An unpopular take on The Alpinist

Teton Climber wrote: This stuff has been going on since Adam & Eve. The modern world has really made people soft. 

People have been getting soft since Adam & Eve?   Now that is a hot take.  Noah, Moses, Jesus, and I dunno probably both Leonidas and Xerces would like a word.  

hillbilly hijinks wrote:

I do. Having been on the inside at The North Face working directly with the athletes I will tell you straight up that everyone prays it doesn't blow up in their faces cause funding this shit is the cheapest marketing they do. Then when the athletes make it back alive we always felt we hit the marketing jackpot.

Climbers and Skiers do lame ass shit to get attention from sponsors to fund their adrenaline addiction and deep pockets in the outdoors get the most bang for their advertising buck the more risk taking that gets done. Fortunately its rare that someone dies cause its bad for business.

Nothing you wrote disproves anything that I said. Of course marketing departments are nervous because they know the potential danger that these athletes put themselves in. But the OP was trying to put partial blame of Marc's death on the climbing industry. Athletes know more than anyone what they are getting themselves into. This narrative that they are lambs being led to their slaughter is ludicrous.

You are both being provactive and critical. That’s fine just don’t pretend start a thread about a dead person isn’t critical.

Hilly billy you agree that climbers are lame! Glad you turned it around!!

Leclerc had no children that I know of and his SO was certainly aware of the risks he took when she became involved with him. He was in a place in his life where the (admittedly extreme) risks he took were not imposed on anyone else without their consent.  

Imo that’s a huge difference. Parents who take what are basically selfish risks that will be primarily borne by their kids are, for me, harder to comprehend and the justifications are the same. As long as everyone involved is capable of consent, it’s fair game.  

GTS wrote:

Nothing you wrote disproves anything that I said. Of course marketing departments are nervous because they know the potential danger that these athletes put themselves in. But the OP was trying to put partial blame of Marc's death on the climbing industry. Athletes know more than anyone what they are getting themselves into. This narrative that they are lambs being led to their slaughter is ludicrous.

Lambs led to the slaughter? No.

Adrenaline Addicts enabled till they overdose? 

You bet your life that is what Dan Osman and Dean Potter and Marc Andre were, in my professional opinion.

And every Adrenaline Addict is in denial that they are suicidally playing with death just like a heroin addict.

GTS wrote:

But the OP was trying to put partial blame of Marc's death on the climbing industry.

… and put partial blame on Marc-André’s Mom.

It is the perspective of a parent (Bryans) trying to do his best with their own kid, making choices for his kid the best he knows how, interpreting justification in their his genes and handi-work so to speak (I.e., mouths of babes), and believing that everyone else should do the same as him … or at least not stray too far from it. Else something is wrong out there?

Conformity is addictive as hell.  And has caused hell on earth.

Respectfully.

The thing that struck me was how everyone, both before and after his accident, spoke of the huge risks he was taking and their concern for him. Obviously a film gives a skewed perspective of everything but I sure hope they said that to his face as well as the camera. It's ultimately his decision but I'd hate to look back afterward with the regret of things left unsaid that might've changed perspectives/risk assessment.

I think there's a perspective of 'they're going to do what they're going to do' that is selectively applied to high end soloists but not to others - if I saw my friend pick up soloing stuff that felt close to the edge I'd sure as shit tell him as much. Maybe that line of reasoning only comes out as a way to compartmentalize the grim reality of the situation, which is harder to do the less groundbreaking their ascents.

In response to the OP, I can see how you see it that way. But I totally disagree based on how Marc was portrayed in the movie, as well as a few blog posts and social media posts I remember reading while he was alive, particularly this excerpt from his write up of the Emperor Face solo:

"As a young climber it is undeniable that I have been manipulated by the media and popular culture and that some of my own climbs have been subconsciously shaped through what the world perceives to be important in terms of sport. Through time spent in the mountains, away from the crowds, away from the stopwatch and the grades and all the lists of records I’ve been slowly able to pick apart what is important to me and discard things that are not. 

