ALL IS LOST: The Movie

[mbianka]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

However - I do want his mid starboard cabin locker. That thing seemed to be magically huge. It seemed every time he needed something from bosuns chair to jib to 6 man raft it came outta that same locker - LOL

They had the set designers redo the interior of three boats the same. I'm sure they planned things to make sure everything would fit just right:
THE BIANKA LOG BLOG: ALL IS LOST: THE MAKING OF THE MOVIE

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by mbianka

They had the set designers redo the interior of three boats the same. I'm sure they planned things to make sure everything would fit just right:
THE BIANKA LOG BLOG: ALL IS LOST: THE MAKING OF THE MOVIE

The link to the set designer was pretty cool

"His steadfastness, in the face of unrelenting
adversity, is riveting. But with each onslaught, there
is a reduction. The sea and the sky slowly advance in
the battle. The forces of Nature at work against Our
Man are on an extraordinary scale. As he exhausts
his resources, we the audience, along with him,
begin to realize the stakes, and the inevitability of his
succumbing."

This is a powerful snippet - The boat is a collection of resources. Managing those resources as things go bad is key.

If this was a sailing movie at all it showed how not to manage the limited resources at one's disposal while at sea.

[mbianka]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

The link to the set designer was pretty cool

"His steadfastness, in the face of unrelenting
adversity, is riveting. But with each onslaught, there
is a reduction. The sea and the sky slowly advance in
the battle. The forces of Nature at work against Our
Man are on an extraordinary scale. As he exhausts
his resources, we the audience, along with him,
begin to realize the stakes, and the inevitability of his
succumbing."

This is a powerful snippet - The boat is a collection of resources. Managing those resources as things go bad is key.

If this was a sailing movie at all it showed how not to manage the limited resources at one's disposal while at sea.

I think that's why I always felt more comfortable with having backups where I can. For example I have a number of ways to charge the batteries solar, wind and generator. All have their separate controllers and operate independently. Like wise I have a chart plotter and also carry charts etc... Never liked having everything in one basket. I call them backups but, I guess they are also resources that I can turn to when in need.

[Turnone]

Read every post and agree with many.

I watched the movie twice. Was bored during the first and didn't pay as close attention. Waited a couple of months and watched again.

I can suspend disbelief and all that for a movie and some technical errors can be overlooked.

What I just couldn't do was relate to the main character. Most people have never been in an emergency situation and it's hard to say how someone will react. But, I believe you can generalize how most will react to the collision, especially someone sailing single handed in the middle of the ocean:
1. Panic - run around freaking out, etc.
2. Give up or not know what to do - fear induced panic but immobilized and unable to perform any necessary task.
3. Hustle - start doing tasks immediately, maybe not in the perfect order but helpful and measured none the less.

Put me in #3 for all situations so far presented in my adult life.

So many items listed in this thread that just seemed like 'common sense' for most folk weren't employed by the main character.

My biggest one, besides the obvious lack of urgency at the flooding, was the falling asleep in a boat full of water. Just no way.

Thanks to this thread I'm ordering 'adrift'.

[Steadman Uhlich]

We all see things differently.

When I watched ALL is Lost, I saw a story of a man faced with survival conditions and a "man against the sea" type of plot.

In the film ALL IS LOST, I see a story about an active man who must save himself and survive until the point where he comes in contact with another boat.

I think ALL is LOST is a much better film than several other recent Hollywood "sea story" movies (e.g. "Captain Phillips," "The Perfect Storm") for any sailor to see and a much better story (even if the person watching is not a sailor).

The film's title "All is Lost" is also a key to understanding the point of the film. As I see it, the film's message is that even when all appears lost, one must try to survive and never give up. I think THAT message is much better for people to see, rather than "call the Navy in to rescue me."

I also recognize that ALL IS LOST is a daring movie in the sense that it has only ONE character and almost no spoken words (i.e. no dialog) and no narration. That presents a challenge to the viewer. And, the action is slower paced. For these reasons and others, it is a film that is very different from the usual Hollywood action movie. I am surprised it was even made. But I admire the courage of the film maker for making it and can understand why it is admired by many film critics.

Some sailors complain about the perceived mistakes seen in All is Lost. From my point of view, that is part of the story and part of what makes it more interesting and "real." Real people make mistakes. Even highly experienced sailors make mistakes. Then some sailors have to deal with the consequences alone. I say "some" as many simply buy their way out of the consequences (e.g. by repairing or replacing broken gear, or by having insurance pay for the damages or loss) or they simply ignore the mistakes they make or blame others with "Did you see what that fool did?"

For those that complain about the "seamanship" mistakes made by the character, I think it should be clear that this is not a film about how to sail. It is a story, and one that uses a situation at sea as a context.

I have seen forum comments about All is Lost where sailors complain that they would never do some of the things Redford does in the movie. I find that understandable and also laughable. For we all respond to challenges differently and I know that every sailor makes mistakes, but usually they do not admit them (if they even recognize them). IF there were a camera following each of us, I have no doubt that almost anything we do in our lives would be subject to harsh criticism if viewed in closeup detail by an audience who can freely criticize it based on their own rules, experience, or habits.

Part of the success of any drama is to get the audience to question what they would do IF they were in the same situation as the characters/actors. Put another way, getting the audience to ask themselves, "What would I do" or to reach some conclusion such as "I would have done it differently" is all part of making a drama and good story telling or film making. So, I think ALL IS LOST is a much better drama.

