Steep: Glorifying extreme risk taking?

From what I read online I thought the documentary Steep was going to focus on the realities and historical aspects of big mountain ski mountaineering. If the trailer on Youtube is representitive of the movie, I must be wrong.



I don't think there's anything wrong with this trailer, but it's not what I expected.

I saw some old people, that means it's historical.
I saw some avalanches, that means it's real.
I didn't see nature valley granola bars, that means it's a documentary.

From the trailer it does look like it has lots of ski footage (probably appropriate) and definitely features some interviews with skiers who were stoked with what they had done, or were doing (hard to avoid unless you search high and low for the disgruntled). But who knows, there could be quite a few segments showing the brutal realities that come with flirting with nature's cold unbridled slopes.

From what I read online I thought the documentary Steep was going to focus on the realities and historical aspects of big mountain ski mountaineering.

Hmm, I see what you mean. The trailer sure doesn't market it that way.

A documentary should describe the preparation needed to pursue big mountain skiing safely and successfully. The trailer doesn't do that--but then maybe it's just a trailer.

The trailer explicitly portrays high-risk skiing as a way to give meaning to an otherwise drab and unfullfilling life. As if we need more of that crapola...

Steep is definitely more of a documentary than that trailer makes it appear. I'm not big on ski stoke films, but I enjoyed this movie.

It is coming to Seattle. This if from the documentary group's website:

JANUARY 18, 2008

BERKELEY, CA - Shattuck 8
PALO ALTO, CA - Cinearts @ Palo Alto Square
SAN DIEGO, CA - Ken
SAN FRANCISCO, CA - Lumiere Cinemas 3
SAN JOSE, CA - Cinearts at Santana Row
SAUSALITO, CA - Marin Three
BOULDER, CO - Century 16
EVANSTON, IL - Cinearts 6
CAMBRIDGE, MA - Kendall Square Cinema 9
MINNEAPOLIS, MN - Lagoon Theatre 5
PHILADELPHIA, PA - Ritz at the Bourse 5
SEATTLE, WA - Varsity three Cinemas

seems like 'ski mountaineering' and 'big mountain skiing' aren't necessarily very compatible topics for the same movie....I'm kinda curious to see the movie and how they mix the two. If done well it could be interestering to see the story from how we've gone from Bill Brigg's descent of the Grand to the current state of heli accessed descents in Alaska and elsewhere.

The reason these films aren't depicted realistically is because no one wants to watch 2 hours of someone skinning up hill followed by 5 minutes of skiing. Helicopters and parachutes are much more photogenic.

For what its worth, I'm buying the DVD as soon as it comes out! I'm impressed at the fortitude of these folks.

From what I read online I thought the documentary Steep was going to focus on the realities and historical aspects of big mountain ski mountaineering. If the trailer on Youtube is representitive of the movie, I must be wrong.

I don't think there's anything wrong with this trailer, but it's not what I expected.

You're mixing two totally different sports.

1. Big Mountain Skiing=Heli Skiing, Dropped off from the heli

2. Ski Mountaineering=Climbing and then skiing.

This movie looks like it will be about Big Mountain Skiing. Shane McConkey, Ingrid Backstrom, Seth Morrison all sponsored skiiers, not really considered mountaineers.

Actually, I think it's the producers who are mixing these two sports. The things I've read indicate that the documentary includes interviews with people like Bill Briggs and Lou Dawson. It will be interesting to see whether the producers keep straight the difference between these two games.

I noticed a review of the film on the NY Times website. It's interesting to see how the film is perceived by somebody who has no stake in the modern ski scene:

Talk About Slippery Slopes

By STEPHEN HOLDEN

Published: December 21, 2007

One of the daredevils in "Steep," a documentary about extreme skiing, insists he is not hooked on the adrenaline rush of this death-defying sport.  His denial is hard to believe.