Of course the journey of learning never ends but I’ve come to believe that the natural world is the greatest teacher of all, and that listening in silence to the universe around you is perhaps the most productive ways of learning. Perhaps it is not much of a surprise, but so often people are afraid of their own thoughts, resorting to drowning them out with constant noise and distraction. Is it a fear of leaning who we actually are that causes this? Perhaps so many of us are afraid to confront our own personalities that we go on living in a world of falseness, filling the void of true contentment by being actors striving to be perceived by the world around us as something that we ‘supposed to be’ rather than living as who we are.

Already I have been asked how fast I was, but I honestly cannot tell you how many hours the Emperor Face took me to climb. I began when I felt ready and I reached the top at sundown. 

I also don’t know how long the hike back to the road took me as well, but I do know that descending through the changing ecosystems back into the world of green lushness and deep blue lakes I felt more peace than I would have had I been counting my rate of kilometers per hour."

Those are not the words of a skilled outlier climber who's being exploited by his sponsors, but of a person who's doing exactly what he needs to do and exactly where he needs to be in order to be living a full life, and would find a way to do it with or without sponsors' support.

Edit: here's the link to the full blog post, which in my opinion is well worth the long read, and further shows just how skilled and level headed he was about his climbs: 

https://marcleclerc.blogspot.com/2016/04/a-visit-with-emperor-mt-robson-infinite.html

Wow, thanks for that quote, Nick. I haven't seen the movie, am a has-been just barely getting back into climbing and had no idea who he was. That quote provides perspective into Leclerc's character.

I was going to post (probably the first reply) about exploitation but MP wouldn't let me because it's afraid of spam. But basically what I wrote is that I am exploited by my employer, and by an old lady that needs rides. Exploitation in neutral, not negative. Coercion is negative, force and violence are negative, saying 'yes' irresponsibly and suffering consequences later for it is negative. It's sad how many people have the attitude that accepting an offer that has both pros and cons is evil on the part of the offerer. 

I think it's also lame how it's no longer ridiculed when people say 'others shouldn't do dangerous or irresponsible things because the influence/make people copy them'. Each of us is supposed to learn to take full responsibility for ourselves, and when we don't we should be shamed into doing it.

abandon moderation wrote:

Isn't that what any professional climber who dies is?

Aren't all us weekend warriors just climbing and taking risks to release some special chemicals in our brains? Aren't most of us adrenaline addicts in denial?

It's easy to point out these extreme risk takers as doing something completely different than ourselves, but in reality it's a curve that we're all on. Sure, they're further out the curve but exactly where on the curve you become "suicidal" is very relative.

It's also not obvious that someone like Marc Andre would have found a safer life without climbing... From the movie you get an impression he could have literally overdosed on something else.

I think this is getting close to what I was trying to express, the last sentence especially. Maybe he was wired to flood the cells with adrenaline and dopamine and novelty at ever higher levels, with an early death a foregone conclusion. His sponsors rationalizing it as "he's gonna do it anyway, he may as well have the best gear so he can succeed as long as possible, and we may as well make some money while he's still alive." I can see how that's not exploitation, that's like just everyone involved making the most of the dynamic: Marc gets to climb the routes of his dreams, and the companies get to make money and inspire future Marcs, so they can sell more gear, to the future Marcs, who can climb the routes of their dreams...

I can't pretend to know why people solo, and most soloists can't give a true answer, either. And that's fine. I can't explain a lot of what I do. Maybe that's why I started this thread. I know our life is supposed to be about coming to terms with our inevitable death, but I'm still scared to die. There's so much I'll miss. Sitting in the sun. Music. Laughing. Spicy food. Desserts. People. Books. Climbing! But despite all that, if you told me I could never climb again, I would really struggle to find anything else in life that would fulfill me the same way. And maybe that's how Marc would have felt if he stopped soloing, or doing dangerous routes. But he and we will never know.

