Rate: Touching The Void (Kevin Macdonald, 2004)

[The Great Dane]

What do you guys think?

[Morris Schæffer]

Loses a bit on repeat viewings, but overall it's one of my faves of this year.

8.5

[Kuehnepips]

I think David Noodles never had an alias? :D

[katie with the helmet]

A

I was completely captivated.

~Katie~

[zapperio]

Interestingly, as good as the documentary is, I found the "making of the documentary" on the DVD even better. It was very revealing about the impact the event had had on the two friends and how it was impossible for them to come to terms with it, years later.

Fascinating stuff.

[Korman643]

IMHO, along with Twilight Samurai and Howl's Moving Castle, the only truly memorable movie I've seen this year. Best, less sentimental, most technically accurate climbing movie ever, with seamless integration of location shots made in the Andes and climbing sequences done in the Alps. Marred only by the director annoying tendency to hint at things/controversies that weren't really there, and by a less-than-factual behind the scenes featurette in the DVD.

[David Noodles]

I think David Noodles never had an alias? :DNow Nada, do you really think I would be that stupid?


Anyway, back to the topic at hand; I haven't seen it.

[Korman643]

Interestingly, as good as the documentary is, I found the "making of the documentary" on the DVD even better. It was very revealing about the impact the event had had on the two friends and how it was impossible for them to come to terms with it, years later.

I'm afraid that the featurette ("Return To Siula Grande") is a bit of a con job, and left me a distinct sour taste. As it's done, it does seems to imply that Simon Yates got suddendly all defensive and nervous because of the memories of what had happened in 1985. But the reality is a bit different. Yates went to Peru as (handsomely paid) consultant, co-ordinating the climbing sequence and doing some stuntwork. At some point, he began to resent Kevin MacDonald very happy-go-lucky attitude toward safety of the filming/climbing crew (that was confirmed to me by one of the climbing consultants hired by the production for the Alps shots).

Relationship on the set became quite tense, and when McDonald tried, during one interview, to talk Simon into making some silly admission of a sense of guilt over the whole 1985 fiasco, Simon (who had the added burden of his wife being in some serious health trouble back home) snapped, and came very close to beat the director. He left production and decided he didn't wanted to have anything more to do with the movie.

The featurette is edited in a clever way, as to show Simon and Joe becoming more and more stressed over the memories of 1985, and having a huge fall-off because of it. It's all crap. It's true that Joe had (understandably) troubles on being back to the same place of the 1985 ordeal (he suffered afterwards briefly for symptoms of post traumatic stress). But Simon couldn't not care really less, basically because (and this is not told in the featurette) that was not the first time he had returned to Siula Grande (he had been back in the 90's to open a new route there). As for the "failed friendship", I'm afraid that Joe and Simon were never really friends. They are two completely different individuals (Simon is the typical british "lad" who resent pretentiousness, while Joe, while a talented writer, it's reportedly a bit full of himself). Also, Simon post Siula climbing career was much more interesting than Joe's, but Joe made a lot of money out of the Siula story. In other words, Simon is a climber, while Joe is a writer - the two things rarely mix....

The best journalistic assesment of the whole story comes from Ed Douglas, who's a respected writer/climber

http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,4120,1096141,00.html

Still missing some of the key points, but worth reading if you want to know
what really happened during the production.

[sford]

Interestingly, as good as the documentary is, I found the "making of the documentary" on the DVD even better. It was very revealing about the impact the event had had on the two friends and how it was impossible for them to come to terms with it, years later.

Fascinating stuff. This is exactly the same thing I've told my friends when I lend them the DVD and tell them to watch the movie, take a break, then watch the "making of".
A+.


korman643, very nice explanation. thank you.

[vtd]

Still the best movie I've seen this year.

****/****.

[Chicodemoda]

Interestingly, as good as the documentary is, I found the "making of the documentary" on the DVD even better. It was very revealing about the impact the event had had on the two friends and how it was impossible for them to come to terms with it, years later.

Fascinating stuff.
This is good news, because I was disappointed that the doc didn't delve into the aftermath of this life-changing event, if the two had kept in close contact, if they still think about it often, etc.

Still one of my favorites of the year though.

***1/2 / ****.

[Mounix]

I'm planning to watch it for the first time later today.