In one scene after another of this movie, written and directed by Mark Obenhaus, skiers hurtle down slopes at angles of 55 degrees or greater and leap off precipices into the unknown. The tiniest miscalculation, we are repeatedly told, could result in death.

The sport's practitioners -- addicts might be a better word -- would rather talk about how extreme skiing puts them totally in the moment and gives them an appreciation of life so acute it makes this sport, which has a high fatality rate, worth pursuing at all costs. There is a lot of mystical mumbo jumbo about how mountains are living, breathing things whose moods must be gauged before you venture onto their slopes; on a bad day a grouchy mountain can bite back.

Behind it all is the same competitive spirit that disciples of religious cults dish out to the uninitiated. The proselytizer fervently believes that he or she (but usually he) has a richer life than his unenlightened audience. That may be why "Steep" so often sounds like a promotional film.

Stephen Holden scores a bullseye!

If anyone caught the NBC nightly news yesterday 12/23, they did a story on "Extreme Skiing" and why folks did it. The story didn't really come to any conclusion other then an apparent excuse to question why people do such "dangerous things". By the end of the report the true reason came out. That was to introduce the new movie Steep. I was a bit baffled - a common problem when watching TV news - about the reason for the story line leading up to the movie. But it did make the news.

The movie does mix two sports although the heli drop boys and girls would like you to believe that it is a natural progression to ride to the top of the hill on a bird. The surfing crowd did the same thing with jet ski tow ins. (Riding giants is a much better movie in my opinion.)

I enjoyed the sections with Briggs, the sections on skiing steep alpine lines in the alps and Dawson's sections. The rest of it just seemed like another ski porn movie. The was an attempt to weave in Doug Coomb's story to personalize it but it didn't work for me.

It was a visually enjoyable film but wasn't that emotionally compelling. I would like to see it on the big screen.

I don’t know about you guys but I usually cringe at these movies attempts to define what people get out of so called extreme sports. I have been involved with a couple of sports that became less fun as they became more popular. It took a bit of reflection to understand why that was. There isn’t fame or money or respect in riding the backcountry. Most of us don’t ride down a mountain to a crowd of cheering fans but in the absence of all those things you can usually find the freedom to do whatever you want. So until these film makers and marketers learn that they are essentially trying to sell freedom (is that possible?) they will keep missing the point. I find these types of movies are best with just a soundtrack or on mute.

There isn’t fame or money or respect in riding the backcountry. Most of us don’t ride down a mountain to a crowd of cheering fans but in the absence of all those things you can usually find the freedom to do whatever you want...

I agree with what you say--for most backcountry skiers. But for skiers in a film like this, I think there are other motivations at play. The elephant in the room, the one that nobody will talk about, is the quest for prestige. I think it's a big motivator for the kinds of stunts you see in these films. The ski community bestows prestige upon people who take risks and survive them.

This is basic human nature. In fact it is also present in the animal kingdom. It's called "signaling," the display of fitness by taking risks that are not strictly necessary. Some evolutionary biologists believe that signaling explains altruism. Why do creatures (including people) risk their own well-being to help others who are not family? Because it signals their fitness and increases their prestige in the community. In the case of altruism (think of a volunteer fireman, for example) the behavior benefits the community at large. In the case of extreme sports, it doesn't.

This model provides the best explanation I've found for some of the really stupid things you see smart people saying in these films when they are interviewed. The cheerful fatalism with which people brush off the risks they've taken increases their aura of superhuman fitness. And many of the skiers who watch these films eat this stuff up. At least that's been my impression when I visit some of the other skier forums out there.

Interesting stuff. Well even with all that said I am sure it will be on my netflix queue before too long.

This is basic human nature. In fact it is also present in the animal kingdom. It's called "signaling," the display of fitness by taking risks that are not strictly necessary. Some evolutionary biologists believe that signaling explains altruism. Why do creatures (including people) risk their own well-being to help others who are not family? Because it signals their fitness and increases their prestige in the community. In the case of altruism (think of a volunteer fireman, for example) the behavior benefits the community at large. In the case of extreme sports, it doesn't.

