Into Thin Air: Death on Everest

After reading many comments about this film I see that most of those who saw the film thought it a tacky and not very well-done attempt at cashing in on a real tragedy. I agree in part.

First of all, I watched Into Thin Air with Jon's book on my lap. The resemblances were, for the most part, stunning. Nat Parker looks so much like Rob Hall they could have been brothers. Horton isn't as tall or as handsome as Fischer, but fairly close. I wished they'd had Horton wear Scott's trade-mark pony-tail. And so it goes.

Many people objected to the non-Everest setting. For that you must consult the Miramax documentary filmed at the time of the tragedy. I have that film as well.

Too me the Into Thin Air group did a good job of simulating the conditions on Everest and the quiet heroism of both Hall and Scott at the end.

The real reason to watch Into Thin Air is to watch Nat Parker as Hall. He has superb control and is beautifully understated. He always makes you believe that he could guide you up anything and take you back down again, safely. He conversation with his wife is one of the most remarkable scenes I've ever watched. Intimate, warm and sadly filled with hope that is all bravura on Hall-Parker's part and all faith in her husband's ability to survive on Mrs. Hall's end. This scene had me in tears, just as the real voice of the real Rob Hall recorded in the Miramax documentary made me cry.

Not a great film by any means, but still worth watching.

This is a cautionary tale. Don't take silk sheets, coffee makers and computers to Mt. Everest, unless you are willing and able to carry them yourself.

The exploitation of the Sherpa's by professional climbing teams is well known. Tenzing Norgay cautioned his son, Jam-Ling NOT to become a beast of burden when he climbed Everest for himself.

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 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.

There've been mixed reviews on this TV adaptation of a book. I think you either love or hate it, there's no two ways. I'm not an avid mountaineer so perhaps I'm missing the finer aspects of this movie. Based on Jon Krakauer's book, the story is a fascinating account of the tragic event of May 10, 1996 when two ill-fated expeditions to climb Mt Everest took place and the mishaps that occurred. On a pure emotional level, this is a disturbing look at how climbers -- both experts and novices -- can be so naive and over confident that they think they can use money and the latest technology to scale the tallest peak in the world. But as a movie, I found the sequence of events farcical and character development poor. The trouble with converting a book into a movie is that you have to get everything into under two hours. Something had to give, and a lot did in the end. The movie did provide me some consternation on the danger of climbing, but nothing much more.