An unpopular take on The Alpinist

I'll get roasted here, but that's OK. It's also "OK" to disagree with what I'm saying; if you simply agreed, this would be a boring thread with no insight to be gained by any of us. I'm also trying to be respectful, and nor provocative. I also mean no disrespect to the deceased. I'm trying to talk to the living, though, and offer another perspective beyond the hero worship in the other thread on the movie. I watched it with my youngest last night, who's 10 and finally getting focused on roped climbing and learning more about the history and details of climbing. So I had some bias, given the context of who I watched it with. 

He's clearly an awesome guy wo had much, much more ahead of him, but all I could think was, what a waste.  I also feel like he got exploited. He's portrayed as having come literally straight out of high school with no skills, no money, no career, no mention of a job, "living in a stairwell and a tent"  - and yet he is climbing in Patagonia, Baffin Island, and other places in between, just literally sleeping, eating and climbing, then dies in Alaska. Who paid for those trips? Gonna guess it was gear companies and media companies that made money off his daring exploits. Here's some free shit, now go do something reckless we can exploit, or the free gear and trips stop flowing.  He was exploited - willingly and eagerly - but exploited all the same. (and yes, obviously he didn't die soloing, but in an avalanche) 

 I'm twice his age and have done so much since I was 23, and I'm not talking about climbing. Marriage, trips, raising my kids to become decent people, concerts, experiences with loved ones, meaningful work in my career, coaching soccer, etc. the same shit any of us do. There is more to life than climbing. Right? 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. I have magazines going back to 1999, I flip through them and so many of the "hot new things" with their sponsors and rad FAs are dead before they hit 30.

I'll be the first to admit I got tunnel vision once I started climbing at 23. I haven't learned many new sports or hobby since then. As has been said, climbing is a jealous mistress. To get good and stay good you have to put in the time, and it costs money to travel and keep buying ropes and shoes and gear and month at the gym. I totally relate to the feeling of "all I want to do is climb." But id that a healthy desire? I get this was his life to lead, but if he was right here, right now, would he have said he was glad to be dead at 23, that it was worth it all just to take crazy risk after crazy risk until just once he didn't have good luck? Or would he say "you know, I wish I had dialed it in a bit and lived a longer life and enjoyed more about life than just climbing." We'll never know. I "enjoyed" the movie and his exploits "impressed" me but I was also was left with sadness and the feeling that maybe his friends or family could have given him perspective instead of basically throwing gasoline on his fire.

EDITS due to post limits I can't reply to individual comments but to clarify things I didn't say but people read into my short comment, and to add things I thought were obvious but apparently aren't, all in the service of trying to be as respectful as possible to the deceased:

-Marc sounds like a great guy. I am not criticizing Marc, and obviously I wish he were alive to do further things in life in addition to his climbing exploits. I am not saying he doesn't have a well-rounded personality, but of course I didn't know him. I did not say that (likely) accepting free gear and airfare from sponsors meant he wasn't "hard working" or that climbing wasn't his "job." I would never want to speak ill of the deceased. His death and this movie just made me grapple with some of these thoughts about climbing. And if I die climbing, please feel free to respectfully discuss my death for lessons learned.

Haven't watched it yet but did just finish 14 peaks which was not depressing. AMA.

I'm amazed anyone could watch the movie and conclude he did what he did for anyone but himself

take TAKE wrote:

I'm amazed anyone could watch the movie and conclude he did what he did for anyone but himself

I couldn’t agree more. And it’s one of the best climbing movies I’ve ever seen!

edit - it certainly did NOT have the ending I would like…..

What?

No spoiler alert!?!

We still haven't watched Free Solo, don't blow the ending of that too!

Have not seen it. I get bored watching climbing movies after a little while.

M M wrote:

Haven't watched it yet but did just finish 14 peaks which was not depressing. AMA.

Agree.

And he wasn’t like you are I, Bryans.  You and your kid have Not walked one mile in their shoes.

bryans wrote:

I'll get roasted here, but that's OK. 