Perhaps people see a powerful illustration of the will to experience and enjoy all that life offers, even in the face of the ultimate consequence. It's a powerful metaphor for life in general; a testament to the human spirit. There's a value in there somewhere (IMO!).

...and plenty of thin lines and slippery slopes, highlighted with hyperbole. But that doesn't mean that the value isn't there.

Trolling:

An interesting response to this 'extreme' ski culture phenomenon might be for someone to produce a documentry on the documentry. i.e. a film following the life and times of some Bellingham twin-tip skier or boarder who watches this video among others and gets it into his head to live a life of risk and crime on the steeps at Mt. Baker. It could include several shots of this boarder going head first over the various cliff bands at baker... maybe one of him getting stuck on a 100 footer and being belayed and rescued by the Mt. Hood ski patrol, and a shot of him starting a major slide only to be partially buried with a broken leg, only to show him in the hospital getting it cast and getting right back out there to self test the avi-lung, the new back-pack balloon thingy while navigating Coleman glacier in a whiteout with an advanced GPS system that feeds hidden cravasse information right into his eye-balls.

Perhaps people see a powerful illustration of the will to experience and enjoy all that life offers, even in the face of the ultimate consequence.  It's a powerful metaphor for life in general; a testament to the human spirit.   There's a value in there somewhere (IMO!).

There must be value for the person doing it, otherwise they wouldn't bother. But what other people see is harder to say. The New York Times reviewer saw a death-defying sport pursued by a cult-like group addicted to danger. I would guess that what people see depends on whether they are (or would like to be) in the cult or not.

I don't see extreme skiing as a way to experience all that life offers. It's impossible to experience all that life offers. There's not enough time. You have to make choices. Is extreme skiing a richer experience than, say, being a teacher or an artist or a parent?

I've skied must-not-fall slopes and I've skied safe-and-sane slopes, and I don't recall that there was anything superior about the former. To my recollection, the only difference between them was that on the must-not-fall slope I was aware of the imminent possibility of violent death. Looking back, I don't see that as a big plus.

Risk is a relative thing, and it's a little surprising to see this thread and the attitude from some that risk taking(related to extreme skiing) is stupid and prideful. I think that all of us who participate in backcountry snow sports take a good number of risks, from close encounters with trees and holes to skiing that line that's just a little steeper or more exposed than we're comfortable with. Is it more dangerous to climb into a heli in the mountains with a trained pilot or hop in the skiier train on Hwy 2 on a day when the roads are snowy and high school is not in session? How about skiing a 50 degree slope at 60 mph with a chopper and half a dozen potential rescuers, or skiing a 40 degree slope deep in the Cascades with one other skier who has limited resources to respond to an accident, or skiing inbounds alone (or not) during a storm/snow cycle that's gobbling up unseen NARSID victims in treewells? There are reasons beyond prestige for taking risks, and reasons beyond adrenaline. The athletes in Steep are experienced professionals who have a clear understanding of the risks they are taking.

Bump: this film opens at the Varsity in seattle on friday. I'm going to try to make it at some point this weekend.

"We plunged right into The Cascades. The first real mountain I climbed was Mt. St. Helens , in 1977- just three years before the top of it blew off. It was 9,677' tall , this beautiful cylindrical volcano. Even though it was just a walk up , we were on glaciers, roped up, using crampons and ice axes. On the summit, I knew, THIS IS IT! This was what I was looking for. This was the greatest thing in the world." P 57 1st paragraph

Quote from Ed Viesturs-No Shortcut to The Top

I think it is simple. Most people love being in the mountains. In whatever form of sport. It's the shear beauty that attracks people.

I know of a couple who were potato farmers in North Dakota. They came out here 20 years ago to vacation. When they retired, they moved to Washington permanately because of "the beautiful mountains."

