I watched the movie “Society of the Snow,” about the 1972 Andes plane crash and survival
First, a bit of background (if you’re unfamiliar with the story of the Andes crash, there may be a few spoilers here). I first read the definitive book on the subject, Alive, when it came out in 1974. I was transfixed by it, and agree with this assessment from The New Republic:
No one will come away unmoved by the book, and no one will be able to put it down. … There is no way of reading Alive without a heightened sense of one’s own life and its value.
The book is not only an extraordinary survival saga, but it has tremendously moving stories involving family, friendship, love, and sacrifice. It is a sort of reverse Lord of the Flies, where the cooperation among the survivors was extremely impressive, and it also contained deeply spiritual and religious elements despite its horrors.
Over the years I’ve read other books on the subject, including several written by the survivors. I’ve watched several documentaries as well. In 1993 an American movie came out on the subject, and although I was looking forward to it immensely I was sharply disappointed. It just didn’t ring true, plus it left out or truncated very important parts of the story, in particular involving the astounding trek by two of the young men who survived the initial crash.
So when I heard recently that there was a newer movie, made in 2023 in the Spanish language, and using previously-unknown Uruguayan and Argentinian actors, I was extremely eager to see it. I had to wait till I was in a certain mood, because the story is a grueling one even to watch, and from the trailer I could see it was very realistically as well as poetically done:
And so I watched the film, and I have mixed feelings about it. I would recommend it, although you need to be prepared for a harrowing journey. Compared to the previous movie it’s better. But compared to the book it simply doesn’t work for me. That surprised me, and I’ve been pondering why I found it ultimately very inferior to the book that some of the survivors thought was already inadequate.
For one thing, I think a book has the ability to give so much more background on the entire situation and the people in it, which deepens the story and its significance. Just to take one example, in the book you learn a great deal about a woman who was one of the initial survivors, Liliana Methol. But in the film she’s almost an afterthought and somewhat of a cipher. There just isn’t enough time to render each person in his or her fullness.
Plus, there are an enormous number of characters, and the actors (who look a great deal like the real life people they are representing) somewhat resemble each other, especially as the movie goes on and many become bearded and all become thinner (the actors were forced to lose weight as the film went on, for the sake of realism). It wasn’t that easy to tell them apart, and I knew a great deal about the characters already.
Films with big casts need to pay particular attention to this potential problem. I think that, for example, The Great Escape (a film favorite of mine although of a very different type), which also had a very big cast, dealt with the numbers more successfully because the protagonists were from different countries, and there were many stars in the cast and that helped the viewers remember who’s who. That movie was also about a half hour longer than Society of the Snow, and although both movies are long they both move along quite quickly because there’s so much to tell. But The Great Escape has more time in which to tell it.
In the book Alive, there’s a great deal of emphasis also on the stories of the families searching for their lost relatives; many did not give up hope, and their tales are especially moving and make the eventual reunions even more poignant and deeply felt. There was virtually none of that in the movie; you merely see reunions with parents and girlfriends which are generic because we don’t have much of the backstory.
There are many exchanges and scenes in the book that seem naturally cinematic, and some are left out of the movie. I don’t know why; it wouldn’t take much to have included them. Instead, there are repetitive scenes of the suffering endured by the survivors and their decline – as well as a tremendous emphasis on the most sensationalistic part of their story, the fact that in order to survive they very reluctantly decided they must eat the bodies of those who had died (and the living made a pact to allow the others to eat them if they died before rescue came), Any movie about this incident must deal with that fact, but I think that after a while this particular movie could have left out some of the redundancy and gone for some more of the background stories.
Most of all, I was surprised that the movie seemed to leave out or gloss over one of the most salient characteristics of the group, which is that they were Catholics and mostly believers, and that their specifically Catholic beliefs helped them endure. That is, many of them explicitly likened their eating the flesh of their dead companions to the Eucharist, although they were well aware of the differences. Instead, in the movie there was a vaguer spirituality that was emphasized. Even the part where, after the survivors returned to civilization and priests told them they would not be condemned by the Church for what they did in extremis – that entire aspect was left out. Instead, there was an almost-throwaway scene in a church at the beginning of the film, with a priest talking about the Host while some of the young men pass notes among them. Unless you already know the plot, you could easily miss its significance.
This omission and de-emphasis seems to me to be a deliberate lessening of the religious message and slant of the entire event, a trend toward the universal rather than the specific. But the specific can have a universal message, and I felt the omission keenly although I’m neither Catholic nor Christian.
The movie caused me to get out my old copy of Alive and start re-reading it. In the introduction, the author writes:
When I returned in October 1973 to show [the survivors] the manuscript of this book, some of them were disappointed by my presentation of their story. They felt that the faith and friendship which inspired them in the cordillera do not emerge from these pages. It was never my intention to underestimate these qualities, but perhaps it would be beyond the skill of any writer to express their own appreciation of what they lived through.
