Wings Over Everest

In April of 1934, the Houston-Westland expedition flew over Mount Everest, clearing the peak by a few feet. It was one of those British because-it-was-there things to do, financed by Lady Houston to demonstrate that Britain still had gumption, and executed by a couple of younger aristos who, when asked how it was said "All right." Well, that was clearly worth a young fortune. British Gaumont made a movie about it, and it won an Oscar in 1936 for Best Short Subject (novelty).

The version I looked at was 40 minutes in length, clearly longer than the reported 21-minute version that won, co-directed by Ivor Montagu and Geoffrey Barkas. There are some interesting camera angles and compositions early on, but the narration is flat and uninvolving. It isn't until the fellows are sitting around discussing how they propose to do this thing that it takes on a bit of life, one of those moments when the audience seems to be eavesdropping. After that, it's some incomprehensible technical problems, people going into a tent that seems to be a huge building once you're inside, and the

A group of British fliers were the first to fly over Mt Everest in the early 1930s. They took movie cameras along in the open cockpits of their biplanes and lovingly recorded every stage of their achievement on film. There's no denying the risks – in those days any mechanical failure meant certain death and they put their lives on the line. Unfortunately, flying in even the most remote locations is now so routine that this journey is of little interest to a modern audience. While every era has its technology freaks, outmoded technology does not capture the interest of new generations and even lovers of history will be quickly bored by this dated production. The only surviving point of interest for this viewer was the way the documentary has captured the unselfconscious racism, sexism and jingoistic nationalism of the era.

I agree with the previous comments concerning outdated technology and unselfconscious racism. However, I really must mention the classic "stiff upper lip" understatement contained within the final sequence after the aviators' return. "Did you make it" (i.e. the flight over the summit of Everest); "Yes"; "How was it?"; "Alright".

The first aerial footage of Everest shown herein (taken from an unpressurized single-engined biplane flown "over the top of the world" in 1933) is fascinating.

Were this trip recreated today one could pretty much count on the plane performing flawlessly and even if there was a technical failure the pilots would have some chance of parachuting out and also of being rescued within a reasonable amount of hours (or have life-saving supplies to protect them dropped until such a rescue could be effected).

This documentary's inherent value is that it shows the risk involved that was ever present in the not so distant past, with regard to travel and exploration. To criticize and dismiss this documentary, as some others have herein, as dated or dull or this that or the other thing (based on attitudes current by some in the 2020s) is unfortunate; for the central point of this documentary is rich, the aspect of risk presented as this exploration of Everest actually happened. And just for that (with no ifs, ands, or buts) it is worthy of watching.

An interest in "outmoded technology"=an interest in the history of science. Anybody who lacks that interest seems to me to be very short on intellectual curiosity.

Quite apart from that, this is an extremely well made film, at times reminiscent in the early factory-scenes of the great "city symphonies" of the late twenties. Montagu did not make many films but, to see what he was capable of,look at the wonderful "Blue Bottles" (one of a series of films of H. G. Wells stories starring Else Lanchester which he made in 1928. It is worth a look. It is one of the best comedy shots of the decade.

As for the "class/imperialist" aspect, this is undoubtedly there, but do not overlook the possibility that Montagu (a committed communist who was involved in documentaries on the Spanish Civil War at this same period) was having a bit of fun in this regard (particularly the absurd but craftily edited bedside interview with Lady Houston). You need to know a little about the people involved before you assume that such things are naive (compared to us, who are of course all-knowing) or that a certain irony is not intended (emphasised at points by the music). For anyone English, it is quite evident that the "stiff upper lip" is intended humorously (monocle and all). It is the characteristic image that the British liked to give of themselves at this time - of eccentric (but courageous) gentlemen/amateurs.

It is of course in many ways a false even hypocritical image for an imperialist power with a vast empire but it was very valuable in propaganda terms both before and during the war because it enabled the British to distinguish themselves very sharply from the professional technocratic Germans. And no one fell harder for this sort of stuff than the US who relayed exactly this image of Britain in all their own wartime propaganda.