Why Watch "Everest"? Because It's There!

Everest

Every few years disaster strikes on Mount Everest and multiple debates about climbing the tallest mountain in the world begin. The most basic question that is always at the heart of Everest is, “Why?” The film, Everest, directly posits this question as well, and the characters, in unison, shout George Mallory’s famous line: “Because it’s there!” The characters give serious answers afterward, but that line gets to the root of most reasons why people climb and also why the film exists. Everest is there, and such an imposing example of nature will always fascinate climbers and viewers alike.

There is no shortage of disaster stories from Everest’s deadly history, but the 1996 climbing season was possibly the most documented making it the obvious choice for source material. Jon Krakauer’s Into Thin Air is the most famous account of the climb, but Everest went with a more broad scope in an attempt to present more viewpoints of the event. This makes Everest more accessible, but the lack of focus also leads to some characters receiving short shrift. That said, enough character building is done to make the human drama a very effective counterbalance to the visual spectacle of the film.

The draw of Everest is definitely the spectacle, though. Any film about Everest needs to be about the beauty of the deadly mountain and the general experience of climbing it. In that regard, Everest is extremely successful. The shots of the mountain are stunning, but, more importantly, the actors seem to be truly struggling as they make their way higher and higher. The film shows how brutal the climb truly is, even when climbers are paying to be shepherded up the mountain. The climbers are basically dying the last few thousand feet since humans aren’t meant to survive at such altitudes. Director Baltasar Kormákur said in an interview that he’s “fine” with putting actors through “a little bit of pain” and it definitely shows.

It’s important for the film to hammer home the difficulty of the climb to make the major question of the film more pertinent. Why put yourself through this? Why risk your life? This question is doubly relevant when you add in the weather conditions that led to the 1996 disaster. Is it worth losing your life for the glory of reaching the top? Everest does not presume to answer this question, but the characters obviously think that it is very much worth it. It’s important that the film ultimately leaves the answer up to the viewer since it is a real world question that is still relevant, especially since Everest’s deadliest day occurred this past April. The bigger question then becomes about commercial climbing. In other words, should less-experienced climbers be allowed to pay professional guides to get them to the top? Multiple times in the film, money is mentioned, and the guides clearly want to get people to the top so they can stay in business. Would the disaster of 1996 have happened if the guides didn’t feel that pressure to get more people to the top, especially with a journalist in two who was going to write about it? The film’s screenwriters (William Nicholson and Simon Beaufoy) wisely stop short of blatantly demonizing the practice of guided climbing, leaving it ultimately up to the viewer.

The question of Everest then becomes, “Why recreate these terrible events?” That is difficult to answer. Much like any film based on real, tragic events, there is a tricky line that is toed between reverence and exploitation. “Everest” does not come across as exploitative, but there are moments near the end (which did actually happen) that felt too personal to be recreated, much less witnessed by millions of viewers. (This is a slight SPOILER so skip to the next paragraph if you don’t know the true story and don’t want any part of the film spoiled.) Near the end of the film, one of the main characters, Rob Hall (Jason Clarke), has a conversation with his pregnant wife via a walkie-talkie/satellite phone hook-up as he is dying. It felt too personal to read about it in Into Thin Air, and it felt even more personal watching it recreated. The film seems aware of this, however, as there are multiple reaction shots of characters listening in on the interaction. Everyone is crying, and most people watching the film will be crying as well. This moment is so important because this is where the film might lose the audience. It feels a bit too manipulative, but it actually did happen this way. It’s hard to fault a movie for being melodramatic when it’s based on a real moment. The scene proved to be a double-edged sword for me. It made the film much more emotional and powerful than I expected it to be, but it also convinced me that I never wanted to watch it again.

Any emotion created in a scene is also the product of the actors involved. Clarke is great throughout, but he is truly heartbreaking at the end of the film. Keira Knightley, as Hall’s wife, gives an effective performance as well, especially considering that her scenes were just her talking on the phone. The rest of the cast of Everest is equally impressive: Jake Gyllenhaal, Robin Wright, Josh Brolin, John Hawkes, Michael Kelly, Sam Worthington, and Emily Watson. Brolin is given the meatiest role as Beck Weathers, a man whose experiences could have been a movie on its own. The rest have their moments, but the only weak point of the film is that some of the cast is underutilized, specifically Gyllenhaal. Gyllenhaal portrays Scott Fischer, who was known as kind of a rock star mountain climber. This reputation leads to a slightly strange performance as Fischer seems to be constantly drunk and/or angry, but it’s never explained completely. It seems that once Gyllenhaal was cast, the screenwriters wanted to beef up the role, but couldn’t devote enough time to create a fully fleshed out character. That said, Gyllenhaal brings enough charisma to the role to justify his appearance; you’re just left wanting more.

