No Ar Rarefeito, Morte no Everest

"Into Thin Air: Death On Everest" is a wonderful film and a good start into understanding -- if that is possible -- the need some people have to climb mountains. The film covers the main events of Krakauer's experience and condenses characters to fit the needs of a 90 minute TV film. While the basics are here, the story has been greatly slimmed down and the amount of time involved, truncated. For instance, I would have liked to have seen the daring helicopter rescue by a very brave Nepalese army pilot. To mark a landing spot, those on the mountain made a large X in the snow with a red sports drink.

Since the film was produced directly from Krakauer's book, it does not reference other accounts. Krakauer later admitted that some of the details he wrote were incorrect because he was as addled as everyone else, mistaking one climber for another. Krakauer's book is only one of several accounts of the tragic climb that took a fifteen lives in all. This movie could have used an extra half hours to cover more details, but it is fair to say that this is not meant to be a documentary. It comes down to a study of human hubris when faced with the drive to challenge the highest peak on Earth.

For those who want to understand the complexity of the real drama, it is necessary to study the other points of view, some of which contradict Krakauer. A good second film to watch is the IMAX film "Everest" which was filmed during the same climb. Anatoli Boukreev wrote a reply to Krakauer in his book "The Climb: Tragic Ambitions on Everest." Scott Fisher's lead Sherpa, Lopsang, also responded to Krakauer's criticisms in writing. Tragically, both Boukreev and Lopsang died in separate climbing accidents not long after the fatal Everest events (Lopsang in September 1996 and Boukreev in December 1997).

For those who wonder about what it would be like to climb Everest, it is much safer to watch the film. It is about all the experience most of us will ever need.

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.

What happened on Everest in 1996 is a tragic and compelling story, a true human drama. Unfortunately this made-for-tv movie takes only the most cursory approach to addressing the magnitude of the occurrences, relying on the most loose and superficial portrayal of specific events (events which are the subject of intense controversy still). To claim the character portrayals are shallow is to be generous - there is no character established at all, particularly disappointing given that these were real people, not fictional creations. It's an old line, but highly applicable here: read the book instead.

Finally caught this on cable last night; it looks as if someone took an original made-for-TV movie, removed all the commercial breaks, and sent it straight over to HBO to serve as filler on their late night schedule.

Since this IS obviously a TV movie (you can tell without trying where the commercials were originally inserted, since a 'dramatic climax and musical stinger' moment occurs every 10-12 minutes), it takes a TV movie approach to telling the story. And this is where the problem lies. Even though the screenplay tries very hard to present an even-handed and fair account of a complex and chaotic series of events in under two hours, the way the story is filmed sinks the movie.

I assumed, going 'blind' into this movie (I know of the book, I've read discussions of the book and the events it portrays, but I haven't actually read the book), that since it involved disaster while climbing at high altitudes, that we would be hearing a lot of strained respiration, a lot of gasping and panting, a lot of throaty vocals. I assumed that we would be seeing a bunch of people staggering painfully up snowy slopes, and lots of closeups of actors taking off their snow goggles and respiration masks (revealing chapped, stubbly faces set in lines of strain), making speeches, and then putting the goggles and masks back on again. And then more staggering, lather, rinse, repeat.

And this is essentially the action for 2/3rds of the movie. People gasp, pant, groan, stagger, stumble around, etc., and then take off their goggles and masks and make speeches (or grimace wordlessly into the camera) for what seems like 90% of the screen time. And then they put the mask and goggles back on and stagger and gasp and groan some more. Once the storm hits, and people start dying, it's really just more of the same, just darker and with more flying snow.

I know it is VERY difficult to 'act' in costumes and props like these, which muffle both facial expressions and body language, two of an actor's most important resources. It must have been a tremendous challenge for the director and cast to try to make a compelling, but entertaining story with this handicap...and while everyone here gives it their best effort, they are essentially defeated by the enormity of the challenge of trying to 'act' under these conditions and with this kind of story and camera treatment. The movie desperately needed more long shots, more establishing shots that let the viewer figure out where all the parties are in relationship to each other, less jump cutting between faces and more character development of each actor's part (other than 'ready to drop from fatigue').

So the results are, well, mixed. I am certain that for the climbers caught in the Everest disaster, that the experience was indeed essentially an endless nightmare of bone-numbing cold and fatigue, gasping for air, and stumbling around with barely a clue. So I think you could say that "Into Thin Air" gives the viewer an accurate subjective view of how it FELT to be in that situation, and on that level, it is a success. But as a story, as an attempt to convey the actual events and decisions, personalities and politics that lead to the actual disaster, it fails both as a documentary and as entertainment.

I also think that the professional and amateur climbing community might have its own reservations about this movie, and its glib summaries of the many complexities and intricacies of the kind of people who climb stuff for fun. But that's for them to bring up, not me.

So, in summary : glad I finally saw it, and I plan to go read the book now. But I don't think it was an especially successful movie.I'm not even sure that a successful dramatic movie (as opposed to a documentary) CAN be made about this story. I give these folks credit for trying hard, but they couldn't get make this story fit into a TV movie format.

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...).