Conference bookie::movies

>  One interesting note not covered by the movie is that most of the people
>involved in the crash grew up in the same area and many survivors still live
>there along with their families and the families of the others that died. The
>story of how they were received by the community and how people reacted to
>them was very interesting Unfortunately it was completely missed by the film.
    
    George,
    
    For those who didn't catch the "20 Years After" program, could you
    fill us in on some of the interesting parts?
    
    Thanks,
    Jodi-

    Re .1: I saw the TV program. What interested me the most was what
    George mentioned in .0, that nearly all the families of the people on
    that plane still live in the same neighborhoods. Some of the survivors
    mentioned the difficulty of remembering, at times, that their neighbors
    were the parents of those who died - and who, after death, sustained
    the lives of the others.
    
    It seemed that most of the survivors felt no lingering trauma from the
    accident, though one of them did respond to questions curtly and state
    that he preferred not to think of it at all. (He was one who did not
    live among the close-knit neighborhood.)
    
    I don't recall any other outstanding bits of info; it was an
    interesting documentary, especially as an extension of the original
    story (I haven't seen the movie, but I remember the news articles at
    the time, and read the published account), but more for the picture of
    the peoples' lives as they are now, and the comforting thought that an
    ordeal like that could leave people (apparently) unscarred...
    
    -b

  I didn't see the entire hour, but I saw most of the TV program that told the
story of the survivors 20 years later. My account of that show talks about how
the survivors lived off the dead so if that troubles you you might want to pass
on to the next note. 

SPOILER/Heavy_Topic warning
 

  They went on for quite a bit about how everyone reacted to the fact that the
survivors had to eat the dead. The Catholic Church, to which most of the
survivors belonged, was very supportive and both their priest and bishop said
that they had done the right thing. 

  They pointed out that the job of rationing the dead was given to three
passengers who were cousins. They alone prepared the food from the dead so most
of the survivors were not aware of who they had actually eaten. No one asks the
three cousins and they won't say who was eaten and who was not. 

  Among those interviewed were the two survivors who made the trip over the
Andes into Chili. One was a medical student who had provided most of the
medical care and the other was the one who pushed for the attempt to go to
Chili. They said that after living on the mountain for two months they had the
feeling that no one would find them and that they had to try to make it back to
civilization. The rescue came on day 72 when the two who made it to Chili
lead two army helicopters back to the crash site.

  The actual trip by the two over the mountains took 10 days, most in sub
freezing weather and at several points they had "dramatic moments". In the
movie they show them coming down below the snow line but the TV show went on to
show interviews of the farmer who 1st saw them. They showed 20 year old
interviews and they interviewed him again for the show. 

  He said at 1st as they came running toward him waving their arms he thought
they were tourists who were lost. There were photos of the two survivors
riding back to town on two mules, one mule belonging to that farmer and another
belonging to someone who was with him. 

  They also showed motion pictures of the survivors taken when the army
helicopters that rescued them landed. Most fell down and kissed the ground and
were picked up by soldiers to get them away from the rotating blades of the
choppers. 

  From the photos that they showed of the real crash site, it's clear that
great pains were taken to reconstruct the accident scene in great detail. One
survivor was shown at the movie site inside the plane and as he entered the
broken plane he had that look of someone going back to some place that had been
very important in his life. He then described various things that had happened,
using the plane and other items for props. 

  In particular he described the avalanche that hit them and killed 8 of the
people in the plane. This happened after they were up there a couple weeks. If
you remember from the movie, the back of the plane was broken off and the front
was pointed down hill. 

  When the avalanche hit, the snow swept in through the opening in the back
pushing the suit cases that made up the temporary wall forward. Since it was
night, most of the people were sleeping on the floor and were buried under 3-5
feet of snow. Only one or two of the injured who were in hammocks were above the
drift. They dug out the 1st 2 or 3 and those went on to dig out others. 

  When they returned it took a while for them to get back to normal. One
medical student went right back to school and is now a doctor but another
didn't go back for quite a few years. It seems that the tight community and the
support they received went a long way toward helping them recover. 

  Those were the high points. It really was a dramatic story, especially when
you add in the stuff from the TV program, and what they did well in the movie
they did really well. Unfortunately the movie did drag out parts that didn't
need dragging out and left out some things that would have been good to
include. 

  George 

    I love adventure stories, and I have the book "Alive" which I found to
    be much more explanatory than the movie, in terms of feelings and what
    they went through mentally.  But I still wanted to see the movie.  The
    theater was warm, and I took off my coat.  Half an hour into the film,
    I put my coat back on and started shivering.  This movie made me feel
    what they were feeling; when the sun came out I felt better; when it
    snowed I shivered.
    
