One thing I take away from the film is this: it’s perhaps too easy of us at sea level to judge climbers who are making life and death decisions at high altitude, in extreme conditions, struggling with exhaustion, deprived of oxygen and sleep.

My uncle, who was a World War II vet, used to tell me that he saw some terrible acts committed by the Allies and the Germans in Europe. He never justified them, other to say that these acts were almost impossible to understand as a civilian back in the US.

Without overstating the comparison, I came away from the film feeling that there was a similar ‘disconnect’ between the judgments made climbers and those of us here in the chattering classes.

I’ve been in some sketchy situations on mountains – but nothing that comes close to this.

For one, Breashears never actually appears in his own film. Ed Viesturs stars in the film, and the co-star is a Sherpa – the son of Tenzing Norgay. In that sense, then Breashears is one of those who ‘humbly’ lugs junk to the top for no glory besides the name in the credits (and a picture of him that runs with the credits, too). The film is more of a story than a documentary, even though it seems to aspire to be a documentary. In it, Viesturs says the purpose of the trip is to put some sort of geological tool on top of Everest – as if that is all there is to it. It’s obviously not the real purpose, but they apparently didn’t want to admit in the film that the purpose of the trip was to take pictures of a trip.

It was admittedly a bit of a weak spot in the film, and that unreality may be what prompted Breashears to make the comments he does regarding his new film at the end of that National Geographic interview:

“I think it’s the first real film I’ve ever made.”

Hope you don’t mind my outburst. I enjoyed reading and replying to your post.