Category: Movies

image

(Mt Everest seen from the Rongbuk valley, close to base camp at 5,200m; public domain image available at Wikimedia Commons)

I watched the 2015 movie “Everest” with my family, including a preteen son who loves mountains.  You may wish to catch this soon, while it remains in theaters.  The epic film follows the events of the 1996 disaster, when a blizzard imperiled (or ended) the lives of numerous climbers.

The movie could be divided into two segments, both vivid and compelling.  The first is the introduction to the characters and a depiction of their arduous ascent to the top of Everest. The audience learns of the motivations of the climbers. We are treated to the most breathtaking scenery, interspersed with studies of the grim realities of the trek above the “death zone”, the region above which human life is unsustainable. The movie shows us instances of high altitude pulmonary edema, loss of limb due to frostbite, and the madness that can accompany hypoxia. One is literally on the edge of eternity as an avalanche or wrong step can send a climber plummeting into oblivion.

But treacherous terrain isn’t the worst threat. Linger a few hours too long and even the most acclimatized mountaineer will succumb. Instead of the “valley of the shadow of death”, this is the sun-washed summit of death. Perhaps the grizzliest of sights one must pass on the way to the top are the corpses of those who have not made it. You may read about this in much more detail at this Gizmodo blog post. Bodies can linger in a state of mummification due to the intense cold and dry air. The hazards involved in extracting bodies means that some 150 corpses have been left where they lie. (In fact, some of the deaths on Everest reflect Ill-fated efforts to recover other bodies). A worthy movie could be made simply by lingering on the difficulties of journeying up to the peak. I might pause and note that the movie might have been ultimately more uplifting and inspiring if a different expedition were picked as the subject, such as the climb of the blind man Erik Weihenmeyer in 2001.

Part two of “Everest” gives us the details of the tragedy of 1996, and serves up a great deal of suspense. Several parties of climbers became delayed getting to the summit because of ropes that had not been previously set, and possibly because of too many people trying to make the summit on one day. As the last safe moment to turn around came, people who had invested tens of thousands of dollars and weeks of time were faced with the prospect of turning around with the summit in view. Some of them made bad choices based on emotion rather than yielding to the cold logic of better judgement.

I won’t give away the details of who lived or died, though this belongs to history. I will instead narrow my discussion to one of the fascinating survival stories. An American client, Dr. Beck Weathers, a pathologist from Texas, was a member of the expedition. A brash and arrogant man, he admitted in a later scene that the adrenaline rush of mountain climbing was his way of dealing with a black depression that threatened to consume him.

He was unable to make it to the top due to sudden onset of blindness. He ultimately became lost in a blizzard with others. When a fellow climber named Anatoly came upon him he was unconscious and appeared to be dead, and was left where he was. The next morning, against all odds, he awoke from his stupor, and staggered to camp. He eventually was extracted by helicopter. Though he lost his hands and nose to frostbite, he survived to resume his career as a pathologist. He has written a book about his brush with death and also became a motivational speaker.

Recently, he has spoken of his reaction to “Everest” and the aftermath of his experience. Watching it was “difficult”. However, “If I knew exactly what was going to happen — every bit of the struggle and heartbreak — I would do it again in a heartbeat. I gave up a couple of parts. But what I got back was my marriage, my relationship with my kids and a forced reevaluation of how I wanted to live the rest of my life. I got so much more out of it than I gave up.”

The full details are at L.A. Times.

imageI saw the movie “Interstellar” again recently, this time via On Demand. Let me just say that I really like this movie. Also, before you read much further, be aware that if you haven’t seen this movie already, there are spoilers below.

I’ll start with what makes this a highly watchable and interesting movie. The first half of the movie does a great job of creating an air of mystery. There are creepy events that lend a sense of a ghost story–an unseen entity is manipulating gravity inside the bedroom of the girl Murph, making books move and creating patterns in the dust. Furthermore, this is set against a bleak and melancholic backdrop, as humans are struggling to survive on a dying earth. The acting of Matthew McConaughey and little Mackenzie Foy, in setting up the theme of father-daughter love, was superb. Their relationship is an emotional glue that holds together the entire movie. I thought the scene in which Cooper is launched into space, juxtaposed with images of Murph shrieking in agonized grief at the loss of her father, is one of the most heart-wrenching portrayals in all of cinema.