[bhughes3]

****/****

I loved it. It will definitely still be standing in my top ten at the end of the year.

[ZBigRedDogZ]

10/10. Best Doc of the year that I've seen. Not only just interesting and beautiful, but also one of the most deeply terrifying films I've ever seen.

[Morris Schæffer]

Now all of you see One Day in September. Also from Kevin McDonald.

NOW!

[ZBigRedDogZ]

Now all of you see One Day in September. Also from Kevin McDonald.

NOW!
I will because I want to, not because you told me to.


:Pouts in corner:

[David Noodles]

Just rented it, hope it's as good as you folks say.

[ZBigRedDogZ]

Just rented it, hope it's as good as you folks say.
It's actually better, although I admit, I don't know what effect seeing it on the small screen for the first time will have. Part of what makes it such a great experience is the feeling that you are with them. Might be hurt if the first time you see it is on the small screen. Maybe not.

[Morris Schæffer]

I will because I want to, not because you told me to.


:Pouts in corner:
That's good also.

[David Noodles]

It's actually better,Okay, must be pretty damn good then.
Might be hurt if the first time you see it is on the small screen. Maybe not.It probably will suffer from it, they almost always do.

[C-Misch]

wow...u guys are given it alot of praise...haven't seen it yet...but i will see it soon.

[DaMU]

***1/2

The film is nail-bitingly tense, a remarkable feat for us knowing how it ends. The best documentary of the year.

[vtd]

Nah... I didn't get to see it until it hit DVD, but it didn't seem to have any ill effect. After all, it is my favorite of the year.

Just turn the sound way up.

[Kurosawa Fan]

10/10

The argument that this shouldn't be considered a documentary is ridiculous. It's an amazing film and one of the best docs I've seen. It's in my top three of the year thus far.

[jmoneyganster]

twas' a really good documentary. Probably the only documentary i've seen that i'd rather watch at a theater than most other movies. hopefully you get what i'm saying.

[Slicer]

Amazing movie. It is still on my top ten list easily.

[Snot Boogie]

Best movie of the year. The whole time I watched this I didn't look to see how much time was left ever. I was completely captivated...

[ZBigRedDogZ]

It probably will suffer from it, they almost always do.

Well, yah, I'm just hoping it doesn't suffer more then average. I mean, it's a film with recreations of mountain climbing, so it's a very visual film.

[Dancing Potato]

Eh... I thought the testimonies were much more interesting than the recreations.

[JordanLee]

I'm afraid that the featurette ("Return To Siula Grande") is a bit of a con job, and left me a distinct sour taste. As it's done, it does seems to imply that Simon Yates got suddendly all defensive and nervous because of the memories of what had happened in 1985. But the reality is a bit different. Yates went to Peru as (handsomely paid) consultant, co-ordinating the climbing sequence and doing some stuntwork. At some point, he began to resent Kevin MacDonald very happy-go-lucky attitude toward safety of the filming/climbing crew (that was confirmed to me by one of the climbing consultants hired by the production for the Alps shots).

Relationship on the set became quite tense, and when McDonald tried, during one interview, to talk Simon into making some silly admission of a sense of guilt over the whole 1985 fiasco, Simon (who had the added burden of his wife being in some serious health trouble back home) snapped, and came very close to beat the director. He left production and decided he didn't wanted to have anything more to do with the movie.

The featurette is edited in a clever way, as to show Simon and Joe becoming more and more stressed over the memories of 1985, and having a huge fall-off because of it. It's all crap. It's true that Joe had (understandably) troubles on being back to the same place of the 1985 ordeal (he suffered afterwards briefly for symptoms of post traumatic stress). But Simon couldn't not care really less, basically because (and this is not told in the featurette) that was not the first time he had returned to Siula Grande (he had been back in the 90's to open a new route there). As for the "failed friendship", I'm afraid that Joe and Simon were never really friends. They are two completely different individuals (Simon is the typical british "lad" who resent pretentiousness, while Joe, while a talented writer, it's reportedly a bit full of himself). Also, Simon post Siula climbing career was much more interesting than Joe's, but Joe made a lot of money out of the Siula story. In other words, Simon is a climber, while Joe is a writer - the two things rarely mix....

