UKC

Free Solo, the documentary film of Alex Honnold's historic solo of Freerider on El Capitan has won a Best Documentary Feature Oscar at the 91st Academy Awards in Hollywood. Directed by Elizabeth Chai Vasarhelyi and Jimmy Chin and produced by National Geographic, the 100-minute film has so far accrued a total worldwide gross of $18.4 million, having screened in numerous cinemas and at events worldwide.

Read more

https://www.terraincognitamedia.com/features/ambient-dominion-how-free-solo...

An interesting alternative view. Not sure if this has been posted before. The violent subjugation of indigenous people is a significant part of American History and will shape perspectives on how the land is used.

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/culture_bunker/free_solo_-_thoughts-69723...

What a strange post to make on this news story. There may well be an excellent documentary to be made about the history of Yosemite valley in terms of its indigenous people. But Free Solo is not a documentary on that, nor is it intended to be a history lesson. It is a documentary on somebody soloing, for the first time, what most rock-climbers would consider the most iconic wall on earth; and the effects that act had on the human relationships of the protagonist.

The article you link to may have an interesting point somewhere, but I'm afraid I couldn't wade through it; the first few paragraphs came over as try-too-hard, over-intelectualized dross.

Good grief. First response to the story. You going to piss on his chips too? 

Great news, although it will probably confirm the general public's view that we're all suicidal psychos.

I though the feminist viewpoint was trying too hard to see it through its own particular prism.  I thought the film was brutally honest in depicting Honnold's personality.  He didn't appear to me to be mysogynist, as he treats everyone, male and female, the same, although his girlfriend did bear the brunt of this.  I hesitate to make a diagnosis I am not qualified to do, but it seemed to me that he is somewhere on the autistic spectrum, and a friend I watched it with whose son is autistic shared the same view.  He didn't come across as a someone to admire as a person, although his climbing achievements are certainly deserving.

What a disgusting acceptance speech. Basically the whole film would not be possible and would win absolutely nothing if Alex did not risk his life soloing. And she even thanks that girlfriend before Alex. or like everything is before Alex.

And that comment on "thanks for hiring people of colour it make things better" was really uncalled for and frankly racist.

Well, not necessarily. I might not want to be his girlfriend, but he has many admirable qualities. He lives minimally, gives a large portion of his income to charitable causes (30% I think... which is fairly astonishing), has set up a foundation to promote solar energy projects in off-grid 'poor' places. I think there's much to admire about him, aside from his obvious climbing achievements. 

Fantastic film and a worthy winner.

I came away being even more impressed with Alex as a climber, but also a little more aware of just how alienating he can be. I also wasn't quite so aware he was quite such a "dirtbag" still, living in the van. Also, he gives 1/3 of his income to the foundation, honorable stuff and really living the minimalist impact lifestyle to an extent. The fridge-shopping segment was great, they don't need to massive, over-the-top version when the basic one does the same job. Also "i'd just sleep on the carpet"

I thought it was interesting that the easiest, most flowing conversation he has was with the other free solo'er (Name escapes me). 

There's been a few comments around that his girlfriend got too much air time, but I think this was mostly from those expecting a climbing documentary, rather than a personal look at Alex himself. The stuff around his parents was a real eye-opener; the mantra of giving your best but not succeeding as no good enough.

Watched it with my other half, a psychologist currently working predominantly with ASD kids and she was unsure if he'd receive a diagnosis. He is at least aware of how his actions/emotions impact on others, whereas a more extreme diagnosis have next to no ability to empathise.

He just seemed slightly more "numb" than most; whether fear, love, excitement... Also such a controlled reaction to his own emotion at the end "I could cry, but I really don't want to" - why not?! Let it go man...

Great stuff.

First up I never got to the end, not even close. I read the indigenous people's section and then skipped then scrolled on and on and on and on.......

