement Markham, head of the Royal Geographic Society, and Markham encouraged Scott to apply to lead what would become known as the 'Discovery Expedition'. Markham didn't like Sir Ernest Shackleton, especially after the latter nearly died on Scott's trip south in 1901-02, and therefore never seriously backed Sir Ernest's Antarctic efforts. Scott, with Markham's full support, undertook the 'Terra Nova Expedition: Markham, in effect, determined who received RGS backing and who gained government support. Without Markham's backing Scott likely never would have had a second expedition. Scott's competence, or lack there of, was never really at issue: Markham was Scott's great enabler.

Scott by temperment and training was not an explorer. He began exploring after his chosen career in the RN was prematurely ended. Amundsen was a professional explorer, inspired by Nansen's trek across Greenland in the 1880s and the subsequent 'Fram Drift' in the Arctic in the early 1890s. Amundsen became an excellent Nordic skier in hus teens and he began his exploring career with the Belgian Antarctic Expedition in the late 1890s, where he spent a year ice bound off the Antarctic Peninsular (he met Dr. Fredrick Cook at this time). A few years later, Amundsen led an expedition to locate the North Geomagnetic Pole. He successful mastered the science needed to do this, spending .3 years in the Canadian Arctic. At this time, Amundsen learned Arctic survival from the Inuit and in 3 years his men never suffered the physical deprevations so common to other Arctic explorers. He helped solve the riddle of the Sir John Franklin expedition on the 1840s, traversed the Northwest Passage, and then forced to winter at Herschel near the MacKenzie River Delta. He undertook a 1200 mile round trip on skis over the Brooks Range to telegram his backers of his discoveries. My point: Amendsen was not an amateur explorer, it was his profession.

Huntford's facts speak for themselves and no recent resesrch can reasinably deny them. Scott was a brave man but then so was Amundsen. Amundsen was a natural self-promoter with a huge ego but these aren't relevant to the man's competence. Scott simply wasn't in Amundsen's league as an explorer. Scott wasn't in the same league as Sir Ernest Shackleton or Sir Douglas Mawson. Scott was out of his depth, too proud to see it, and he led his men into catastrophe. This very nearly happened to Sir Ernest 3 years later. Shackleton was however, a great and inspirational leader so when disaster hit, he led his men to safety against all odds. Anyone interested in an account of just part of Shackleton's Transantarctic Expedition 1914-17 might read F.A.. Worselley's 'Shackleton's Boat Journey'. Another incredible story of Antarctic survival is 'Mawson's Will' concerning Sir Douglas's recovery from near disaster in Adelie Land in the late teens.

Scott and his mean didn't have to die horribly. It occurred because Scott made poor decisions as a leader, refused the sound of advice of experts when given, and he entrusted his future and that of his men to luck and the well known British Imperial spirit. Sadly, he ran out of luck, and in Antarctica no amount of indominability can overcome nature. I really don't believe that Scott fully appreciated the risks he took. Oh, he knew there were ricks but he honestly believed his wil (and some luck!), could overcome any obstacle he faced. He gambled and he lost. Amundsen fully understood polar life and he did everything possible to minimize risk. He didn't rely on luck or pluck but sound planning and preparation. He chose his men well, he bet his financial future on this expedition, survived, and won his bet. Amundsen's men gained weight on their trip to the pole and back. This movie explains what occurred and offers a glimpse why. Amundsen went on to sail though the Northeast Passage (second man to do it), and in the late 1920s, helping to search for the Italia Expedition of Nobile', Amundsen dies in the Arctic.

This is an extremely well-made, well-acted multipart drama about the "race" to the South Pole between Scott and Amundsen, based on a book by Roland Huntford. Huntford's book set out to debunk the myth of Scott of the Antarctic, and now many of his assertions are accepted as blythly as once the legend of Scott was accepted. Unfortunately, many of Huntford's assertions have themselves been debunked, and the book, while taking a critical view of Scott's preparations as compared to Amundsen's, still is interesting with its newfound trivia, is increasingly relegated to a status as an interesting fossil. Also interesting is that the off-screen Shackleton (now famous after the Kenneth Branagh movie) is always treated in the book and "The Last Place on Earth" as a polar savant and a superior force to Scott, actually had many of the same qualities Huntford attributes to Scott -- including inadequate planning -- but Shackleton got all his men home safely; whereas Huntford, and the movie, ascribe a death wish to Scott, which is absolutely undocumented.