The best journalistic assesment of the whole story comes from Ed Douglas, who's a respected writer/climber

http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,4120,1096141,00.html

Still missing some of the key points, but worth reading if you want to know
what really happened during the production.
Thanks for the link and the information. I was one of those who saw and loved both the film and the "making of feature" and I completely bought the idea that they were both affected by the return to Peru. I also personally thought that Simon came off as a bit of a prick and that he was in huge denial over the whole thing.

[StoneFox]

Great film.
****/****
On my top ten aswell.

[The Lazy Superhero]

Terrific story and beautifully shot.

I'm a bit of a mountaineer myself (very unextreme, though) so it has a little more relevance to me than other stories. My only grudge with this movie is that I wish it had a bit more of an epilogue; it seemed to end before the story was over.

A-

[zapperio]

I'm afraid that the featurette ("Return To Siula Grande") is a bit of a con job, and left me a distinct sour taste.

The best journalistic assesment of the whole story comes from Ed Douglas, who's a respected writer/climber

http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,4120,1096141,00.html

Still missing some of the key points, but worth reading if you want to know
what really happened during the production. Thanks for the info. The link doesn't really malign "Return To Siula Grande", as the writer obviously hadn't seen it at the point of writing and it does support some of the subtexts I got from watching the featurette. It does give more backstory that helps explain away some of the tension we were shown, however. It also underlines the fact that the director was an outsider to an insular culture and his understanding and treatment of the story is likely coloured by that.

However, what was most fascinating to me about the featurette was not the dissolving relationship between Yates and Simon but Simon's reactions and attitudes about being back where he touched the void. It is very naked and heartfelt and increadibly moving to watch after seeing the documentary itself.

[Korman643]

Thanks for the info. The link doesn't really malign "Return To Siula Grande", as the writer obviously hadn't seen it at the point of writing and it does support some of the subtexts I got from watching the featurette. It does give more backstory that helps explain away some of the tension we were shown, however. It also underlines the fact that the director was an outsider to an insular culture and his understanding and treatment of the story is likely coloured by that.

The subtext that Douglas support is that "Touching The Void" is really Joe's story, not Simon's. But because of the story itself, and because of the insistence of the director on trying to push some controversial faces of the events that weren't really there, at some point Simon reaction was something on the line of "It's ok for me if Joe makes millions out this story, but I can't be involved much more than a certain point".

Just to make other things clear, there are several little points of the story that were deliberately altered by the producers. For instance, it's not true that Simon and Joe route was never repeated. The west face of Siula Grande has now three different lines, and the 1985 route was repeated in 1999 by an American team, with a little variation. Also, the whole story of Simon being crucified by the climbing community when he came back was wildly overblown - there was some trouble over a silly story published by a British scandalistic rag, but once a respected mountain magazine published the correct story, the whole things was forgotten.

As for the "insular culture", it could be seen the other way round. Movie directors (and generally speaking, movie people) are a definitely a strange breed. So it's probable that both Simon's and Joe's reactions where in some way conditioned by that.

However, what was most fascinating to me about the featurette was not the dissolving relationship between Yates and Simon but Simon's reactions and attitudes about being back where he touched the void. It is very naked and heartfelt and increadibly moving to watch after seeing the documentary itself.
But this is really the key point - he wasn't, believe me. What was sold as "naked and heartfelt" was just monumental annoyance at the director's attitude. Btw - Richard Hawking, the third guy who was left to guard basecamp during Joe's ordeal and who went also to the Siula Grande reunion) has basically confirmed this. It's interesting to note that, around the time of BAFTA awards, even Joe had a huge fall off with MacDonald, because he felt he had let down the climbing crew (who made 75% of the mountain shots) at the acceptance speech.

And that was NOT the first time Simon had come back to Siula Grande. In 1996 (?), with Mick Fowler (probably the best British alpine climber - he wrote a very good - and funny - book called "Vertical Pleasure - the secret life of a taxman. Check it out if you've the chance) attempted a new line on the west face of Siula Chico, Siula Grande lower twin. Same base camp, same glacier, same area, same everything. And of course it was no particular big deal coming back with Joe. Why it should have?