Yes totally agree that the narrative about the dispossession and genocide of the first nation Americans is inescapable.  Anyone travelling in the US with open eyes cannot help but be depressed by the back story, recent history, and current situation of the native Americans. Putting all this against Free Solo is fair enough, but alas the length is off putting. The rest of the essay (for that is what it is surely?) likewise. I don't take odds with the opinions, just the effectiveness of the piece is lost in the seemingly endless diatribe. 

At the end of the day anyone is entitled to write what they want and I will defend that. But surely if they publish they want to influence and that influence is lost if people don't read the article?

A great win  

I don’t think Honnold represents that which the first poster’s linked article purports him to represent, nor Director Elizabeth Chai Vasarhelyi. Surely a false dichotomy if ever there was one? 

Really delighted to see a crew of film maker and subject coming together to make a really wonderful and quite nuanced exploration of the most extreme end of the climbing game. Don’t you think it lays the story open for a non climbing audience really, really well?

Interesting clip of Honnold talking about the relationship side of things (interviewed by Lance Armstrong of all people!): https://youtu.be/qvsBz7hbIj8?&t=4515 (starts at 1hr 15ish, about 2 minutes). 

I think that that bizarre article (and all the connected socials) linked is almost certainly just from a Russain troll farm and not worth wasting time in discussion on.

I'm guessing you didn't intend it this way, but I am somewhat uncomfortable with how you've put these two sentences together as if they were the same thing. People can be autistic and admirable ...

"Last June, when Alex Honnold completed his free solo of El Cap, just across the mountains I was spending time in Payahüünadü, what many climbers know as Bishop, California"

Has there ever been a more pretentious opening to an article?

I'm always open to hearing different narratives but this writer is so far up their own arse that they'd need a compass to find their way out.  

And yet, somehow Vasarhelyi has won awards before for films which were not about Alex Honnold soloing.

I mean, yeah, the film absolutely benefits from the fact that it's a record of something monumental and extraordinary!

That doesn't mean that Alex is solely responsible for anything good about it.

He didn't shoot it, edit it, direct it, produce it, conduct the interviews, or write the music. And (being a modest and thoughtful dude) he's gone out of his way to say that he's proud of the solo, but that the achievement of the film is down to the co-directors and everyone else who worked on it.

... or, you know, she thanks Alex last, as the climactic, final point in the speech, and as the person she's crediting for inspiring them all.

While the long, long history of people of colour not being hired for work they're more than qualified for is ... not racist at all, I guess?

Of course, and I know people who are both.  That wasn't of course my intention.  It was intended as a response to the article describing it as "toxic masculinity".

There's a point where the author's sarcasm and humour sensor completely short-circuits and takes the following statement at face value:

“Having a girlfriend in the van is nice. She’s cute, small, livens the place up, doesn’t take up too much room...makes life better in every way.”

This is a strange time for climbing. We are used to practicing our craft on remote cliffs, on basement woodies, and on boulders lost in the forest. It seems that the media and public eye are increasingly on climbing. Dawn Wall media coverate and movie, Olympics, and Free Solo. Strange days. 

I think the days of anonymity are over. We need to show that we're not all adrenaline junkies and/or selfish people who trash the environment.

"The eyes of the world are watching now, watching now." - Peter Gabriel 

I should refuse to dignify your non-sequitur soap box rant with a response...but I am to say that while your concerns are valid, they are not relevant to this story.  Also, go look at what Honnold is doing with his foundation. And then look at what percentage of his income he devotes to that purpose. Then look in the mirror and ask what you are doing to help correct the inequities in the world around us. 

Excellent response, couldn't have put it better myself!

Still, if there is no Alex, there is no movie, period. No matter how many talented or untalented people of colour were working on it.

Check the video again, please. Maybe that was her idea, but it ended up completely different. It felt like just mentioning him by the way.

Talent is not defined by race and colour (or gender). If Vasarhelyi thinks the other way, she is racist. Racism against white people is still racism, sorry. It has nothing to do with history.