I don't agree with all of your interpretations, but my husband and I were also left feeling very sad by that movie.  Then again, we are probably in the small minority of people who haven't watched and have no interest in watching Honnold's Solo.

There is always this difficulty/dichotomy of being inspired and awed by people who push the cutting edge of various climbing and alpine disciplines, and wanting no one to get hurt or die doing it.  I don't know what the answer is.  I don't think he was exploited.  He was doing exactly what he wanted to do.  For all we know, maybe some friends and family did ask him to pull back, with no effect.  I hate the f*&king saying "he died doing what he loved".  I do agree with you, what a waste.   I'm sure this will also be an unpopular opinion, but I came away from the movie thinking he was self-medicating with his pursuits. Just sad all around. I wish he had done less amazing things and lived a long life.  Rest in peace.

You are living your life, he got to live his. He was doing tons of soloing and dangerous stuff long before the sponsors came around. You say he was eager and willing, yet exploited? Others may view it as being given an opportunity. And you don't think friends and family talked to him about what he was doing? Of course they did, they even talked about it in the movie. But ultimately, people are going to do what they want to do. Just because you may have a difficult time understanding why he did what he did, it doesn't mean that his life was wasted or exploited or whatever. People are wired differently and that's what makes the world a wonderful place.

take TAKE wrote:

I'm amazed anyone could watch the movie and conclude he did what he did for anyone but himself

Who concluded that? He did all those things for himself. Obviously. We agree. 

I just added that the profit making entities in climbing subtly encourage people like him to take it to the extreme, to get more clicks, to sell more gear. They offer him gear, they pay for his trips, so he never has to develop a well-rounded personality that can see there can possibly be more to life tan just climbing, and climbing, and climbing. Without that free shit he might have had to get a job like you or me - the horror! - and realize he might actually be capable of and enjoy anything besides climbing. Like, he might be alive today if the climbing industry hadn't enabled his ultimately suicidal addiction.

I'm not saying anything controversial there. That dynamic obviously got buried by the filmmakers, who literally could never get funding for this movie unless he was going to do things incredibly risky - or they'd be making movies about you and me, which nobody would watch. (You can't get a man to understand something his livelihood depends upon him not understanding).  

PS  - I did say this would be an unpopular opinion as who doesn't want to be Peter Pan, fearless and addicted and utterly above mundane shit like having a job or kids or responsibilities beyond self gratification.

I would suggest reading his account of soloing the Emperor Face before making any judgments marcleclerc.blogspot.com/20…

Young climbers chasing a star to their death isn’t something new.

You're making a lot of assumptions on why he did what he did. You are also projecting a lot onto the movie makers, sponsors, family, friends etc. The climbing industry enabled his suicidal addiction? Got anymore hot takes for us?

GTS wrote:

You're making a lot of assumptions on why he did what he did. You are also projecting a lot onto the movie makers, sponsors, family, friends etc. The climbing industry enabled his suicidal addiction? Got anymore hot takes for us?

Totally agree, I am making assumptions. That doesn't mean I can't start a thread that hopefully encourages people to think about whether climbing is worth dying for. I struggle with this myself, though I would never call myself an alpinist. But many times I've pushed it on a highball problem or decided not to place pro because I might not get the send, risking at the least a serious injury, simply because I wanted the experience of calming my mind and controlling my body in a dangerous situation. I'm no better than anyone else who has laid it on the line just to climb a piece of stone. I just wanted to start a conversation because after watching the movie with my daughter, who was definitely like "why the hell would he not climb with a rope? Did he want to die? I don't understand, why not use a rope?" (Ah, the wisdom of babes) I kept thinking about how to answer to that question. ( As for forthcoming "hot takes," I've been on MP since 2006 and haven't started many threads, so you may need to wait a year or so for my next one)

I'm not sure I'm willing to judge the value of one's entire life using only a 2+ hour movie that centers around only one part of it (their climbing). They did seemed to be a very loved and valued person to their partner, and I think if anything that that speaks volumes to me.