If anything, the main issue with Everest is that you’re left wanting more. It’s a true story with so many characters it’s impossible to feel like the full story has been told in two hours. Thankfully, there are multiple books and articles that delve deeply into the individual experiences. So Everest is more of a snapshot of Everest and all the human drama that comes with it. It is a very effective film that makes you appreciate (and question) the struggle people go through to achieve their dreams. As a short glimpse into the world of commercial climbing and the tragedy it can bring, Everest works on every important level. It won’t (and can’t) answer the question of why people climb Everest, but it does present a fascinating example of people who took up the challenge and paid the ultimate price.

Everest receives a:

"Lincoln" Is an Amazing Film, Clothed in Immense Entertainment

Lincoln - Directed by Steven Spielberg, written by Tony Kushner, starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, Tommy Lee Jones, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Lee Pace, Bruce McGill, James Spader, John Hawkes, and David Straithern - Rated PG-13

 

It’s strange.  Abraham Lincoln has been all over Hollywood lately, yet there has not been a real story told about him in decades.  I’ve seen his assassination recreated in National Treasure: Book of Secrets and The Conspirator, and he’s even battled the undead in Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (a very fun book, by the way, but a disappointingly dull film).  Lincoln can be killed over and over and be turned into a superhero, but he can’t be a man.  The way Hollywood has avoided tackling the man is a statement on where Abraham Lincoln fits into America’s history.  He is not a man, but a legend.  It’s hard to even think about Lincoln as a human being, which is what most likely has scared off many filmmakers.  Thankfully, Steven Spielberg, Tony Kushner, and Daniel Day-Lewis stepped up to make a film about a man, and it turned out to be a brilliant film on every level.

 

The main reason that Lincoln not only meets but also exceeds expectations is that it is not a traditional biography of the man.  We do not see Lincoln growing up in the log cabin or courting Mary Todd.  We don’t even see his youngest son die, which is something that happened in the White House.  Lincoln, rather than taking the arguably boring broad view, focuses on Lincoln trying to get the Thirteenth Amendment (the abolition of slavery) passed near the end of the Civil War in order to make sure that the war has at least served a lasting purpose.  Believe it or not, the passage of an amendment in the House of Representatives turned out to be far more interesting and entertaining than a life story. 

 

Story and focus is important, but a film like this hinges on a single performance.  Once Daniel Day-Lewis was announced to play Lincoln, it seemed perfect.  Who else but the lanky, gaunt method actor could portray Abraham Lincoln with any seriousness?  (Liam Neeson was attached at one point.  A good physical choice, for sure, but I’m not sure how it would have turned out.)  As an admitted fanboy of Day-Lewis (I count his performances in The Crucible, Gangs of New York, and There Will Be Blood among the best of all time), I became very excited about this film.  When the first picture was released, it was almost creepy how much he looked like the President.  Then the preview was released and I finally heard the voice; I was sold.

 

Abraham Lincoln, according to historical reports, had a high-pitched voice with a Midwest twang that some even described as painful to listen to.  He was not a booming, baritone giant as many have imagined him over the years.  When I first heard Day-Lewis’s take on the voice, the history buff in me was very pleased.  After watching the entire performance, the film critic in me was amazed.  It’s no shock that Day-Lewis completely inhabited the character of Lincoln, but I was surprised by how much Lincoln was able to be portrayed as a human, rather than a legend.  As Lincoln tells his funny stories and plays with his son, you start to forget you’re watching a portrayal of one of the most beloved political icons in the history of the world.  You realize you’re watching a man. 

 

I was afraid when this project was first announced that it would be a film that simply added to the legend.  Steven Spielberg is a director I love, but I wasn’t sure he could create a very interesting film about Lincoln.  I thought he might sugarcoat the subject or just give a gung-ho “Go America!” movie.  While I did leave the theater quite proud of my country, it certainly wasn’t because I just witnessed some propaganda.  It was because I had seen a film about one of our greatest politicians fighting for a noble cause.  It didn’t hurt that the film turned out to be quite funny, as well.

 

The humor of Lincoln will most likely be the most surprising part of the viewing experience.  The images and previews for the film have sold it as this somber, serious portrait of a man and a mission to end slavery, and it is slightly that, but it also takes backroom politics (trading favors and promising jobs) and turns it into entertaining spectacle.  The humor is nearly deceitful, though, as it overshadows the fact that votes for the Amendment are basically purchased.  Under normal circumstances, that would create moments of internal struggle, but the topic up for debate is slavery.  The question posed (and pretty much answered) both onscreen and off is whether or not the end justifies the means.  It seems like the typical answer to that issue in film these days is that individual good is more important than the big picture.  Thankfully, Lincoln makes no bones about the fact that ending slavery is the right thing to do, even if a few “wrong” things are done to achieve this. 

 

More importantly, the humor makes Lincoln a feel-good, fun experience.  The laughs are well-deserved, too.  Lincoln’s stories are always amusing, especially when told with Day-Lewis’s energy.  Writer Tony Kushner has crafted a very tight script, dialogue-wise.  Lincoln's stories and speeches are great, but the debates on the House floor are equally compelling and entertaining.  Sure, most of this can be chalked up to historical record, but if you actually research the words of the time, it is still impressive that Kushner was able to piece all of this together in a coherent and interesting fashion. 

