ALL IS LOST: The Movie

[Andrew Troup]

Originally Posted by satdiver

....this was a movie for the masses not a movie for just sailors......

Gravity was not a movie for astronauts, but that didn't stop them trying to get it right (and generally they succeeded).

Life of Pi was wildly surrealistic, and yet even that movie somehow managed not to be gratuitously or offensively unrealistic in respect of ships and the sea (or crucial issues of survival).

Whereas Tintin, while a good movie in general, was depressingly infantile in respect of depictions of ships interacting with the sea. (In contrast with Herge's original material, which captures the essence of those interactions beautifully)

The fact that "the masses" know sweet FA about anything which doesn't involve hanging out in malls and spending money they don't have for things they don't need has more than a little to do, in my opinion, with the entertainment (and now, infotainment) industries, racing to the frigging bottom. The masses have been treated like idiots for so long that now they bear more than a passing resemblance to idiots.

Spending huge amounts of money on a movie, including hiring expert consultants on how stuff (and nature) works and then ignoring them seems like a stupid wasted opportunity to redress this disconnect ...

Nobody has explained why this film would have failed the target audience if it had listened to the expert consultants. As Gravity and Life of Pi so evidently did.

End of rant.

[satdiver]

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

Nobody has explained why this film would have failed the target audience if it had listened to the expert consultants. As Gravity and Life of Pi so evidently did.

End of rant.

The film did really well at making money which is why the film industry exist. No it won't get the awards of the Movies you mentioned. Nor does it even come close to ranking against them.

I don't know how movies work to this scale but I can say when they were filming Men of Honor I knew and know every elder Navy diving consultant including Carl Brashear as he was one of my retired mentors when I was in the NEDU HM ranks. They had my suit for I reckon 6 months filming scenes. I saw the thing maybe twice in the Movie. We all knew the history of Carl and he was one of the consultants and none of it matched. I was paid I think 1k for the lease and given money to do repairs to the rig since it was damaged.

Although grossly embellished and historically inaccurate most of their diving scenes were accurate when shown and I was pretty impressed with the editing. I mention this because it's the closest I have gotten to Movie making and knowing what's going on behind the scenes. I could not imagine taking 7 hours of film cutting it into a 1 minute scene. From knowing the consultants on the movie I know they went through every tedious detail having worked with some of them.

My MCPO was also on this film and god knows you would never want all his details or no one would ever dive in the Navy again. Plus the film would have 4 hours of medical trauma. There would be a 2 hour zero vis 500fsw dive with com loss on line pulls and a rescue hose training scene where a Delta P situation is happening and the diver was maimed and duct taped to a flange. Gordon would tell us he has 8 minutes to live. Even though no one in history has completed the exercise in under 1 hour.


Here is a Movie Idea no one would Watch

We called it Gordons Decent so there is one hour of tedious attention to detail and maybe the first 10 minutes could be us playing pool in the pool hall where I'm talking about the Nurse I like and the last 10 minutes of me hooking up with the Nurse. The rest of the movie is me sleeping calling left right over and and hot and cold on the burning rod. Maybe my sat partners head gets crushed by the stage 3 hours into our tedious calculations on how to not die and get the victims body adding to Gordons random scenario that would never happen like that in real life.

In comparison that's like when techies talk about myspace vs facebook. Even the founders of myspace made several hundred million for a few years worth of work.

[Doodles]

Despite the criticisms here the real movie critics, the ones that get paid to do it, generally liked it very much. In fact the late, great Roger Ebert had this to say:

"All is Lost"'s minimalism makes it ripe for being interpreted as a blunt allegory for life. For one thing, its ending will be up for debate in years to come, seeing as it is a bold volte-face both formally and thematically. Nonetheless, it would be a real shame if discourse were to centre on the finale, because it is the entire film that is a real work of genius. Here is a formidable opus whose real spiritual relative is Tennyson's "Ulysses". Yes. "All is Lost" is that good.

[Andrew Troup]

Hmm, satdiver, thanks a lot for your thoughts, but actually your post doesn't address my question.

a) How would listening to the experts have STOPPED this movie making money?
b) Why spend money on experts if they have no intention of listening to them?

"The film did really well at making money which is why the film industry exist"

If making money is the ONLY thing anybody cares about, society is basically screwed.

Not least because the best ways of making money are to exploit vulnerabilities, whether they be human ones (like our addictive propensities) or environmental ones (like the 'infinite' capacity of the ocean to absorb trash and supply protein, or of the atmosphere to absorb emissions)

In this case, I don't know what specific vulnerability it targets, but what it does not do is acquaint us with anything authentic about the circumstances in which it is set.

If the future of the human race is to sit in darkened theatres eating popcorn from a 44 gallon drum and watching adults directed by infants, Lord take me now!