(To Bill Lawry: In no way was I saying I was superior to Marc, or that we should all conform to anything. It's a bit weird to put words in my mouth to slag on me for things I never said. The Marcs of the world live their firecracker lives, people make movies about them, they inspire multitudes, they get elevated after death and become heroes to the next generation. I'm just saying we can discuss why we make certain people into heroes. Ain't nobody starting threads about you and me and our boring roped climbs of moderates.)

I had issues with the movie.  None of them have to deal with Marc Andre or his lifestyle.  He is obviously a legend, badass, and will go down in history.

However, if we are doing hot takes.  The movie seemed to be one giant clout chase on Marc’s coattails.  Sometimes literally as they are chasing him around the globe after he ghosted them and showed little interest in the film.  Guaranteed someone was having wet dreams and waking up with dollar signs in their eyes after hearing the news that they had a conclusion to their story after he blue balled them for years.

I also don’t get this now trend of filmmakers self inserting themselves with “woe is me” as another human being is risking their life in the background. 

I would never judge Marc-Andre or his life or his climbs. What he did was badass, no question about it.

I do have questions about the thought process behind making and releasing films about free solo.
Since it came up I had a couple of people, outside of the climbing community, talking to me about it, it generally went something like this:
him/her: So you are doing rock climbing, mountainnering and ice climbing, right?
Me: yes, I do.
him/her: OMG, I saw movies about it recently it's freaking crazy! you shouldn't do that!...

Usually it's the Honnold movie and the one with Marc-André and most of the time they haven't even see the movies but just pieces of it on YT.
Especially to general audience it should be made MORE abundantly clear that free soloiing at this level is a representation of maybe 0.001% of the climbers

My point is that those movies are misrepresenting the sport to the general audience.
What is obvious for us isn't for many people.

A K wrote:

I disagree with the points being made here, but I do think the film was much too pedestrian and "typical climbing film" to do justice to Marc's greatness

I think there are some fair criticisms of the filmmaking to be had but I would say his greatness did shine through. At least in my eyes. We did get a bit of the director and his perspective wedged in, presumably to make it more accessible or easy to provide exposition? That kind of thing worked well in their speed climbing short film for reel rock, but maybe better options were possible for this.

I generally really appreciate the sender films folks and all their work, but I do wish they would get some fresher creative on occasion.

With that said, speaking of fresh creative, the tracking profile shot of Marc Andre soloing the rock pitch at Squamish was one of the coolest rock climbing shots I’ve ever seen, and I’ve never seen anything like it. It was simple, powerful, and shows how rock climbing photography/cinematography still has heaps of potential. 

Denny G wrote:

I had issues with the movie.  None of them have to deal with Marc Andre or his lifestyle.  He is obviously a legend, badass, and will go down in history.

However, if we are doing hot takes.  The movie seemed to be one giant clout chase on Marc’s coattails.  Sometimes literally as they are chasing him around the globe after he ghosted them and showed little interest in the film.  Guaranteed someone was having wet dreams and waking up with dollar signs in their eyes after hearing the news that they had a conclusion to their story after he blue balled them for years.

I also don’t get this now trend of filmmakers self inserting themselves with “woe is me” as another human being is risking their life in the background. 

whoah lol

I think he agreed to let them film and then decided to put their filming schedule at the bottom of his list of priorities. I actually thought it was entertaining to see them frustrated with people and gear booked being wasted, but also simultaneously appreciating his decision making about where being filmed sat as a priority for him.

The part of that dynamic that I really like and that really brought it home was the recorded phone call where he tells them why he solo’d Robson without telling them or letting them film his onsight solo experience. You really needed that in the film, and it says a lot about him. It was reminiscent of Croft and Honnold talking about the ethics, style and motivations on soloing/being filmed soloing in free solo. Or some of messners writing. one of the best parts of the whole movie.

