Change Your Image
natnce
Reviews
The Last Place on Earth (1985)
Unfairly Critical
If Scott was so bad as a leader, why was he entrusted with TWO important scientific expeditions to the Antarctic? Huntford's claim that Scott's career was in the doldrums and he took command of the 1901 Discovery Expedition to further it is not borne out by the fact that he was a successful torpedo officer with a high likelihood of promotion. In fact going on an expedition to the Antarctic was likely to damage his chances of promotion in 1901.
Amundsen's failings are forgotten as are the facts that Scott never set out to race to the Pole and that his expedition was primarily a scientific one. Amundsen, although a great explorer, was very lucky to have found another glacier to ascend to the Polar Plateau, without discovering the Axel Heiberg Glacier he would've had to have turned back and lost out to Scott. His initial attempt to set out in conditions of about -60 degrees resulted in frostbite to both man and dog and a permanent falling out with his second-in-command Johanssen who had advised him against it. He was an experienced Arctic explorer, but hadn't had the experience of travelling in the Antarctic interior like Scott, where the conditions are different from the Arctic.
Scott is criticized for not relying entirely on dogs, but what if he'd have taken them up the Beardmore and lost loads of them down a crevasse? It was due to nearly losing an entire team down a crevasse that he decided that it was unsafe to take dogs up the Beardmore Glacier. Prior to that incident he had seriously considered using dogs to get him to the South Pole. He originally intended to try four forms of haulage, any of which could potentially make it to the Pole. Ponies (which were used to such conditions) and manhaul had got Shackleton to within 100 miles of the Pole in 1908, dogs had been used for centuries in the Arctic and had been used to a degree in the Antarctic but not with as much success as ponies and manhaul. Motor transport had potential, but Scott did not put too much faith in it, although his motor sledges helped greatly in the early stages of the depot laying. He eventually settled on using all the varied transport means on getting the supplies as far as the foot of the Beardmore, then using manhaul from there on. He didn't set out to race, so he didn't need to get there as fast as possible, unlike Amundsen, so when he found out that Amundsen was going for the Pole he had no option to change his plans. If he had intended it as a race and to have got there as fast as possible, he would've purely used dogs.
Below normal weather conditions slowed Scott's team on the way back as the snow did not melt to provide lubrication for their skis and sledge runners. No planning could've prevented that as such conditions only occur every 35 years or so. I think you'll find that those who choose defend Scott can hardly be accused of "shallow research" or "a very limited interpretation of Scott's polar problem: that bad luck and bad weather caused his downfall". It wasn't some young and inexperienced scientist that came up with the information on the weather, but a senior and respected American meteorologist Susan Solomon. The other main refuter of Huntford's theories is Sir Ranulph Fiennes, a polar explorer with decades of experience and who also says that he doesn't sympathise with Scott. Neither of whom have any particular reason to defend Scott for patriotic or personal reasons. On the other hand, most historians for a good twenty years used Huntford's book as the basis of their research. Most of the 'Scott was a blunderer' arguments stem from Huntford, who isn't a professionally trained historian and has no experience of Antarctic travel: he is a journalist with an overwhelming hatred of Scott. He bases a lot of his 'facts' in his biography of Scott on 'intuition' and Fiennes has refuted many of these. He makes unproven arguments about Kathleen Scott and Nansen having an affair and Scott seeking glory in death as a sort of compensation for not getting to the Pole first! Huntford even says that the weather conditions were normal for the time of year (they were 10 degrees C below average), Scott tried to force Oates to go outside to his death and persuaded Bowers and Wilson to stay in the tent and die with him. He goes on to say that an irregular trip home earlier in Scott's naval career is proof of an extra-marital affair that was 'covered up'. All of the above are based on Huntford's intuition and no supporting evidence of course. Not only that but he claims that Scott wrote the final passages of his diary for the purposes of prosperity, in the full knowledge that he would die and therefore wrote them in such a way as to create a legend. He is convinced that there was some big Establishment cover-up, a conspiracy theory in other words, and that Scott's diary was edited to remove damning evidence of his incompetence and further enhance this legendary status. He hasn't so far been able to dig up any evidence of this, but as he believes it is the truth he writes it down as a fact.
Whether or not you wish to ignore the opinions of Antarctic experts for those of a journalist with a penchant for elaborating, no Antarctic experience and a big grudge, is of course a matter of choice.
Scott of the Antarctic (1948)
A Beautifully Shot Film
Although it verges on being a hagiography and cannot be considered to be historically accurate (what historical film is?), Scott of the Antarctic is a beautifully shot film with a great score and a solid cast. Some of the equipment from the actual expedition was used as props.
One of the other commentators on here makes mention of various failings of Scott's. Skis were depoted on the plateau due to poor surface conditions, as it was easier to haul without them and to carry them would have meant a considerable extra weight. Scott's own team depoted their skis, but went back for them when the conditions improved they did after all have an extra 200 miles to travel than Teddy Evan's team. Taff Evans wasn't abandoned on the Beardmore: he was suffering from possible brain damage and unable to pull the sledge. Considering that they all faced death if they didn't make the next depot in time, the other expedition members went on ahead with the intention of letting him catch up, whereupon he collapsed and died. Out of Teddy Evans's returning party only Evans himself came down with scurvy as he refused to eat either seal or pony meat for months. The other two members of his team, Crean and Lashly, didn't come down with scurvy and when the bodies of Scott and his men were discovered, the signs of scurvy were not visible on them either.
Nansen DID use dogs on his attempt at reaching the North Pole in 1893-95, although his earlier crossing of Greenland was done by manhaul. Scott already had decided to take skis on his expedition BEFORE he met Nansen in Norway, as he had gone there to buy the skis and test the motorised sledges. In fact it was he showed Nansen his locally purchased skis that the great man suggested Scott taking Gran with him. Gran DID teach Scott's men the basics of skiing on the pack ice on the way south. Scott himself was as good a skier as the average Norwegian. There is no evidence of an affair between Kathleen Scott and Nansen as on the occasion in question she was staying with American friends, not in the hotel with Nansen. According to the evidence they were good friends and nothing more.
Warlords of Atlantis (1978)
A film I liked as a kid
"Harrihausen stop-motion animation in all its choppy glory". Where? I didn't see any, it all looked like sock puppets, guys in rubber suits and wood and canvass models to me, standard Amicus/Rice-Boroughs effects. If they had have used stop-motion the effects would have been a lot better, take the Empire Strikes Back made three years later or the Golden Voyage of Sinbad made four years earlier. Please, please don't say the effects were good for the Seventies, because in all fairness King Kong which was made 45 years earlier has better effects and there currently appears to be a trend to excuse anything made before the advent of CGI as "Good effects for their day". As if Spielberg would have used guys in suits a la Godzilla to make Jurassic Park if CGI hadn't have been around in 1992! It's a fun film, however, and very enjoyable, I liked it as a kid and like all the Amicus/Rice-Boroughs films I try to see them when they're on.