    I think this was the best representation of a book that a movie can
    aspire to.  It wasn't pretty, but it was real and very strong.  The
    only complaint I had was the first scene of "cannibalism" when the
    first one to eat held up an obvious piece of chicken!  Gross.
    
    All in all, I recommend this movie to adventure buffs.
    
    Leslie

    Maybe I'm just old-fashioned but I was under the impression eating
    people, even if they had conveniently died first, was morally
    reprehensible. Sort of something you don't do even to save your own
    life.
    
    So, to be asked to sympathize with these folks who ate other folks
    leaves me kind of flabbergasted.
    
    I'm also surprised at the attitude of the Catholic church indicated
    in a previous reply - but their approval doesn't really change my
    own attitude.
    
    In sum, I really don't care whether or how much of an 'adventure' it
    was; if they got to survive by eating other people, it kind of
    'taints' the adventure. How can they be regarded as 'heroic'; they
    seem kind of 'low-class'.
    
    Anybody else agree?
    
    Ken
    

    Re .5: I think your viewpoint is one that the filmmakers (and that the
    crash survivors themselves) wanted to address - to demonstrate that,
    under these circumstances, an act which many people would find
    repugnant and possibly morally reprehensible could, in fact, become
    something uplifting. Most of the reviews I've read mentioned that point
    specifically, in that the viewers were surprised at how it was all
    presented, and how un-gratuitously-horrible it was. [Um, some of the
    reviewers sounded a wee bit disappointed at this, but such is life.] It
    seems that the film didn't quite succeed in this aim as far as you were
    concerned...
    
    (For what it's worth, the suggestion that "decent" people would die (or
    let their children die) rather than save their lives through eating
    human flesh strikes _me_ as rather... morally reprehensible - though if
    people _chose_ not to take that step, even if it meant their own death,
    I'd respect their right to make that decision.)
    
    -b

  This is a topic for philosophy discussions that is almost as common as the
question about a tree making a sound if it falls in the woods with no one
around. 

  Many people do find cannibalism morally reprehensible under all circumstances.
Others, seem to feel that eating the dead is ok if it's the only way to
survive. The Catholic priest went on to say that the view of the Church was
that it was not only allowed, but required since not eating the flesh would
have been suicide, a practice not allowed by the Catholic church. 

  Discussions on eating the dead are often used in philosophy and theology
courses to introduce the topic of "The ends justifying the means". The issue
there is trying to decide if doing something morally reprehensible is justified
if in the end it makes things come out better than if the action had not been
done. 

  It's been my experience that those questions are seldom resolved and the
instructor often chuckles with glee over the frustration of those who can't
seem to win the argument one way or the other. A passing grade us usually
given to anyone who can make a strong case one way or the other or to anyone
who can explain why it is such a dilemma.

  George 

    re: .6,.7
    
    Thanks for your replies. I haven't seen the movie precisely because of
    my objections to the events described. My apologies for offending
    anyone - I confess I was astounded these moral issues weren't 
    addressed in the TV spots I saw for the movie, so maybe I was just
    trying to rectify the omission. For example, compare the horror that
    everyone seems to use to describe the Donner party cannibalism, and
    the total lack of even distaste used with this event. I got the
    distinct impression the movie was made to almost justify the events,
    rather than to examine them. The scenes from the movie that I saw in
    the previews conveyed, to me at least, the idea that the survivors
    regarded eating people's dead bodies sort of like eating cat food -
    distasteful, but what the heck. Did the movie present a more serious
    point of view of this issue?
    
    Thanks.
    
    Ken

    This discussion reminds me that at the University of Colorado, the
    student union building cafeteria is named after the famous Colorado
    cannibal Alferd [sic] Packer, who was convicted of murdering people in
    the mountains in order to survive on their flesh (he claimed they were
    dead already, but was hanged for murder.)  You gotta love that sense of
    humor.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    Re .8: Oops, somehow I'd gathered from your first reply that you _had_
    seen the movie, but you'd found that its presentation of the events did
    not change your views on the matter. (No offense taken, in any case.)
    
    Since I haven't seen it either, I'm going on hearsay, but basically,
    yes, the film's presentation - based on the book (which I _have_ read),
    based on statements made by the survivors after their rescue - does
    depict a more high-minded (and respectful) attitude about the whole
    thing. [Note: This doesn't change the fundamental horror of the
    situation, which was present in the Andes crash as well as the Donner
    debacle. That the Donner party largely lost hope, and was torn by
    dissent as well as separated by circumstances, makes its case less
    heartening and more pitiful than that of the Andes crew, who made a
    much more deliberate effort to stick together (though, to be fair, the
    Andes survivors hadn't spent the previous several months crossing the
    western plains and deserts via wagon train...).]
    