The whole thing seems to be based on the assumption that Simon should feel some kind of deep sense of guilt over the Siula events. But he doesn't - of course. He may have felt that way whilel Joe was missing, but when it was clear he had survived (I'm not spoiling anything with this!), why should he have felt sorry, traumatized or whatever? He had SAVED both lives. He should have felt mightily pleased with himself.. For Joe, of course, it was different.

The 1985 thing where the defining events on Joe's life, not on Simon's. Simon got some advantage out of it, but his life moved on toward different things. He had a subsequent brilliant climbing career, he runs a succesful trekking company, and he's very respected among the British scene. Joe's made a lot of money out of it (he wrote several books, he's a well known lecturer on the motivational speech circuirt), but his life was defined by Siula Grande, and without Siula Grande he wouldn't have become what he did.

[Atomic Cow]

It was a very good documentary.
I don't know much about or have much interest in mountain climbing.
I didn't like it quite as much as some of you. But I picked it up on recommendation here and it was worth a watch.

[1niftydude]

9.8/10
An awesome movie. I'm a climber, and I truly love the mountains. This is an awesome film, one of the years best. In fact, I think I'll continue to value this movie as one having great significance in the all-time scheme, rather than just in this year's scheme. By the way, I don't think that it loses anything on repeat viewings. No matter what the case with the documentary and its portrayal of Yates, you can't deny that he's no saint. I won't question the rope-cutting, but only because Joe stands behind him on that. I will question his capitalizing on it. When asked why he works on the movie, he replies that he does it to get money. I'm totally conflicted about this guy. I do love it when he says, in the movie, that he thinks mountains are the most beautiful places in the world.

Anyway, I love this movie because it makes me think and its beautifully done.

[Korman643]

9.8/10
I won't question the rope-cutting, but only because Joe stands behind him on that. I will question his capitalizing on it. When asked why he works on the movie, he replies that he does it to get money.
If you're saying that the only reason why the rope-cutting shouldn't be criticized because Joe doesn't, I'm afraid that is not the case. Joe supports Simon's action not because of he has "forgiven" him (the was nothing to forgive), but because he does recognized that Simon did the best thing - because, given the circumnstances and the informations that Simon had in that moment, cutting the rope was the best choice. I'm a climber too, with a decent alpine experience, and I pretty sure that If he hadn't done it, in the best scenario Joe would have died quite soon anyway because of exposure - in the worst case both menr would have died for sure.

As for his "capitalizing" the rope cutting, again I don't get it. He went to Peru for the money - what other reason he should have? He's not the author of the book, and while he had definitely an important part on the story, he's not the main character of the movie. He didn't go around for years making lectures on Siula Grande - Joe did. It's Joe's story, not Simon's. Beside making him somehow typecasted as "the man who cut the rope", Siula Grande had no big positive or negative effect on Simon's life (in his own book, "The Flame Of Adventure", it's just touched upon) - it was not such a big deal as it was for Joe (whose life was permanently altered by the accident)

[The Blue Bomber]

It's a great film. The best documentary of the year.

***/****

[1niftydude]

If you're saying that the only reason why the rope-cutting shouldn't be criticized because Joe doesn't, I'm afraid that is not the case. Joe supports Simon's action not because of he has "forgiven" him (the was nothing to forgive), but because he does recognized that Simon did the best thing - because, given the circumnstances and the informations that Simon had in that moment, cutting the rope was the best choice. I'm a climber too, with a decent alpine experience, and I pretty sure that If he hadn't done it, in the best scenario Joe would have died quite soon anyway because of exposure - in the worst case both menr would have died for sure.

