BACKCOUNTRY NEWS AND FORUMS

Welcome to your source for the latest news, conditions, and insights on backcountry skiing and adventuring. Explore reports, gear reviews, safety tips, and more to help you make the most of your time in the wild.

If you sign up as a member this is your chance to tell everyone about everything and anything to do with backcountry skiing. Follow the simple steps to register and WHAMMY, you’re in. If you are pulling your hair out with frustration, have a look at the help forums for answers or take a pause and drop us an email at: info (at) backcountryskiingcanada.com. We’ll do our best to help out as soon as we can (but all bets are off on a powder day, obviously).

All.I.Can Ain't All It Can Be

vinhemp

2012-11-23 16:29:41

All.I.Can Ain't All It Can Be

Was the Sherpa's All.I.Can film released last season the best ski movie of all time as some people claim? Various segments from the film have been released on Vimeo lately and I'm reminded that the cinematography and editing are some of the most amazing the industry has ever seen. Just check out the "Group Shred" scene below for proof.

But I have an overall question: what was with the contrived environmental message? How can you legitimately say you're trying to bring awareness to global warming when you've hired a helicopter to film a helicopter filming a skier? The Sherpas can buy as many carbon offset credits as they want but, ultimately, All.I.Can is a money-making venture that glorifies skiing in remote areas that require thousands of tonnes of airline fuel to get to. Not to mention the fact the Sherpas have since circumnavigated the world twice over hawking the film, collecting accolades and working on another seasonal film that features "enough mountain biking to cause a global dust storm," according to their newsreel. Ironic much?

Which brings to mind another cinematic masterpiece called Life Cycles. Like All.I.Can, the mountain bike film created by fellow Canadians Derek Frankowski and Ryan Gibb includes some of the most beautiful scenes anyone's ever beheld in a "stoke" film. But Life Cycles doesn't claim to be something it's not because there's nothing environmentally responsible about flying a film crew and pro athletes on a jumbo jet to the other side of the world, hiring an armada of helicopters and filming what ostensibly is just eye candy. (I mean, let's be honest here – stoke films are not Roger and Me or Shoah.)

Here's a challenge Sherpas: You know that scene in All.I.Can that features skiers skinning up a backcountry mountain and skiing down again? How about creating an entire movie that features that? A human-powered epic depiction of the sport we love without the planes, trains, and diesel-powered, 6-person resort chairlifts. I'm not naive enough to think a few four-wheel drives won't be used here and there. But if you manage to create a film that hardly relies on fossil fuels then I'll believe your environmental sincerity.

You can call it: All.We.Really.Really.Can.
2wheeler

2012-11-24 13:31:57

It's a green-washed world to be sure, and you'd have to be naive to believe that the movie was in any way produced in an environmentally sustainable manner. I imagine that the idea to include a "message" about global warming was something that all the participants bought into. But does the movie making process need to stay consistent with the message? or can we just view it as Art, finished product and process as separate?

The Devils Advocate might say:

To create the most powerful message, the one seen by the most people the producers probably felt that they needed to use all the cinematic tools in their bags. This of course involves trucks, sleds, choppers, planes, remote locals etc etc. With just static ground shots, the viewer would quickly grow tired of the movie, and the message would be seen by many fewer people. If the producers consider the message to be of such grand importance then the process shouldn't matter.

Does this kind of commercial product need to be consistent between what it creates and how it's created?

And what about the magnitude of fuel consumption? If they didn't use choppers and just used sleds and trucks would that be ok? or should they hike everywhere? It really is a matter of degree, right? If we accept that driving a Jeep or sledding to go skiing or what ever activity you choose is ok, then it's surely ok for everyone to partake, and if several billion people on the planet enjoy these luxuries, then global warming is still going to be an issue. They surely used more fuel than the average joe on his weekend missions, but within the context of Global Warming it was hardly more than a fart in the wind.

I agree with you that it is a little rich for the movie to be feeding us the Global warming message while they are so obviously ignoring the consequences of their own actions.

I have no idea why I felt like writing all this on a Saturday morning. I'm going heli skiing

SITE LOGIN

TOP VIDEOS

HOTTEST REVIEWS

BACKCOUNTRY NEWS AND FORUMS

All.I.Can Ain't All It Can Be