The rest of the movie kicks into the realm of suspenseful science fiction featuring an epic quest through space and time. The movie has been compared to 2001, and the attempts at “space realism” and Cooper’s psychedelic voyage into the black hole certainly evoked this prior classic. In “Interstellar” there is an inverse of the Hal incident: the superintelligent robot remains loyal and heroic, while a murderous human madman nearly kills them all. Over all, I felt that this movie has more heart than Stanley Kubrick’s nearly wordless and vaguely misanthropic film.

The movie explores the existential dread that humans naturally feel when approaching death. This is what drives Dr. Mann mad. This is the theme echoed in Professor Brand’s mantra, the poem by Dylan Thomas that says, “Do not go gentle into that good night…”

Now I have to mention some downsides. First, while this movie is in many ways a warm and relationship-affirming movie, it is a godless movie. There is no depiction of religion, church-going, or anything smacking of faith in a higher being. Even the small town and farm life that is featured in the opening and closing scenes, while thoughtfully portrayed, seems incomplete: The movie shows some authentic charm–baseball games, school conferences, a main street, and a kindly small town grandpa swilling beer on his Victorian porch–but nary a steeple is to be seen. It’s not anti-God, per se, but merely agnostic. Of course, that’s about the best one can hope for from mainstream movies these days.

Then there is the silly and the illogical. First I give the silly: Love is a force of nature, affirms the teary eyed younger Dr. Brand, played by Anne Hathaway. I felt that this weakened things a bit. Now I don’t want to slander love, which is a great and wondrous thing–within the domain of relationships. God is Love, after all. So I won’t say that it was bad. “Silly” may be too harsh; “cheesy” might be more accurate. Sometimes cheesy is good, but here it made my eyes roll a bit.

Now for the illogical: One major subplot of the movie is that an evolved humanity of the future reaches back through time to help present day humanity avoid extinction. While handily sidestepping the supernatural, this is inherently illogical.

This reminds me of something. C.S. Lewis once opined with characteristic wit, “Nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God” (C.S Lewis, The Problem of Pain). A corollary to this might be, “nonsense is nonsense, even when dressed in science and inserted into a gripping movie.”

 

image

The movie directed by Angelina Jolie tells of the remarkable experiences of Louis Zamperini during WWII. Apparently something remarkable happened after the war, as well.

His marriage on the rocks, his life in shambles, he went to a meeting by the evangelist Billy Graham:

“The moment the invitation began, he grabbed his wife’s hand and headed toward the exit. But in the aisle, overwhelmed by the realization of how broken his life had become, he turned around and gave his life to Jesus Christ in repentance and faith. He left the tent with God’s complete forgiveness.

“From that day forward, everything changed. He started reading the Bible. His nightmares disappeared, he gave up drinking, his hatred and violent anger melted away, and he began to live for Christ.”

Read it all: http://billygraham.org/story/franklin-graham-the-rest-of-the-unbroken-story/?SOURCE=BL151YEBL&utm_source=prayer+letter+email&utm_medium=bgemail&utm_campaign=bgemailnewsletter&content=12.30.14

image

While trapped on an airplane, my youngest son happened to start watching the History channel’s take on the book of Revelation, called “Revelation: The End of Days”. Once again, it amazes me how one particular view of eschatology, and a minority one at that, seems to get all the press.

Here again, we have the pre-tribulation rapture, followed by a rise of an anti- Christ in government (a FEMA- like entity, no less). There are some clever takes on the nature of the first beast (a seven headed bacteria, unleashed by the FEMA- like entity to aid its rise to power).

The show was respectful of Christians, which is always welcome. Although, on the other hand, I have to say that the Christians portrayed here are not typical clean cut churchgoers, but rather your scruffy “Doomsday prepper”
cults. The production quality was what you would expect of a made-for-TV disaster movie or mockumentary. There was a bit too much jerky handheld camera footage for my taste. Still, for airplane entertainment, one could do worse. “Pass the pretzels, son.”