Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Between the Trees: A Review
Looking at the world of climbing video, it is clear that the trend is towards the Big Up style of video. We see big names in amazing locales, the latest testpieces filmed using high-tech equipment, and a generally professional polish put on the whole thing. Yet often we are left wondering in the end about what it is exactly that is being captured. Yes there is a big show and we are left amazed but not much else.
In the very beginning of Keith Bradbury's latest film, between the trees, we hear the voice of Tyler Landman, one of the most gifted boulderers of his generation, utter these words, "I was a eagle, and I flew down, and I was a fish swimming." These lines indicate right from the start that something very interesting is going on here. This is not going to be your typical climbing movie. The introduction merges parody and comedy set in the evocative ambience of grainfields and forest. Credits roll, so minimal as to pass almost unnoticed, and we are off to Fontainebleau.
The first scene is the forest in winter as Keith walks into a dark snowy forest to try a problem called Gecko, a problem that will figure prominently elsewhere in the film. Here as in many other places in the film, atmosphere, mood and ambience play the leading role. The footage is minimally edited and the movement is natural and uncontrived. In other words what is interesting about Between the Trees is what is left out, what is left unsaid.
A gorgeous panning shot across the rise of land at Cuisinere Franchard that holds Karma leads seamlessly into Ty leaping onto the starting holds. As he completes the problem, a frozen image of Ty remains at the top while another Ty runs back down to the base. This kind of camera work could go all wrong, seem pretentious and “arty” but here it just works. Ty comments on the problem while the boulder just looms there in the background like a kind of sculpture, framed by three pines.
The setting sun shimmers on the horizon across the valley at Cuisiniere Crete as Ty finishes Duel. The light filtering through the trees provides a striking backdrop as he ruminates on the complexity of the problem. The gray-green textures of the magnificent Partage are as fascinating as the problem itself. Keith’s orange shirt is a striking accent point in a maze of crossed tree branches, mossy green walls, and the stubbly texture of fallen leaves. The problem itself is almost an afterthought.
You might say that it’s inevitable that Fontainebleau would shape the film and to a certain extent I would agree. However this emphasis on environment emerges time and again, too often to be merely coincidence. It is a trait I noticed also in Keith’s other films, a tendency to seek out subtle, understated visual environments that frame both climber and problem in the realm of the natural world in all its mystery and complexity. By way of contrast, one might refer to the old-school classic, The Real Thing, with Ben Moon and Jerry Moffat, which often literally rides roughshod over the same terrain. I wonder if Ben is performing an act of expiation by sponsoring Keith’s efforts to film Fontainebleau. It would be an appropriate gesture. Keith has truly got the real thing here.
The less artistic among you may appreciate other aspects including the sheer diversity and number of problems depicted. An eclectic soundtrack keeps things lively and unpredictable. Ty reflecting on the nature of climbing in the forest brings us back to the dual natures of Font climbing, how it is cerebral and athletic at the same time. Seated in a wheatfield, or a deserted picnic area, he reminds us of the uniquely meditative aspects of climbing. If I have one issue with the film, it’s this: Keith tie your shoelaces already!
Perhaps it is the time of year that gives this film a valedictory feel, an elegiac tone. The colors are somber, the skies mostly gray and subdued. The photographer constantly seems to reach beneath the surface to what is buried rather than what apparently meets the eye. This to me is the essence of art and what makes this film special. It is beautifully realized in the sequence featuring Elephunk, where the problem is immaculately captured at close range and then the view is lengthened to reveal piles of stacked piles of logs, dead objects in front of the living forest, the climber caught between these two states of being. This is an extraordinary moment in climbing film, in my view, and one that deserves real recognition.
The film closes on an ambivalent note for both climbers. Keith faces down failure on the sit-start to Gecko, a situation any serious climber can recognize. He can clearly do the problem but for whatever reason, cannot actually finish it. An intensity of emotion emerges here, not one rooted in success but in frustration. It feels like a doomed relationship and indeed in some footage not included in the film itself (I wish it had been; it is in the Extras) Keith really goes, as he put it, “close to the bone.” Ty finishes on a high note climbing-wise but followers of this immensely talented climber have seen him retire from the world of high-end bouldering. He decided not long after the filming, that at least for now, climbing full-time is not for him, and went to college instead. So for both, there is a sense of incompleteness, again understated and implied; a redemption postponed for Keith, a quest in different directions for Ty.
Keith tried asking for donations with his last film and apparently got 20 of them out of 1000+ downloads of the L’Etranger video. This film deserves much more support and recognition than that. It is quite literally the best climbing film I have seen in years and Keith should be rewarded for taking the genre in new and important directions. So go to his website and find out how you can purchase this work and support authentic climbing films.
I will be posting an interview with Keith later this week, including some words from Tyler as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
I couldn't have said it better, kudos to you and Keith.
Great review Peter. Everything I've seen and read makes me really want to see this movie!
Great review. I can't wait til my copy comes in the mail! I wish there were more climbing movies made like this.
Best climbing movie I've ever seen. You reference some older films which you feel are on par. I only started climbing about 2 years ago and other than this I have really only been exposed to "Big Up" style films. I was wondering if you have any recommendations. I really enjoyed the review. Thanks.
And I also wanted to let you know I appreciate your role in the climbing community. I think Deadpoint is being rather insensitive and short sighted. Keep up the good work. It is people like yourself who, through rational dialogue and personal achievement, really help the sport grow. It is mature people who are able to do more than one thing (ie. climbing) that are the pillars of our sport.