    On a less high-minded tack <the sensitive may choose to skip this>:
    
    Re .9 and Mr. Packer: Yeah, I always found that anecdote grimly
    amusing, especially the apocryphal remark by the judge: "They wasn't
    but six Democrats in the county, and you et five of 'em!" [Side note of
    interest (to me, if not to anybody else): recent forensic examination
    of the bones of the alleged victims served to confirm the verdict of
    murder; "defense wounds" on some of the hands and arms strongly
    suggested that Mr. Packer may have rushed things a bit. They were even
    able to fairly conclusively rule out the possibility that somebody else
    had done all the killing... Amazing what science can, uh, dig up, eh?]
    
    -b

    re: .10
    
    Does the movie indicate why the survivors chose cannibalism? Was it
    distaste for any airline food that survived the crash? More seriously
    (got to get a grip on myself here! :-)), were they clearly so far from
    civilization that they couldn't possibly make it back? Were they
    absolutely sure they weren't going to be rescued? How long did it take
    them in any event to make the decision? I realize the easiest answer to
    these questions is to see the flick, but for the moment my unease would
    be too great. As pointed out in a previous reply, the Donner party
    had suffered for weeks before turning to this alternative. What about
    the "Alive" party?
    
    Thanks.
    
    Ken

    Re .11: Uh, have you been reading the notes so far? Reply .3 includes
    most of the details you asked for. (If you want more info, but aren't
    prepared to try seeing the movie, you might hit the library and browse
    through one of the books or news reports on the subject; it'll be
    easier to stop reading if you encounter things you're not comfortable
    with.)
    
    The short answer is, no, it wasn't because they were tired of the
    smoked almonds. ;-)
    
    [General remark: Um, I perceive, through re-reading this string, that a
    lot of potentially spoiler-quality information has gotten posted
    sans warnings. This was mostly because my personal criteria re spoilers
    excludes fact-based stories that have been so well-publicized I assume
    people already know (i.e., spoiler warnings re who won the Civil War
    aren't necessary), or that have been presented in the previews to the
    film. However, I know some folks avoid watching previews, and may not
    be up on every news story or historical tid-bit; therefore, if anybody
    feels this _is_ excessively "spoiled," give me a nudge and I'll hide
    things.]
    
    -b

    
    Until one is dying from starvation, I find it hard to criticize the
    actions of those that were.
    
    ...walking in another man's shoes, as they say.
    
    -James
    

RE Spoilers

  I don't think that spoilers really apply here. If you were doing a movie on
the Battle of Waterloo, it wouldn't exactly be a spoiler to say that Napoleon
lost because he neglected to spike Wellington's cannon when he had the chance.

  This is a movie based on a real life news event and as someone pointed out,
it's purpose is more to show how and why things happened rather than surprising
you with any secret ending. 

  However I'll go behind the spoiler alert just in case

SPOILER


RE Why did they have to resort to cannibalism

  They had eaten all available food and were on the verge of starvation after
about a week. That was the point where they decided that they had to eat the
dead to survive. 

  As it was, they were up on the mountain above the snow line for 72 days before
being rescued. None of them would have survived if they hadn't found a food
supply. In fact, the two members of the party that left and climbed over 3-4
mountain ranges to alert the rescue party would never have been able to make
the trip without a large amount of protein. 

  Had they not done what they did, they all would have died and it probably
would have been years before anyone found their remains.

  George

>The only complaint I had was the first scene of "cannibalism" when the
>first one to eat held up an obvious piece of chicken!  Gross.
    
    I think this was intended to let the audience know that it tastes 
    just like chicken.
    
    %^)
    
    
    Very well done movie.  The plane crash is especially horrific-looking.
    
    -Rob

    More spoilers from the book (well at least my memory of the book):
    
    
       I have not seen the movie so I don't know if the following was
    covered.  I read the book years ago and I remember that the reason the
    plane crashed in the first place was probably pilot error.  The pilot
    seemed to think they were much farther over the Andes than they really
    were.  He started descending much too soon and crashed.  After the
    crash, the pilot was muttering about passing a certain city, Caracus I
    think, (which is why he started to descend).  The survivors figured they
    were on one side of the Andes when really they were on the other side. 
    When the two men crossed the Andes in 10 days, they wound up walking
    over most of the Andes. This makes the story even more incredible.
       The biggest irony was that after they were rescued, they found out
    there was hunting cabin well stocked with food about five miles from
    the crash in the opposite direction.
    