[Andrew Troup]

The late great Roger Ebert must have pretty good connections to watch, let alone publish a review for a movie released seven months after he met his maker, Doodles.

[Doodles]

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

The late great Roger Ebert must have pretty good connections to watch, let alone publish a review for a movie released seven months after he met his maker, Doodles.

Yeap, my bad. The review was from his website but someone else's review.

All Is Lost Movie Review & Film Summary (2013) | Roger Ebert

But the fact remains it has been well reviewed and a quick Google of it will bear that out. Have you seen a single review that panned it because of technical inaccuracies or panned it for any reason? I haven't. It has also been well received at film festivals.

[Coops]

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

If the future of the human race is to sit in darkened theatres eating popcorn from a 44 gallon drum and watching adults directed by infants, Lord take me now!

That is a ridiculously optimistic view of the future. You should make movies.

Coops.

[Andrew Troup]

Ok, I'll have one more try to make my point here.

Space, it seems to me, would be a fantastic location for experiments on human factors, as much as physics.

So, for that matter, would deep-water sailing be, particularly solo.

And war.

By depicting realistic 'lab conditions', and then reporting realistically on the sort of human behaviour outcomes such experiments might generate (which might be VERY disfunctional), movie-makers can offer the moviegoer the opportunity to add to their knowledge, at the bleeding edge, of both the world and of human nature.

If they fudge it for the purposes of pandering to a movie-going public whose knowledge of the world has been (mis-) shaped largely by the entertainment industry, they become part of the problem, not part of the solution. And rightly or wrongly I think it is that reflex tendency to dumb down and pander, rather than the exigencies of philosophical allegory, which are at play here.

If their excuse is the limited capacity of the public for experiments set in authentic surroundings, I charge them with being the primary cause of that limitation.

If, for example, movie studios decide en masse that it would only confuse the public if Russia and China were (correctly in the first case and de facto in the second) depicted as being on the Allied side in WWII, and accordingly they 'adjust' these insignificant details, we end up with a public which hasn't a clue about who fought against whom.

A self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Andrew Troup]

Doodles

Sorry, I glossed over addressing your point about reviewers.

If the reviewers have no way of knowing whether the context is authentic, then that is not a consideration they can assess.

The fact that they liked the film doesn't mean there is not an opportunity which has been lost, to better acquaint the 'masses' (by infinitesimal degrees) with activities and nature 'on the fringe'.

As (I would argue) Gravity did remarkably well, and AFAIK it made bundles of dosh, and the reviewers loved it.

[Doodles]

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

Doodles

Sorry, I glossed over addressing your point about reviewers.

If the reviewers have no way of knowing whether the context is authentic, then that is not a consideration they can assess.

The fact that they liked the film doesn't mean there is not an opportunity which has been lost, to better acquaint the 'masses' (by infinitesimal degrees) with activities and nature 'on the fringe'.

As (I would argue) Gravity did remarkably well, and AFAIK it made bundles of dosh, and the reviewers loved it.

I really don't think that was the writer and director's objective. If it had been then a documentary on one of the many people solo sailing around the world would have been a better choice. As I've said before, this was not a sailing movie, not about "activities and nature 'on the fringe'" as you say. It's a movie about someone in great despair and loss, and we don't know why or anything about him really, so we have to fill in the blanks ourselves. It's how we interpret everything that happens that tells us something about ourselves, and that was their objective.

[Andrew Troup]

Hmmm ... Gravity was hardly a documentary.

I wasn't suggesting an authentic setting was their objective, or that it should be a primary objective;

I'm saying I don't see how it would have harmed their objective, and wondering what they sought to achieve by (on the face of it) striving for anti-authenticity, having employed expert advice so that they knew what authenticity would look like.

But I guess you must have read my post addressed to you in isolation; I suppose I was hoping you would first read the post above it, without which it makes little sense.

[El Pinguino]

While viewing the film, as a sailor, I was nonplused, and it was only in thinking through the potential analogies, metaphors, symbolism, and allegory that I began to parse this film as having a deeper meaning in our contemporary world beyond Fukuyama's "End of History".
The elements of a civilization beyond its tipping point seem now more appropriate in relating to a possibly final journey of Man confronted with a point beyond which man is no longer essential, but buffeted by elements of a potential coming non-anthropocentric age.
"Our Man", alone and in his boat, is first confronted by the shipping container --- symbolizing a dangerous negative externality cost of a globalized market-oriented world, which provides value, but imposes unseen costs on this singular man floating on the least written of ocean in the world, and Columbus's intended destination in looking for a new world (of which there are no more in this 21st century post-nation-state world).
While the 'storm' is likely representative of more classical natural elements confrontation of man, the automatic and unchanging course of the overwhelming sized and inhuman globalized market container ships might as well have been non-manned machines immune to the suffering and desperation of "Our Man".
Redford's attempt to leverage nature to his advantage (and survival) via fishing gear in the Survival Pack draws only a predator shark rather than edible prey --- as has been the typical historical case.
And the final capitulation of Our Man is preceded by Redford's anguished cry of "God ---- ****".
Finally, the real or imagined 'hand' in the light --- well after "Our Man" had submerged too deep too long to have realistically been pulled to the safety of another passing boat, which may have been a fishing boat of men, fisher-men of Man.
I briefly thought, before looking up Chandor that John Zerzan or Ronald Wright might have been involved in the screenplay.
As a film that a sailor had difficulty squaring with experience --- I found other means of framing my understanding on this unusual tack.