Last year , flying back from Indianapolis, after watching the Indy 500, and enduring almost perfectly flat land, a group of women, from Indianapolis, were oohing and ahhing about the "snow capped volcanos". It was comical to listen to them try and identify each one as we flew in to Seattle. They thought Mt. Adams was Mt. St. Helens, LOL!

I have lived in Washington all my life. I love the mountains. And probably don't realize how special they really are until someone from the outside drools over them.

saw " steep " the last weekend in december down in portland. worth the price just to see briggs... and the avy that caught ...wait you need to see the film

But for skiers in a film like this, I think there are other motivations at play. The elephant in the room, the one that nobody will talk about, is the quest for prestige. I think it's a big motivator for the kinds of stunts you see in these films. The ski community bestows prestige upon people who take risks and survive them.

I think Lowell has a good point here.  As an example, look at some of the TR's in this forum.  Rather than provide information on the conditions in various areas, they often appear to be no more than self-aggrandizement and posturing, or "look what I did" and (implicitly) "what you didn't."  Often accompanied by the hackneyed and over-used adjectives:  "epic", "blower pow", etc., etc.   Much like what you might hear in the bar after a day of area skiing.  I've been guilty of this myself, but try to restrain myself, or at least question my motives when I'm telling someone about my day. That being said, it is nice to be published, even if it is only the Internet.   

Rather than provide information on the conditions in various areas, they often appear to be no more than self-aggrandizement and posturing, or "look what I did" and (implicitly) "what you didn't."  Often accompanied by the hackneyed and over-used adjectives:  "epic", "blower pow", etc., etc.   Much like what you might hear in the bar after a day of area skiing.  

I've been noticing the same trend, but am sheepish to point it out since I too am guilty of involvement at times. Thanks for breaking the ice.

Many are still reporting on snow conditions and stability tests, etc. as they always have and that is appreciated. What about those who aren't? Are people doing the stability work and not sharing it, or just not doing it at all? There seems to be a cultural shift in numbers here, which is too bad, but probably inevititable with something as enjoyable as backcountry skiing/riding. Granted, as a former decade-plus long Alpental pass holder who switched to AT, I am certain there are many freeheeling fingers pointing to me as part of the...let's say "newer dynamic". But when I came to this site it was pretty clear what its values are and I still agree with them. As far as I understand it, it is a community that shares vital trip information with safety and building a knowledge base at heart... As a matter of fact, I think the site started as a tool for gathering detailed weather info. Pretty much nuts and bolts stuff needed to make informed decisions about backcountry travel.

Again, there is still meat on the bone in many reports. This combined with the eye candy these folks post keeps me checking in regularly. I think that many of us new timers need to remember that this sport comes with big responsibilities and that we can learn a lot (including how to write a helpful trip report) by paying attention to foundational culture of the site.

Good thread drift, Bill. The difference between "stoke" and information differentiates TAY from TGR -- or, at least, it used to.

Most "TR"'s that are crossed posted here and there belong there. As a matter of fact, I think that cross-posting trip reports is almost always a misguided failure to recognize your audience.

Lest there be too much lamenting about the passing of the good old days, let me comment that the content of the site is (right now) incredibly informative from the point of view of a newcomer, and very useful such as for picking up a trip/partner.

Also, there are two very different kinds of stoke:

1) Look at this crazy (dangerous, thrilling, etc) thing I did and survived!
2) Look at these wonders of nature that we were privileged to see

TAY seems to mostly have the latter, and what's wrong with that?

Extreme skier dies during film jump
sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/more/01/2...p/index.html?cnn=yes

Hmmm... only the second skier to die in Warren Miller filming.   Frankly I wish Warren Miller would move away from cliff jumping.   I think I was watching Jaimie Pierre do a world record jump...  He just skied off a cliff and flopped onto his back for a record jump.  And the point is?  Warren Miller Off the Grid?  I believe. not sure, but I can find it if need be.

