Mort sur l'Everest

This is an excellent book that was translated into a poorly written, poorly acted movie. I was really looking forward to watching this when I saw it on the cable guide. Imagine my disappointment as I watched the undeveloped characters morph into Hollywood cariactures and the story line turn into a study of glibness. The director seemed to be rushing from one scene to the next, pausing just long enough to allow someone to spout some clichéd line. I just didn't care about the people and wasn't too interested in their quest. It's almost as if this movie was a homework assignment that someone had to get out of the way before he could move on to what he really wanted to do.The book was educational and compelling. Jon Krakauer deserved better.

I thought Jon Krakauer's book on the 1996 Everest climbing disaster, while not great literature and while a rather subjective and partial account, was well-observed and reasonably absorbing. This film, derived from the book, is a very thin account. Shot in Austria, it does not even have the actual Himalayan scenery of the Everest Imax film which was shot in the same calamitous 1996 climbing season. The acting is at least professional; Nat Parker as guide Rob Hall is quite convincing, though his NZ accent switches to London Cockney at times, and Peter Horton does a good impression of the ebullient American guide Scott Fisher.

On the other hand Chris McDonald as Krakauer relies overmuch on his single facial expression of worried concern. The script is pretty awful and the story more a collection of scenes than a coherent narrative. A lot of the time I had to rely on my knowledge of the book to work out what was going on. As for the factual inadequacies (12 people died, not 5, no mention of the South African party, Taiwanese barely mentioned) I forgive the producers for trying to slim things down a bit – it was a messy disaster.

Even so this has all the hallmarks of a `let's cash in' quick and dirty TV movie – it appeared less than 18 months after the incident. It's not likely to change anyone's ideas about mountaineering though I suppose there is some schadenfreude in seeing rich doctors and socialites with no or limited climbing experience attempting to wipe themselves out in various stupid ways at very high altitudes. The Darwin prize of course goes to the client who stepped outside of his tent one morning with only his boot liners on his feet and went for a fatal skid down the mountain.

I felt a little sorry for the guides, generally people who love the mountains, having for economic reasons to take such awful people up them; in my day as an amateur climber I at least got to choose my companions, though some of them were pretty wild. The exploitation of the Sherpas is also hard to take; even though they are willing participants, climbing has become part of their economy, and there are few other options. If I had seen Lopsang Sherpa struggling up the Lhotse face with Sandy Pitman's 30lb satellite phone I would have chucked it down the nearest crevasse. And if Sandy complained, I would have invited her to join it.

As a serious climber and mountaineer, and as a professional guide, I am extremely concerned about the events of May 10,1996. After reading Jon Krakauer's book and MANY other reliable sources on the subject of the 1996 Everest tragedy, I was dismayed by what I saw in this film. One cannot understand what goes into an expedition like the one portrayed in the movie, the many personalities and complex decisions occurring on such an expedition, and the emotions and needs of someone participating in such an expedition, by watching a 90 minute movie. I feel that the writers took the characters and reduced them into stereotypes - Scott Fischer, the reckless daredevil; Rob Hall, the calculating, stern guide; Anatoli Boukreev, the non-caring, self-serving workhorse; and, finally, the many clients, unexperienced and not prepared for such an undertaking.

On a technical note, the writers reduce a +- 7 week acclimatization/climbing process into a 5 day climb! Understandably, they must fit the climb into 90 minutes, but this is ridiculous. They also reduce the effects of the altitude on the climbers to a level of simplicity. Obviously, they need not go into extreme medical detail, but the scenes showing Scott Fischer and Rob Hall talking to their groups about the climb do not show the complexity and difficulty of the acclimatization process. Many of the climbers had serious Himalayan experience under their belts, but these scene portray them as mere babes attempting their first climb.

Obviously, the film had to be simplified from the book to fit into 90 minutes, but I feel that the film was an insult to those who lost their lives that day, and to those who gave everything they had to save their comrades' lives. For one, Anatoli Boukreev went out into the storm three times, and single-handedly saved three lives.

Finally, and this is the most important point, Mr. Krakauer was criticized to the extreme for his seemingly one-sided perspective in his book. Many other first-hand accounts of the events of May 10,1996 differ greatly. There is so much other information available, besides Mr. Krakauer's book, that the writers could have and should have consulted. Although the movie is based on Mr. Krakauer's book, it seems to me that the writers would want to show what REALLY happened that day.

After reading the other comment about this movie, I feel I must disagree completely. I found the portraits well-drawn and well-acted given that the production had only two hours to convey the entire story, which of course is much more complex and horrific than could be possibly be presented in a TV movie.

While I could not comprehend the obsession that drove these people to take what seemed an extreme and ultimately deadly risk to climb and "conquer" the mountain, I really wanted them to survive and was saddened when they didn't. Maybe I'm just too sensitive or sentimental, but seeing what the movie did portray, which was distressing enough, and knowing that it isn't anything near what the real tragedy was like, made me cry. It made me think about the real people and what a waste of lives that was.

I just finished watching "Into Thin Air" after having read Anatoli Boukreev's book "The Climb." I was aware of the book on which this movie was based (I gave it to my mother for Christmas) but not the controversy over what really happened. I have two general comments to make. First, I agree with those who complain that the movie took too many "artistic liberties" with the truth. I have ZERO experience with mountain climbing (I live in Kansas) but I could tell from comparing the book to the movie that the authors/director didn't really care to even try to correctly portray what mountain climbing is all about. And don't give me that line that they did the best they could in two hours. If people care enough, they can tell the story accurately in 2-3 hours.

But my main concern is with the controversy over what really happened. Mr. Boukreev makes a good case in his book that Mr. Krakauer did not accurately portray events on the mountain. I don't know exactly why, but I felt that his argument was persuasive (however, I wasn't there of course...).