Sorry - just cut and pasted that so I would look more smartish... I still think it was unadulterated *****.....

[Doodles]

Andrew, granted it could have been more authentic but I don't think that means they were striving for anti-authenticity. Why seek expert advice and then not follow it, that's something only they can answer I guess. As a sailor I certainly noticed the inaccuracies but they did not distract from my enjoyment, but then I didn't see it as a "sailing" movie.

I did read your other post above as well and I understand your argument but I think the writer and director had other objectives in mind.

[cburger]

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

The late great Roger Ebert must have pretty good connections to watch, let alone publish a review for a movie released seven months after he met his maker, Doodles.

This was very funny.

One of the things about the movie I really disliked was the complete lack of urgency by the skipper, if I would of had a hole big enough to drive a small car through in the side of my hull I would of been moving a little faster to try and stop the water flowing in and what was the deal with taking a little napypoo with the water level over the berths? I guess if art films are supposed to put you to sleep then this did its job well.

[SaltyMonkey]

I will begin my lecture today by pointing out the brilliant observation by one of my graduate students:

Originally Posted by satdiver

I was thinking while the tankers were passing him was supposed to be symbolic of the occupy movement and the big corporations ignoring the little guy in the life raft just needing to get some food, water and shelter from the sea.

What satdiver did not mention, something he did include in his final M.A. dissertation on diving mechanics, was that the beorgeou ships passing did not include any prolectariats on their decks. Hence, the lost sailor was also banished from his own social class and their struggle.

Also note that in climbing the mast he has neither the tools or the proper goal. A VHF is useless in mid ocean. He has been sent on a job that is pointless. He had been duped by brainwashing of the aristocratic classes.

Hence therefore is an underlying socialist propaganda message by Robert Redford and the Hollywood liberal establishment to brainwash sailors into taking over the government.

ALL IS LOST - a phenominology

Now, lets discuss the title of the film which is the clue to its meaning. Firstly, it is a series of anagrams:

• Sail Tolls - one must pay for the right of passage
• Stalls Oil - a shitty boat
• Laos Still - he was a war veteran w PTSS having a dream
• Ass Till Lo - an ass-hole

There is also an analogy. The late Dr. Malkolm E. Tarnishcock, chair of Harvard's Theology Dept., naval architect, and movie critic once said as he was being dragged away and arrested for having sex with two underage coeds (the girls by the way were naked and body painted as two eretmochelys imbricate turtles):

"Do not be afraid or swayed by these charges. I will be back. All is not lost."

Clearly a counter to Dr. Tarnishcock's assertion.

Sex charges were later dropped by the administration, however, he was forced to resign for drinking Johnnie Walker Black Label Deluxe Blend Scotch Whisky in his office. Imbricated they say beyond understanding.

We will return to the turtle theme later as it appears in the film in many places.

FREUDIAN and TRANSGENDER IMPLICATIONS

Let us look now at the mysogynist rape scene. Yes, the film opens with a rape scene. The male container penetrates the hull on the female starboard side. Notice 'port' like 'male' is a one syllable word, while 'star-board' like 'fe-male' is two syllable word.

Note the shape of the hole is clearly a vagina.

Also take note that no matter what he does with his epoxy, he cannot return his virginity, his innocence can never be returned. One could also view the cabin as a womb, whereince he has been forcibly aborted.

FINAL SCENE

In the final scene, a hand reaches down and it has been implied we are to judge the ending. However, this is a mistake. The ending is clear. He is alive while rescued, but then killed.

The sailors final mistake is one of celestial navigation. He misadjusted his corrections by 90 degrees. He was in fact in the middle of the Pacific ocean.

The hand reaching down to grab him was none other than the Salvadoran national castaway Jose Salvador Alvarenga on the fishing vessel Amaronoros del la Costa, who swifly tied his feet and killed him with a knife an ate him.

And what did Jose Salvador Alvarenga say was his primary diet? What did he say that he ate while lost at sea for 14 months?

Eretmochelys imbricate turtles.