You're looking for something to take offence to and misinterpreting her speech like a "snowflake". She said nothing at all to suggest racism against white people. If she'd said or suggested that white people were less talented then you would have a point but she didn't. Her point, which is quite clear to anybody not looking for offence, was that non-white people are also equally talented and she's glad that's now being reflected more in the film industry and/or in the Free Solo crew specifically.

Presumably you think that the suggestion of gaining advantage by employing more non-white people implies a slight on the talent of whites. That's not really the case. If we quite reasonably assume that all races are equally talented as potential filmmakers then restricting filmmaking largely to only one of them was clearly limiting the talent pool, without any slight on that one race. That's before taking into account the advantage of hearing more diverse voices out of our media.

[removed]

Yes that's slightly ad hominem, but in this case on purpose. An amazing film about an amazing climbing feat has won an oscar and you want to blather on about a misdirected argument that it should have been about indigenous people. Get a life. 

I've got to point out, also: Jimmy Chin's been friends with Honnold for a decade. Honnold obviously worked very closely with both Chin and Vasarhelyi while making the film, and seems to have a lot of respect for them and for the result as a film. Their kids apparently know him as "Uncle Alex"!

(If you want to risk death by adorable -- that's their eldest climbing with him there: https://www.instagram.com/p/BnztHOijwxf/ )

It seems kind of unlikely that they're engaged in some sort of elaborate conspiracy to snub him.

I've heard this argument 'against' the film elsewhere, and it is rather shortsighted. The implication being that the filmmakers don't 'deserve' the Oscar, or in fact any congratulations, because the real star of the show is Honnold; and he's the one who should be getting the plaudits.

The argument doesn't hold weight though, for two reasons:

i) Honnold has received many plaudits, interviews, chat shows, sponsorship deals as a result of his feat. His achievement is magnificent enough to stand on it's own merit.

ii) The Oscar is a celebration of the film, not of its source material. Producing a film of such undeniable quality like Free Solo requires a lot of hard work, a lot of money, and somebody to take responsibility for that money.

It's a bit like saying that The Shawshank Redemption doesn't 'deserve' to be voted the best film of all time, because without Stephen King's original novella, it wouldn't exist.

I would like to thank UKC for once again reminding me that, when faced with identical information, people's innate ability to interpret it in wildly, seemingly improbably differing ways will never fail to amaze.

Well done to Free Solo. I went to watch it with three non-climbers and we all loved it. It's nominally about climbing but really about obsession, relationships and death amongst other things.

May I suggest to the author of the blog post in the first reply that they go and make their own f*cking film.

Nope - shockingly written

Nope - or, rather, alternative inthe same way "shooting elephants is wrong" would be alternative i.e. completely unconnected to the subject at hand.

Well you certainly bang on about thta kind of thing.  Gets to be a bit of a frothy-mouthed blur to be honest

Yup, but what's that got to do with this?

I'm afraid no. She used the word "better", not equally good.

"Thank you, National Geographic for believing in us and for hiring women and people of color because we only help make the films better." -> if you employ women and people of colour for a film, the film will be better -> being people of colour or women means more talent (hence the better film).

Her words are quite clear.

I believe that a talented crew can make a good film. And not because they are of whatever colour or gender.

I'm sorry that she brought this disgusting politics into the world of climbing.

But if you still do not find it racist, let's reverse it: "Thank you, National Geographic for believing in us and for hiring only men and white people because we only help make the films better." Fine, let me see the media response after such a line.

Having a bigger pool of talent to pick from will help make films better.

I understand your interpretation of this and agree the wording could have been better.  I also agree that the best team should always be chosen and that will lead to the best outcome - whether it be a film or more generally in employment.  But...

What I expect was meant was that having a diverse team leads to a better outcome overall with that diversity coming from a whole range of factors including race, gender, etc. but also general personality and skills.  When I talk about the best team above I think a key part of ensuring it is best (or as good as possible) is that it brings together diverse and complementary skills.  That could come from an all white male team but is much more likely to come from a diverse team in terms of race and gender etc.  The difficulty is always though how to recruit such a team.