Cheers
Matt
Claiming that a bouldering movie, shot at ground level, is "the best climbing movie of recent years", is like claiming that a movie about snorkeling, shot from the boat without underwater cameras/footage, is the best scuba movie. It probably is the best bouldering feature - wouldn't doubt it having seen L'etranger - but there's no way this is a climbing movie.
Saying that this bouldering movie, consisting of footage shot at ground level of people who are never more than 4 meters off the deck, is "the best climbing film in recent memory" is like saying that a snorkeling movie, shot from the boat and without any underwater footage, is the best scuba movie. It probably is the best bouldering movie of recent years (a backhanded compliment at best considering the competition), but really...why not just call it what it is?
Hi Anonymous,
You may have your own definitions of what "climbing" and "climbing film" consists of and that's fine. However, from both the tone and substance of your comment, you neither understand nor would care to understand what this film was about. So don't watch it and don't worry about what you're missing.
Not sure what you mean by "my own definition"...if this not a bouldering movie than what is?
Sure it's a bouldering movie. Does that make it not a climbing movie as well? Or does that start at 5 meters off the deck?
Again, why not just call it what it is, a bouldering movie? What's the problem with that?
Peter,
Why is it that every time someone disagrees with you or makes a point you don't approve of you attack them? I am betting this post will be followed by much of the same.
Why do I attack people who disagree with what I say? Besides the fact that I can't really attack an anonymous poster anyway, I find that some readers interpret disagreement as attack, especially when they can't find sufficient grounds for defending their stated positions. Anonymity generally speaks for itself in these situations. Feel free to argue your point "in person."
To get back to the main premise, I call BTT a climbing film,because, as Ben Moon noted a long time ago, "bouldering is the essence of climbing." I agree with this statement. Characterizing the film I reviewed as comparable to snorkeling versus scuba is a misleading analogy in my view so I will argue the point.
What difference does a name make in determining if someone is posting anonymously? How do you know if they're using their real name? And again, why not just call it a bouldering movie? Because you can't find sufficient grounds for defending your stated position? If boudering is the essence of climbing then why not just call it bouldering? Why describe the essence of something in general terms if it really is the essence?
Re: posting anonymously. The issue is not whether I know your name; it's whether you feel strongly enough about what you say to have the courage to use your own name. I have yet to see a single anonymous poster come back and attach a name to their post. BTW, I publish all comments positive and negative, anonymous or not, and occasionally edit for length or profanity as I see fit. The exception is the obvious irrelevant personal attack. That you can do on your own blog.
Coming back to the issue of terminology. Let's unpack the paragraph slowly.
>>And again, why not just call it a bouldering movie? Because you can't find sufficient grounds for defending your stated position?
I think I made it clear enough already. Here's a syllogism for you.
1. A film documents an activity of some kind through moving pictures.
2.Bouldering is an activity that is a form of climbing.
3.A film focusing on a form of climbing is by definition a climbing film. QED
>>If boudering is the essence of climbing then why not just call it bouldering?
Do you mean I should call all forms of climbing bouldering? Are you referring to the film again? The point is that climbing is the act that all the sub-disciplines have in common. Hence this film is not "just" about bouldering. Here's another syllogism.
1. The essence of something is its purest form.
2. Bouldering is a form of climbing rocks that requires nothing beyond a climber and a climb
3. Bouldering is the purest form of climbing rocks and hence its essence. QED
>>Why describe the essence of something in general terms if it really is the essence?
Well this is verging on the metaphysical but I will have a go. The essence of something is necessarily abstracted from the particular circumstances of its phenomenal existence. To approach the essence is to approach the general. I would defer to Plato on this one with his theory of the Forms. From my viewpoint, the Form or Idea of climbing is best apprehended in terms of bouldering. If you really want to understand climbing (see syllogism 2 above) then go bouldering. Everything else in climbing stems from it and gains in particularity as it drifts away from its essence.
"The issue is not whether I know your name; it's whether you feel strongly enough about what you say to have the courage to use your own name."
Which you have no way of confirming anyway. Might want to consult with Plato a little more on that logic thing...
"If you really want to understand climbing then go bouldering. Everything else in climbing stems from it and gains in particularity as it drifts away from its essence."
Yet you flinch at naming a movie of it as such, become defensive towards anyone who does so, and are demonstrably incapable of forming logical rationale for either impulse. Interesting. Must be awful to be so into something, have so many strongly held misconceptions about it, and flail so pretentiously and embarrassingly when asked for a simple explanation.
"to approach the essence is to approach the general"
oh...I understand perfectly now...glad we sorted that one out...
What utter gibberish
Indeed.
As our joints creak, certain sounds are but memories, and days gone by are certainly more numerous than days to come, we create a "golden age" that olny we can understand because it never really was. Give us this and we might forgive you for being young and strong and without perspective on being us.
_an old guy
from Oldguy
"As our joints creak, certain sounds are but memories, and days gone by are certainly more numerous than days to come, we create a "golden age" that only we can understand because it never really was. Give us this and we might forgive you for being young and strong and without perspective on being us."
Superbly and beautifully put. Thank you. I feel I am somewhere between the two states you describe, no longer young, not quite old. In defining where the "Golden Age" is, perhaps JM Barrie put it best, "Second to the right and straight on till morning."
Post a Comment