I will firmly disagree with the dollar signs comments. Thats a gigantic reach. If you think people making climbing films are in it for the money or making huge bank, I think you’re mistaken. Paying your crew, recouping your investment, having some funds for the next one are probably the norm in terms of what you can hope for. Free solo was an anomaly. 

It sounds like the only reason the film got finished when it did, is that Marc-Andres mom wanted them to do a good job, finish it, and put it out.

hillbilly hijinks wrote:

And every Adrenaline Addict is in denial that they are suicidally playing with death just like a heroin addict.

This is patently false. Many addicts, both of the adrenalin and narcotic variety, are HIGHLY aware, open and truthful about the extreme risks they are putting themselves at and the nearness to death in which they operate. Acceptance and denial are two very different, but very possible realms in which to live and die. 

abandon moderation wrote:

Isn't that what any professional climber who dies is?

Aren't all us weekend warriors just climbing and taking risks to release some special chemicals in our brains? Aren't most of us adrenaline addicts in denial?

It's easy to point out these extreme risk takers as doing something completely different than ourselves, but in reality it's a curve that we're all on. Sure, they're further out the curve but exactly where on the curve you become "suicidal" is very relative.

It's also not obvious that someone like Marc Andre would have found a safer life without climbing... From the movie you get an impression he could have literally overdosed on something else.

To make an analogy:

The average climber is like a recreational user of alcohol, just getting a slight buzz.

Versus an outdoor industry that profits from feeding the worst alcoholics among us, and feed them more the more they consume, until some end up dead.

Big difference.

The greatest climbing movie is Free Solo because (so far anyways) Sani has saved Alex's life when it was on the brink and he appears to be a safer climber due to their marriage and future parenthood. Grand adventure and challenge with a happy ending and future due to stepping back from the addiction.

I don't want to suggest 2 kids and a dog should be our only goals in life. But there is a hell of a lot more to this life than just "free soloist".

hillbilly hijinks wrote:

I don't want to suggest 2 kids and a dog should be our only goals in life.

That's never stopped you from bloviating on the matter.

Get in touch with the miracle, dude. Climbing is cool but there is so much more to this life than just one obsession.

bryans wrote:

(To Bill Lawry: In no way was I saying I was superior to Marc, or that we should all conform to anything. It's a bit weird to put words in my mouth to slag on me for things I never said. 

The below are also slag?

 He was exploited - willingly and eagerly - …

Are you sure? Exploiting a person implies disproportionate benefit.  Evidence seems he would have been doing such “out there” things regardless of commercial interests. Maybe the objectives would not have been so far flung. Even so.

 I felt his mom basically gave up on him when he was 17 when she said "you're out of high school now and all you want to do is climb, what are you waiting for!" She knew he was soloing, she had to know most ambitious soloists die.

There is some real slag there from you.  You’re reading between the lines to support your narrative with the advantage of one of them being deceased and the other quite unlikely to step in here with an explanation (she owes none).

I would care less if you had stuck to just your concern that commercial interests trap people into something they might not otherwise want to do. It seems misplaced in the case of Marc-André and his Mom.

Do you recall the context she gave leading up to that time??

The Marcs of the world live their firecracker lives, people make movies about them, they inspire multitudes, they get elevated after death and become heroes to the next generation. I'm just saying we can discuss why we make certain people into heroes. Ain't nobody starting threads about you and me and our boring roped climbs of moderates.)

“Heroes”: I can imagine that being a concern for a parent with young kids. Maybe you are really just concerned for where your own climbing history might lead your own kid? And are relieved that your kid is saying things to allay that concern of yours? I don’t know. I’m reading between your lines. You are here to answer if you choose. Marc-André and his Mom are not.

Edit:  “Superior” is not what I meant by “laurels”. There are many ways to get one’s laurels as a parent. … unless seeking conformity. 

Kenneth Campbell wrote:

So. Was Alex Lowe exploited as well?

Exactly. What about Ueli Steck? Him too?  And every other rad alpinist who died in the mountains?