Martin Shaw's Scott is irascible, peevish, and stupid, just as Huntford wanted him. He does seize upon good qualities as they come his way, but basically he's a whipped man, sent south from his wife's desire to have a great husband. Perhaps he just wants to go to the South Pole to get away from her.

Amundsen, the man who got to the South Pole first, is treated as a parfait knight in every way. The Norwegian scenes were as well done as the British scenes.

However, the film, in its debunking of the Scott legend, hides some evidence and creates other evidence. For instance, Scott's dislike of using dogs was not a hidebound reflex, but the fact that in an earlier expedition, dogs did not perform adequately. He knew his life would depend on them in the polar region, and his experience told them he could not rely on them. He thought the tractors and Siberian ponies would, however, be good replacements. Unfortunately, the ponies were more useless than the dogs might have been.

Amundseon, however, had problems himself. He never wanted to go south, but wanted the North Pole. Too bad: not one, but two men [both, if you know your history, outrageous liars] claimed the North Pole, Cook and Peary. Cook was a pal of Amundsen's from an earlier expedition where he'd saved many lives as a doctor. Though they were fast friends, Amundsen did not realize or blinded himself to the fact that Cook, when he could not achieve a feat (like climbing Mt. Mckinley) would lie about his achievements shamelessly. He was not only a fraud, he later became a swindler.

As one would expect in a movie like this, Cook is portrayed in a positive light; and he's obviously given North Polar priority, though in fact he never came within a thousand miles of the pole.

Amundsen, finding the glory he sought to the north taken from him by two skilled liars, neither of whom reached the North Pole in fact, decided to take the South Pole, because he was deeply in debt at the time and thought he would make money off it. So, telling the world he was heading north on a scientific expedition, went south instead. Scott, learning about this only when his expedition was on its way, was forced to expedite some of his own arrangements, thereby condemning his own polar party in a race he hadn't expected. And since he arrived at the pole only days after Amundsen, but nevertheless second, spent unnecessary time collecting useless scientific data, and collecting worthless rock samples, trying to ensure his own expedition served science, if nothing else; but he was swindled out of polar priority.

One area where Huntford is dead wrong, and the movie, is his complaints that Scott whined about the weather. In fact, we now know, as Scott could not with his more primitive weather gauging, that the weather was much worse than anyone could've expected; that under normal conditions as were known at the time, Scott's preparations would've been adequate; and it was by luck more than dogs and skis that Amundsen didn't get bogged down and die in the same conditions Scott had.

And Scott proved himself a man of honor, of course, in that Amundsen, perhaps snidely, left a letter for Scott to be taken back in case the Norwegian died; and Scott and his party died lugging home the letter, carefully preserved, that would've presented evidence to the world that Scott reached the pole second, even though at the time, no doubt the world would've taken an Englishman's word if Scott, like Cook and Peary, decided to lie about his achievements.

Unfortunately, the race to the south pole, unlike the race north, involved two basically honorable men, who felt forced by circumstances to chicanery: Amundsen, by lying to the world about the real purpose of his expedition; and Scott, by forcing his men to achieve the pole in an over-hasty way to beat his unexpected competitor.

As it turned out, both men got what they deserved. Scott, though it cost him his life, got the South Polar glory; and Amundsen got priority, though, since he started out his expedition with deception (as Cook and Peary ended their's) earned neither fame nor money, but only his place in history.

As Huntford's book is now seriously undermined in parts (especially in the new finds about the weather, which come from core samples unavailable at the time Huntford decided to undermine Britain's South Polar hero) it would be nice to see a new Scott and Amundsen show in the light of the new evidence, especially with such a fine cast and good production values as this show presented. But as that's not likely, this is the best version of that history you'll find. It was shot in Antarctic conditions, and the cast no doubt suffered.

Just keep in mind that its purpose was a hatchet job on a hero, and that Scott wasn't as bad, nor Amundsen so perfect, as the movie depicts; but both blow Cook and Peary out of the water as men of honor and greatness.

In an ideal world, Amundsen would've gotten credit for priority at the North Pole, which he wanted and deserved; and Scott would've gotten credit for the South Pole, which he deserved -- especially the way he and his men valiantly fought against the unexpected weather conditions with their then state-of-the-art (now primitive) methods. Both men deserved better than they got. And Scott deserves a better show than this. But this is the best polar drama ever, even compared to Branagh's wonderful "Shackleton".