 

Riveting political speeches on paper are one thing, but the words float off meaningless if not for a good performance.  I have already stated my awe of Day-Lewis, and the rest of the cast deserves plenty of praise.  Tommy Lee Jones is a standout as Thaddeus Stevens.  In the previews, we are given a cheesy scene in which he addresses a group of people, “Abraham Lincoln has asked us to work with him to accomplish the death of slavery,” waving his cane with each word to prove his sincerity.  Taken out of context, that looks like a scene that belongs in the film I was afraid had been made.  He is actually being a bit sarcastic in this moment and it is part of an overall wonderful performance as Stevens represents the character that does have to struggle with the decision to be dishonest for the greater good.  Sally Field, David Straithern, Lee Pace, and Bruce McGill round out the heavier parts of the cast, but the list could go on.  Lincoln is certainly one of the finest casts of 2012. 

 

The film is tied together with a John Williams score (this is a Spielberg film, after all), and it is the perfect bow to put on top of this great film.  Lincoln provides the complete movie package.  It is interesting and informative, it's entertaining (surprisingly so), and it showcases some powerhouse performances.  If pressed, I could probably give you a couple of things to complain about, but looking back on the film, I can't really single out any real issues.  Simply put, Lincoln is my favorite film of the year.

 

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

 

I want to clarify that bit about being a little deceitful to gain something important.  Usually, the lesson of the film is that if you are willing to sell your soul a little bit, then you can become totally evil.  Telling one white lie could lead to the downfall of mankind.  What a joke.  Compromising your values in a small way to gain something greater is an American tradition.  It is a good trait to showcase on film?  Absolutely not.  Is it realistic?  Yep.  I found it refreshing that Thaddeus Stevens had to swallow his pride and lie to get what he wanted all along.  Maybe that isn't heroic by Hollywood standards, but that's the point.  Life is all about picking your battles, and in reality, you don't get rewarded for nitpicking.

"The Sessions" Isn't Worthy of Awards, but It Is Worth a Watch

The Sessions- Written and directed by Ben Lewin, starring John Hawkes, Helen Hunt, and William H. Macy - Rated R

 

 

 

The Sessions is one of those movies with a vague title that suddenly appears and, in this case, garners immense critical adoration.  I’ll be honest; I was completely unaware of this movie until I saw mentions of Oscars for stars John Hawkes and Helen Hunt.  That’s never a good thing for someone like me.  If the first thing I hear about a movie is that it deserves awards, I become suspicious.  Shouldn’t the movie be able to sell tickets on its own without sounding the awards trumpets?  Also, a movie seems like Oscar bait if all I know about it is who is in it and that they should get trophies.  Despite that off-putting introduction to The Sessions, I ended up really enjoying the film.

 

The plot of The Sessions definitely seems like Oscar bait as well.  It’s the story of Mark O’Brien, a man who lives most of his days in an iron lung, and his quest to lose his virginity.  A guy in an iron lung has sex.  We’ve got a disability, based on a true story, and it is a unique subject.  Yeah, I see why the awards are being mentioned, but this is not about winning awards, not by a long shot.  First off, this is not a life story.  We are told through narration and old footage that Mark has accomplished many things despite his condition, and has established himself as a poet/writer.  If this were a life story, it would have started at his birth, and ended with him writing a poem or something from his iron lung.  That might have been touching or whatever, but it would not be enjoyable.  Thankfully, The Sessions is about a specific moment in O’Brien’s life when he decided to look into sex amongst the disabled population, and wanted to experience it for himself.

 

The story is interesting and never delves into melodrama, but what elevates it is Hawkes’s performance.  As a physical performance, it is impressive in that he has to basically lie prone the entire film and be carried around and helped.  It must have been trying to lie around like that throughout the shoot.  More impressive is the voice Hawkes used for the film.  I have never heard the real O’Brien speak, but Hawkes truly sounded like a Bostonian who had a reduced lung capacity. 

 

Helen Hunt plays the “sex surrogate,” and she does that Helen Hunt thing that she does just fine.  I just can’t really consider her an actress because she just seems to be the same character in everything that she does.  Plus, her forehead is distractingly smooth.  I don’t know what’s going on there, but it’s not natural. 

 

William H. Macy was a bright spot in the film as a priest who befriends O’Brien.  His scenes led to the most humor as Macy got to run the gamut of facial expressions as he heard O’Brien’s blunt confessions. 

 

The Sessions, for all its Oscar possibilities, ended up being surprisingly insubstantial.  I enjoyed it and thought the performances were fine, but nothing about it stuck with me.  It’s not that I need a message to a film, but I do like to feel something when I’m supposed to, but everything in this film was light hearted and trivial.  There was no emotional payoff, and it seemed like the filmmakers wanted me to tear up at the end or something.  Maybe I’m missing the point.  Perhaps it’s simply meant to be a feel good movie.  If that’s the case, I felt fine after seeing The Sessions.  I wouldn’t give it any trophies, though.