    		Bill
    
    

    I know this is rather late in the discussion, but many Roman Catholics
    take confession by drinking wine (the blood of Christ's body), and
    eating bread (the flesh) - weekly  ;-).  Symbollic cannibalism, but the
    religion's very foundation is built on it.  Curious.
    
    Carl

    There was, in fact, a book on an incidence of cannibalism following a
    small plane crash in the rockies, 10 or 20 years ago, called "The
    Sacrament."  As I recall, the people involved rationalized their
    behaviour (i.e., eating the body of a dead companion) in religious
    terms.  Author of the book was Canadian journalist/radio personality
    Peter Gzowski.
    
    -Stephen

  In the documentary I say, that was one of the reasons that the Priest gave
for the church supporting their actions. He said that his Bishop backed him
completely for the same reason.

  George

    re: .17
    
    Actually, it's communion, not confession that involves symbolic
    ingesting of wine and bread as blood and flesh (unless things have
    changed since I last indulged in either sacrament).
    
    Richard

    Oops, I meant to say communion, not confession.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Carl

    
    	To get back to more "movie" issues , I thought the crash scenes
    	itself were brilliant. After the plane eventually came to a stop
    	everyone in the audience began to talk. All around me I could
    	here people saying " thats the last time I fly ! " .
    
    	And by the way re. -0 the soccer team was actually a rugby team ,
    
    	Bill.
    
    
    	Spoiler follows :-
    	
    
    	I loved the  scene just after the crash when one guy goes up to
    	the medical student, with a piece of the plane stuck in his gut .
    	And the medical students comment later on in the film when he said
    	" you should be dead anyway " . It's a shame the guy who had the 
    	shrapnel in his stomach died in the avalanch .
    
    
    Bill

    Caught this on cable last night.
    
    Brrr.   
    
    I liked the movie, but didn't like it, if that makes sense.  Why?
    
    Because it's a rarity among movies, the kind that might give me
    nightmares.  I'm sure if my mind hadn't been busy with other things
    last night, the film *would* have influenced my sleep, so parents, feel
    warned about letting kids see this.  I'm not very easily bothered by
    movies (violence, "icky" subjects, etc...), but this one got to me. 
    Not just the cannibalism (actually, that was the least of it).
    
    The airplane crash seemed terrifically "real" -- just about enought to 
    put me off airplanes in fact.   The feeling of desperation and
    desolation carried itself off the screen and even though I *knew* that
    somebody would survive, I was pretty much sucked into the tension of it
    all anyway.  I was just gonna turn it on the movie and go wander around 
    cleaning my house as it played in the background, but then the plane
    crashed and I spent the rest of the two hours sitting on the edge of my
    couch, vacuuming totally forgotten.  
    
    Now that's riveting, to me. :)
    
    As I said before, I liked it, but it's another movie that I'm not sure
    I wanna see again anytime soon.  
    
    Great performances all around, from a largely no-name cast.  
    
    Was this filmed in the Andes?  I didn't catch it in the credits (had to
    click over to NYPD Blue :).   Beautiful scenery.  
    
    ***.5 out of ****
    
    kim  
     

    Saw this last night after a friend lent me the video and strongly
    recommended it. To be honest I wasn't all that keen to watch it as
    I knew the basic story line and thought that eating dead bodies sounded
    a bit grim. 

    I am so pleased I saw it and whats more the previous notes were very
    interesting about the real survivors and how true the film was to the
    real story.

    The plane crash was indeed spectacular and was extremely well filmed
    and must have happened in a very similar way.

    Two things stand out that made this movie work for me. Firstly, there
    were no well known actors (I found it easier to relate to the
    characters) and secondly the way certain scenes dragged
    a bit worked well as it brought home the hopeless situation they were
    in.

    One thing I would like to know though and I'll put this behind a
    spoiler -
    
    I find it hard to believe the two guys who had walked 10 days across
    the Andes could lead the helicopters straight to the crash site.
    But hey, thats what must have happened.

    Royston

RE        <<< Note 22.24 by COMICS::SHELLEY "Always with the -ve waves" >>>

Ending    spoiler -
    
>    I find it hard to believe the two guys who had walked 10 days across
>    the Andes could lead the helicopters straight to the crash site.
>    But hey, thats what must have happened.

  Well it's not clear they lead them straight to the sight, they may have
looked around a bit but they did know a few things. They knew the path the
plane was suppose to be on and they knew where the two walked out of the
mountain. You don't walk far though the Andes in 10 days.

  Once in the area, the two survivors were probably able to point out land
marks such as mountain peaks they had been looking at for several months.

  George