As for his "capitalizing" the rope cutting, again I don't get it. He went to Peru for the money - what other reason he should have? He's not the author of the book, and while he had definitely an important part on the story, he's not the main character of the movie. He didn't go around for years making lectures on Siula Grande - Joe did. It's Joe's story, not Simon's. Beside making him somehow typecasted as "the man who cut the rope", Siula Grande had no big positive or negative effect on Simon's life (in his own book, "The Flame Of Adventure", it's just touched upon) - it was not such a big deal as it was for Joe (whose life was permanently altered by the accident)True, the rope cutting was the best thing considering how it turned out. But what happened was a one-in-a-million occurrence. It wasn't a good moral choice at the time it was made, and while I'm glad it all turned out, it doesn't make Simon any better as a human being.
I have some alpine experience. Even with my lack of knowledge I think there are a couple of things I would have done first, awkward and unorthodox though they be. This is your partner's life we're talking about! First, simon could have tried to look for an anchor or built a belay device out of carabiners. He could have passed the second rope through that device and then fidget with the first device to try-just to TRY for Pete's sake-to unclip it. He could have lowered Joe safely down and then followed by himself, knowing that there was a dropoff, he would have taken an alternate way. It likely wouldn't have worked. But what ended up actually happening (Joe's survival) was even more unlikely. Anyway, I don't think that it was the best choice for Simon to make at that moment. It's no little thing to indirectly end your partner's life.

[Korman643]

First, simon could have tried to look for an anchor or built a belay device out of carabiners.
As a matter of fact, Simon did exactly that, but to no avail. The movie, for obvious reasons, doesn’t go into detail explaining the mechanics of the accident (it would have been three hours long and mightily boring for non climbers). Simon tried to find some ice where to put a screw below the snow surface, but there was none. The terrain was just unconsolidated, powdery “sugar” snow of the worse type - bottomless and formless. The only way to create a decent anchor in such condition is via a snowstake or a “dead man” (for you non climbers - it’s like a shovel blade with a steel cable attached, you bury it deep in the snow and it provides some sort of anchor point). But he had none of this. He tried to enlarge his belay stance, but that did only accelerated the snowseat collapse.

He could have passed the second rope through that device and then fidget with the first device to try-just to
TRY for Pete's sake-to unclip it.
He did that too - he tried to create some slack between the knot on the rope (the standard knot used to link two ropes is devilishly difficult to untie if wet, frozen or with one side loaded) and the Stitch place he was using as a lowering device. This would have allowed him to try to pass the knot on the biner attached to his harness and continue to lower Joe. It did not work - at this point the rope was completely frozen (it was 1985 rope, not the modern “dry” ropes chemically treated to withstand water, ice, etc). Also, Simon strength was wanin rapidly, and to make this kind of maneuver you need a lot of strength.

The only possible thing that he could done but he didn’t was to using a prusik loop to keep the loaded rope held firm while he passed the knot (a standard trick used during rescue operations). It’s still very dubious it would have worked, because of the frozen rope, and the fact he had not external anchor to attach the prusik. He could have tried to keep it attached to his own harness, but then, this would have meant cutting the main loop connecting the locked biner to his harness to free the knot. But at this point, the rope would have probably slipped through the prusik, and Simon could have enough strength left to hold it - so Joe would have fallen anyway, and Simon with him.

It was definitely a no win situation, from whatever point you may see it. Believe me, Simon did one hell of a job, considering the mess he was in.

He could have lowered Joe safely down and then followed by himself, knowing that there was a dropoff, he would have taken an alternate way. It likely wouldn't have worked. But what ended up actually happening (Joe's survival) was even more unlikely. Anyway, I don't think that it was the best choice for Simon to make at that moment. It's no little thing to indirectly end your partner's life.
Again - Simon did NOT knew Joe was dangling from a overhang (the movie is not clear about this) otherwise he would have not tried to continue the lowering! At some point he assumed that the rope was stuck somewhere, According this his calculation (based on the altimeter and the number of lowering they have done) the bottom of the mountain couldn’t have been far away. The slope were Simon was had a 60° degrees angle, and the angle had somehow lessened in the last few meters, so it was difficult for him to imagine there was a 50mts high ice cliff at the bottom. After one hour waiting for some sign of life from Joe, he assumed that and Joe, because of loss of blood and exposure, had fainted, or worse, had died. Once the rope was cut, spent as he was and in total darkness, the only thing he could do was to take cover somewhere and wait for the morning to understand what had happened. Being the bottom of the slope near, he assumed that, in case Joe was still alive, it would have been easy to reach him and bring him down.

It was only the next morning that Simon discovered the truth. So, it’s unfair to assume that he cut the rope knowing that he was indirectly ending his partner life - at this moment he only knew that his belay set was collapsing, the stuck rope was pulling him down, and without disconnecting from the rope, it was his own life that was going to end - for sure.