bryans wrote:

Totally agree, I am making assumptions. That doesn't mean I can't start a thread that hopefully encourages people to think about whether climbing is worth dying for. I struggle with this myself, though I would never call myself an alpinist. But many times I've pushed it on a highball problem or decided not to place pro because I might not get the send, risking at the least a serious injury, simply because I wanted the experience of calming my mind and controlling my body in a dangerous situation. I'm no better than anyone else who has laid it on the line just to climb a piece of stone. I just wanted to start a conversation because after watching the movie with my daughter, who was definitely like "why the hell would he not climb with a rope? Did he want to die? I don't understand, why not use a rope?" (Ah, the wisdom of babes) I kept thinking about how to answer to that question. ( As for forthcoming "hot takes," I've been on MP since 2006 and haven't started many threads, so you may need to wait a year or so for my next one)

I think if you just posted ^^^^^this, I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's the assumption of motivations for Marc and those around him that I take issue with. 

As for hot takes, I was specifically referring to saying the climbing industry enabled his suicidal addiction. That's a bit much, no? 

Marc-Andre was clearly working very hard to be able to climb at the level and consistency that he did. Maybe for him that was his "job" and passion. It's also no less hard work than having a more average nine-to-five as you and I do. If his sponsors paid for gear and trips with his consent then it's simply compensation for a job well done as they are essentially his employers. It did not seem to be an exploitative relationship to me as Marc-Andre seemed like he would have set out on these large goals anyways. At least this way he was well equipped as opposed to using second hand or second rate gear. There's a lot that can not be covered in a two hour movie so I think it's very condescending to imply he did not have a well-rounded personality. He has a couple interviews, blogposts, & various clips of his peers talking about him while he was alive that thoroughly refute this notion in fact. 

Dave Cramer wrote:

I would suggest reading his account of soloing the Emperor Face before making any judgments marcleclerc.blogspot.com/20…

Thanks for sharing that link. Beautiful musings on the human condition, I thought anyway.

I’m not going to get into the minutia of this thread other than to say I think the OP paints too simplistic of an argument, and I respectfully disagree with it. I can see how the experience of watching the film with your child, who’s getting into climbing, would be a different experience.

I really doubt that Marc Andre’a close friends, Brette, his mom, etc will ever stumble across any of these threads or read them, hopefully. if they do, thanks for sharing your experiences/relationships of/with MA with us. I particularly found Brette sharing her grief and sense of loss very powerful and I really appreciated her opening up like that. 

GTS wrote:

You're making a lot of assumptions on why he did what he did. You are also projecting a lot onto the movie makers, sponsors, family, friends etc. The climbing industry enabled his suicidal addiction? Got anymore hot takes for us?

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.

So, the beef is with Marc-André Leclerc for being such a selfish dirtbag intent on doing his dangerous stunts with so little concern for us, our kids, society, and his family & friends - and then dying while doing the evil deed? This POV gets hashed about all the time.

This stuff has been going on since Adam & Eve. The modern world has really made people soft. And the desire to see others conform to our ideas of right and wrong is the providence of an evangelical mindset. He had free will and exercised it. He died. World moves on. Few really care. Most people will not follow in his footsteps (putting aside the destructive nature of alcohol that so many engage in, and war). What is the alternative? A ban on everything dangerous?

bryans wrote:

PS  - I did say this would be an unpopular opinion as who doesn't want to be Peter Pan, fearless and addicted and utterly above mundane shit like having a job or kids or responsibilities beyond self gratification.

Personally, I don’t think this has to do with popularity. To me, it seems to have more to do with you and your situation than Marc and Marc’s Mom and the choices they made.

I’ll admit that I have not read much of this thread.  But I do find it laughable when a parent unconnected to another parent and their child thinks they could have done better.

Yes, rest on your perceived laurels. But be thankful for the card you were dealt and do not assume other parents and kids got the same hand.