This is not a defence of the (perhaps) poor wording in the speech though.

You added the "only" which I have put in capitals which completely changes and distorts it.

She did not say thank you for only hiring women and people of colour.

Your reversal is racist, her original specch is not racist.

It isn't exactly hard to understand how having a broader range of genders, races and cultural influences working on a project can make it better.

This argument would hold if you would exclude close to equal amount of people from the pool as the current whites. But there are three times more white people in the US then "people of colour" (76,6% white, 13,4% black, and 10% asian, native and other). For every non black coloured person you will get 9 white. Emphasizing being people of colour from this context is more than poor wording.

US Census 2018:  https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/IPE120217

Soap box rant? he posted a link to a controversial article - which is what your colleague did on the original thread?!

And if you take out the ONLY, would it make LESS racist?

That massive amount of white people in the US have quite different cultural influences themselves. Taking them as one homogeneous group is like saying british are the same as french or russians.

Did anyone say that they didn't have different cultural influences?

You're working very hard at finding things to take offence over!

Without the word ONLY it is not racist.

I wonder if Kurosawa would have agreed.

Do you really need an answer to that?

"We hire black people"

"We hire only black people"

What do you think, mush?

If you exclude a group based on their colour or gender, however small the group, you'll end up losing talented filmmakers.

To expand on this, as I've seen the same arguments: we've all seen climbing films where the climb itself is ground-breaking and extraordinary but the film is two minutes of wobbly medium-shot climbing footage that looks like someone shot it on their phone, padded out with a half hour of people making coffee and driving to the crag.

If Free Solo was just an unbroken long-lens shot from the meadow of Honnold as a tiny figure making his way up the route -- okay, many of us in the climbing community would watch it anyway, but it wouldn't be up for an Oscar.

Instead, it's a gorgeous document of the climb itself (with all the close-up climbing porn shots of holds that you could want) that's also a fascinating character portrait and study of Honnold's preparation process, that's accessible to non-climbers and that (imho) manages to communicate something about climbing as a meaningful experience.

All of that is down to the directors and editor and cinematographers, etc. (and National Geographic for being willing to fund it as a completely secret project with no timeline and no certainty that he'd ever even attempt the solo). And they deserve the credit for the work they did, just as Honnold deserves (and is getting) all the credit for the climb.

If you watch this interview, Honnold makes it pretty clear that the Oscars are not his world and not what matters to him at all; it's about the film-makers (who are his friends) having the acknowledgement of their peers for their work, and he respects that it's important to them, but it's so very much not his thing: 

youtube.com/watch?v=Ao8c0f89lWg&

(Also he's clearly really ready for the film promo stuff to be over at this point so he can get on with his life and climbing again.)
 

Not really, you only need to exclude white males, since women and people of colour will help make a better film.

Except that's not what she said.

You must be really upset by this, then:

https://www.outsideonline.com/2276711/honnold-womens-march

Why did you choose to put it in if you think it makes no difference?

Wow, you are plumbing new levels of stupid. A real a achievement on UKC!

The only thing excluding white males in this is your tiny, confused brain.

To be fair, the person working hardest at finding things to take offence over is the writer of the article.

Was Kurosawa racist? Given the society he was part of, it wouldn’t surprise me, but I don’t know, so I won’t judge him.

Obviously a broad range of gender, race and cultural influences doesn’t guarantee a better end result, but think what an influence Kurosawa has on western cinema.

A quite quick google suggests that he has heavily inflencex by Russian writers such as Maxim Gorky and filmmakers such as Fritz Lang.

??

You're not allowed to insult someone on here anymore? That's rather petty.

I don't object to direct insults being censored as long as I can still abuse third parties like Clarkson.

Having said that, I'd be interested in the Great Man's reaction to the toxic masculinity article.

Good film though...

I too am disgusted that Free Solo was a movie about Alex Honnold climbing. I would have much preferred it if it was about an entirely different subject and was a completely different movie.

Or something.