It's interesting how these questions arise in more than one thread at once.

I saw Steep and enjoyed it immensely.  One of my favorite parts was De Benedetti saying how he felt, "like a little superman."  I can identify with that and it's an amazing feeling.  The times I most remember that feeling, there weren't any cameras anywhere nearby other than my own.

Now what about this stoke vs info question?  The info I find most useful is the info about good snow conditions - where the turns are nice.  But even that is subject to change on timescales much smaller than a day, which would generally be the quickest response time. 

Seasonal conditions could also be useful over the course of years.  That'll depend on the year. 

Often the avy conditions are only marginally useful.  That can change so quickly.  Who here would want someone to venture into risky terrain based on their assessment of stability some days prior?  Not me.

I will say this for stoke: it's everlasting.  I can look at the same beautiful shot of skiing powder snow and get excited, over and over - days, weeks, months, years later.  I can also reminisce, sometimes most vividly by reading what I wrote (to post on the web and say "look at me"!?) about a particularly risky situation and relive that excitement.  It's better than a cup of coffee.  It adds great value to days of my life when I can't be doing exactly what I want, year after year. 

Sky brought this up to me, the idea that this site is about conditions. What I post, though, once every few months are reports that aren't about conditions, but more about my thrill of going to amazing places. It's what excites me and I enjoy sharing it. More importantly, I like sharing it here, because I know many of you and know that you guys can relate. 

Like I mentioned on powderherbs thread; I like to see long TR's that tell a story about your own personal excitement and experience. But, this site was created to share conditions. To me I'm conflicted. Conditions to me change every day; I could care less about reading about the conditions from yesterday. They are fluid.

Anyhow, different people write or post very different stories. Some may glorify their risk taking (not often), some may tell the history (like skoog does) and others tell about the emotion and experience i.e., thrill, fascination, or fear. This is the story I usually tell. Not how many miles or verticle gain. I leave that type of story for someone else (like amar who does a great job).

So, should we post just conditions? I don't know. Entertainment is important and I believe, deep down, most of us are going here just as much for the entertainment as we are for conditions, at least when we go to the TR section of this site.

Anyhow, off topic but relates to the last few posts.

Back on topic...

Glorifying risk is something that I tend to agree with. Although, all of us contribute to it. Any TR we post, to an average skier, may excite them and glorify what most people consider to be a huge risk. Many people can't believe that I hike and stay overnight, worse yet that I do it in the winter. But I post about it. Is that glorifying risk? Others may emulate it and get themselves in trouble. So what that we may not be as bad as a Warren Miller film or touch as many people as they do, but that's not what matters. What really matters is that we teach those we meet, make others aware of the risk when we can, and do our best to enjoy our lives in a way manages risk and satisfies our penchant for adventure. For all I know, those skiers on Warren Miller's films are so beyond my skills (how many of us get to ski 200 days a year), it's like me telling the non outdoor person that skiing in winter is not very dangerous. I'm not an expert at what they do (tricks, flips, massive cliffs, and straight running a 3000-ft line backwards). I'm good at ski mountaineering and I try and set a good example, just like everyone here is doing. Although, I do think that those guys take a lot of risk, but hey, we all do and people should be smart enough to take it at face value and be wise enough to educate themselves. Ha. Youth will never do it though. If it ain't a fast car or sports, we all take our risks. Better skiing than breaking into someones house.

Ha. What we need is some good ski mountaineering movies .

"Steep's" Andrew McLean (sp?)was on the Colbert Report a few minutes ago and will be replayed at 11:30pm on Comedy Central. Seemed from the last few minutes that I caught of the interview that everyone thinks we are crazy and really "extreme". Granted I do know a few crazy ski mountaineers but most of us are pretty level headed and are in it for the skiing, not the "scare ourselves shitless" part of it. Guess this movie and the title speaks volumes anyways- this is what sells and what piques the interest of the American public.

Chris