Everest (2015) 

Just in the nick of time! Hollywood has finally had their hack at the story of the 1996 disaster on Mt. Everest, and just in time for me to review it! 

The first pleasant surprise provided by this film was that it is not just Into thin Air rehashed and dramatized. The second nice surprise was that while it was definitely tuned up to be a thriller, Everest managed to stay just shy of over the top, incorporating enough drama to keep laypeople riveted and enough mountain climbing to interest climber-folk. Despite the added flair, this movie was respectful of Mt. Everest, allowing the mountain to develop into a character of its own rather than cramming it down the audience’s throat. 

While dialogue in Everest is fairly minimal and superficial, the film makes a valiant (if blunt) effort at delving into the motivations and personalities of the Adventure Consultants and Mountain Madness teams. It is while on this road though, that Everest begins to swerve slightly from other descriptions of the ’96 expedition. For example, while Scott Fischer (played by Jake Gyllenhaal) is shown as a respected expedition leader, the movie plays him up as a bit of a loose cannon and as not taking his role particularly seriously. The personality of Beck Weathers (Josh Brolin) is similarly skewed, so that by the end of the film it is hard not to see him as just another summit-hungry Mr. Moneybags looking for a yellow brick road. In contrast, Jon Krakauer (Michael Kelly) and others were painted in much more flattering relief than could be gleaned even from Krakauer’s own account.

But, aside from some slight character skewing, as far as I could tell the credit was given where it was due, and the events of May 10th and 11th were shown as accurately as anyone could hope. That’s not to say that where reliable testimony lacks, Everest hasn’t taken its liberties, but these liberties are taken tactfully. For instance, nobody could hope to speculate on the last moments of Doug Hansen, Rob Hall, Andy Harris, Scott Fischer, Yasuko Namba. However, while the film goes on to do just that, these moments are dignified and far more realistic than I expected. 

Not surprisingly, there is absolutely no mention (not even in the credits!) of the three Indo-Tibetan Border Policemen who died on the North wall during the same storm that brought tragedy to the South Ridge. The fact that this is consistent with most accounts of this disaster does not excuse the oversight that can only be chocked up to a focus on the big spenders, the large Western expeditions. This aspect of Everest is a reminder of the fact that the passing-over of Asian expeditions is an unfortunate trend in mountaineering literature from many ranges and writers. We await the correction of this shortcoming with baited breathe (that’s your cue Maggie!). 

The Border Police were not the only folks left by the wayside in Hollywood’s haste for thrill and adventure. The Nepalese people and their culture have similarly been relegated to obscurity and use as cultural scenery. There is no overt exaltation or disparagement of the Sherpa culture, in fact this important aspect of the Everest experience is represented only by the two primary climbing sherpas involved in the accident; Ang Dorje and Lopsang Jangbu. While their roles are brief in the film, they are portrayed in a respectful and accurate light. However, I feel that a film of this magnitude missed a valuable opportunity to contribute to the changing perception of Nepal and the vital shift in Sherpa-climber interaction is underway.

In an unusual turn, there has been little public backlash by the surviving members of the expedition to the film or its portrayal of them. We’ve seen that in many cases of high altitude literature there is to be some disagreement between team members as to what happened and why. Annapurna and True Summit are the obvious examples, and this very story has certainly seen its own storm of dissent. Beck Weathers and other members spoke out publicly and at times fervently in response to Jon Krakauer’s initial re-telling of events and his subsequent book. However, following the film there appear to be few complaints. The notable (if not surprising) exception has been Krakauer himself, who of course maintains that the movie is “total bull”, and that anyone who wants the truth should read his book. 

I certainly didn’t expect Everest to resolve the complexities of its subject, and it sure didn’t. I did, however, expect the film to glorify the “Everest Experience”, which it also did not. In an age of impressionability when all it takes is seeing a photo of someone out having fun to whip us into a frenzy of jealousy, this could have been a dangerous movie for the climbing industry on Mt. Everest. In my mind’s eye I could see the flocks of ‘inspired’ aspirants racing for permits to see the spot where Rob Hall died or some such disaster tourism. After seeing the movie though, I doubt we’ll be seeing anyone rushing for their chance at being the next catastrophe on the heels of an Everest showing.

This brings me to a question that we discussed to a limited extent in class: What role should media play in the mountains? Should there be an obligation to hold certain stories unpublished out of respect, sacred so to speak? If a story is to be told, how is the teller to walk the tightrope between entertainment and accuracy, between historical detail and action? Everest set a good example in some respects, with its lack of bias toward one or another reference’s version of events. Those of us invested in detail may feel that the movie fell far short in the historical detail department, but I’d imagine we are hardly the target demographic. So, for what it’s worth, this film succeeded in telling a complex story with a reasonably degree of integrity, and without putting anyone to sleep. Good on ’em, I say.