Redford's character is defined by his actions (and slower pacing is still a form of action and even "inaction" is still a matter of choice of action or not) rather than by dialog with another actor. And there is no other character in the film from which to judge the MAN (Redford's character) and no other characters to help the audience to feel "loss."

Compare that with typical Hollywood films that have a love interest that is used in the movie to tug at our heart strings or have time devoted to sentimentality or love relationships. For example, in Tom Hanks' "Castaway" movie, he longed for his woman (and later his lost Wilson) when he felt he lost her (and she was presented as his love in the early part of the movie). Those plot devices are used to get the audience to like the character. In All is Lost, there is no use of those plot devices to get us to like the Man/Redford. This is another challenge this filmmaker took on and I admire that too.

All is Lost does not use another character to portray "loss" and the Man/Redford is not seemingly distressed, even by his loss of his boat (something that would probably seem to be a great loss to most forum members). His stoic responses are definitely more challenging to the audience, compared to a film character going hysterical or angry. Redford's character is also surviving for reasons other than to get back to his wife or kids or girlfriend. There is no sentimentality as was shown in the Castaway movie or the Capt Phillips movie or the Perfect Storm movie.

Most importantly, the film's audience is forced to try to understand the MAN and what he is thinking (without any narration) and what he will do to survive. This requires a more active imagination (or more work) on the part of the audience. That is what the filmmaker creates with his scenario. Some will like that, some will not.
_________

I have a question for everyone:

Considering how each man responded to the challenges he faced (one fictional, one based on some documented account), "Which sailor (Redford/Man or Hanks/CaptPhillips) would you rather sail with on a two-handed voyage across a sea?"

[Rustic Charm]

_________

Originally Posted by Steady Hand

We all see things differently. I have a question for everyone:

Considering how each man responded to the challenges he faced (one fictional, one based on some documented account), "Which sailor (Redford/Man or Hanks/CaptPhillips) would you rather sail with on a two-handed voyage across a sea?"

Wow, you really got carried away.

Two handed sail? Tom Hanks.... Much better looking.

[Steadman Uhlich]

[/QUOTE]Wow, you really got carried away.

Two handed sail? Tom Hanks.... Much better looking. [/QUOTE]


Yes...as I thought about some of the negative remarks/comments posted about the movie, I just thought a counterpoint would be fun to write while enjoying cup of Chai.

And, I like both Hanks and Redford as actors.

[Rustic Charm]

I get what your asking, but quite frankly there isn't enough information on either to answer that question. I certainly would not have gone out on a two handed sail with the 'character' Redford was playing on his boat and him as skipper. Definitely not. He portrays the kind of skipper that gets in big trouble, which if course he did.

As for who Tom Hanks portrays. Well, simply have no idea about the real life person and his sailing knowledge or personality to know. There is a massive difference in being a skipper of a 5000T container ship and of a 10T sail boat.

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by tedsherrin

_________



Wow, you really got carried away.

Two handed sail? Tom Hanks.... Much better looking.

Really?


I was thinking more like Selma Hayek or Sophia Vergara. Witty, charming, intelligent, decent looking and with their own PFDs. I'm hoping they can cook and clean, too.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by socaldmax

Really?


I was thinking more like Selma Hayek or Sophia Vergara. Witty, charming, intelligent, decent looking and with their own PFDs. I'm hoping they can cook and clean, too.

Who are they?

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by Steady Hand

We all see things differently.

I have a question for everyone:

Considering how each man responded to the challenges he faced (one fictional, one based on some documented account), "Which sailor (Redford/Man or Hanks/CaptPhillips) would you rather sail with on a two-handed voyage across a sea?"

Redford. But I'd also bring along my own EPIRB.

Excellent analysis, Steady Hand! If you read the reports of actual shipwrecks, you'll see at least as many (often colossal) mistakes made by very experienced and capable skippers. Here's a good place to start: Sinking of Tall Ship Bounty.

I know we all like to think we're perfect. The truth is we're not. Sailing tends to draw some skippers who like the "Captain is God" mystique. Those are the ones I don't sail with. A good skipper listens to his crew and practices modern bridge resource management. When single-handing, that "crew" is your own conscience and intuition.

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by tedsherrin

Who are they?

Nobody you'd be interested in, apparently.

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by Steady Hand

I have a question for everyone:

Considering how each man responded to the challenges he faced (one fictional, one based on some documented account), "Which sailor (Redford/Man or Hanks/CaptPhillips) would you rather sail with on a two-handed voyage across a sea?"

I don't think I would choose either one but I would sail with either one if I had to.

Redford - On the plus side that guy can get 1000 pounds of crap in one hanging locker. On the downside that guy was way too chatty and would drive me crazy after a week or so.

Hanks - On the plus side he's the guy the skinnys would take hostage for ransom. On the downside while he is handsome and all he is definitely no Eva Mendes (Google it tedsherrin - you won't be disappointed - LOL)

[Steadman Uhlich]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

When single-handing, that "crew" is your own conscience and intuition.

I agree with you and like your point above.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

I don't think I would choose either one but I would sail with either one if I had to.

Redford - On the plus side that guy can get 1000 pounds of crap in one hanging locker. On the downside that guy was way too chatty and would drive me crazy after a week or so.

Hanks - On the plus side he's the guy the skinnys would take hostage for ransom. On the downside while he is handsome and all he is definitely no Eva Mendes (Google it tedsherrin - you won't be disappointed - LOL)

Eva Mendes -