I think that’s an honest assessment; it’s an impossible task. Nevertheless I think that Piers Paul Read came as close to accomplishing it as anyone could. For me, he certainly came closer than any movie could.
I remember that incident (yes I am old).You never know.
Not sure if I read the book or not, would have been 50 years ago if I had. But remember the event fairly well.
Assume it was in English, yet subtitles don’t bother me at all, watch many movies with that.
Skip:
The book is English, and I highly recommend it. The 2023 film is Spanish with subtitles, but there is also an Englisg-dubbed version that I didn’t watch. I don’t like dubbing; It feels “off” to me
Back when I read bestsellers, I read “Alive.” It was a good book. Other people read it too and I remember discussing it with them.
Who pays attention to bestsellers today? Who discuses them?
Different times.
huxley:
Women’s book groups do, that’s who. 🙂 . But the books are mostly awful, take it from me.
Yeah, the book was certainly gripping.
(Also recommended if one is into cannibalism lit.)
I found the religious angle a bit bizarre, but hey…survival—both physical and psychological—in impossible situations is…well, survival, and highly recommended. (For the alternative, see the Franklin expedition…)
Did it contain any recipes? Ghoulish goulash, for example?
Well…not exactly—they were Argentinian—BUT…you WILL gain certain insights regarding the juicier cuts…
Read the book soon after it came out; an incredible real life story. If you have not read the book, you should.
I think its a bit too gruesome for my sensitivity as a story of survival with impossible odds its worth examining
There was a similar themed episode of watson that showed the results of such an episode downstream
Along with a recent colombian crash a few years ago under a different set of circumstancees
Miguel:
The book is written with great sensitivity.
I read the book many years ago and remember it pretty well. In my experience, movies of books always disappoint despite the advantage of visualization.
Barry ,I thought they were from Uruguay ,, excellent cooks regardless .
Keith; Barry Meislin:
They were Uruguayans.
CICERO:
With a good book, our internal mental visualization is often more powerful than what any movie can render.
I watched Society of the Snow a couple of years ago as part of an assignment from my Venezuelan Spanish teacher. I thought it was excellent and based on neo and commenter’s recommendation I just ordered the book.
I do not get why Neo says, proudly it seems, she is “neither Catholic nor Christian”. She is diligent and truthful. BUT…
I think I am also.
I turned to Catholicism in my forties, realizing I knew nothing about Christianity. When I drove past a Catholic Church whose sign invited me in “if I wanted to know more…”, I turned in and signed up. The RCIA teacher, an electrical engineer whose firm had done work for me, but whom I had never met, sat the five of us down after a Mass, gave out blank papers with the instruction to write down the one question we had about the Church; I turned in a blank and stated, “I don’t know enough to question anything”.
I took that RCIA course- “Rite of Conversion”- twice. Twice. Read and studied and thought. The “Acts of the Apostles” moved me: 12 men, all of them individually seeing and believing their own eyes, all witnesses to Jesus the crucified entering thru a locked door into the Upper Room and letting the doubting Thomas inspect and verify the wounds of the Crucifixion. And witnessing (and reporting) His ascent Heavenwards. This is a historical record, not just theology.
My studies were convincing. I am a confirmed Catholic.
Read about.the.Donner party. The fat gals.made it.out.
Cicero:
Pride is in your own head.
I took our hostess to be saying that she found the religious element gripping even from her perspective as an outsider.
om: Pride is a deadly sin, to which I confess in Catholic confession. Perhaps you will think the same.
Cicero:
Consider that Wendy came far, far closer to neo’s assessment than you.
You seem particularly grumpy lately.
Sons of God: Hear His Holy word,
Gather around the table of the Lord
Eat His Body, drink His Blood
And we’ll sing a song of love
Allelu, allelu, allelu, alleluia.
–“Sons of God” (Communion Hymn)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eZmfFLJttU
_______________________________
I have great affection for Christianity, It changed me for the better.
But if one steps back a bit, it is a strange religion that makes ritual cannibalism the centerpiece of its worship. 🙂
“SHE CAUGHT THE PRATT!” HILARIOUS New Spencer Pratt Ad Drops as He OVERTAKES BASS in Polls! – Video
https://commoncts.blogspot.com/2026/06/she-caught-pratt-hilarious-new-spencer.html
Dear Huxley,
It is only because the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation that you have come to your erroneous conclusion. It is well to remember that this was not officially part of RC dogma until the Council of Trent in the Fifteenth Century, although the term was initially mentioned in the Fourth Lateran Council in the Thirteenth. It is, among many other reasons, why I, raised and educated in the Roman Catholic Church, left it in favor of generic Protestantism once I decided to investigate seriously the matter of our relationship with God. Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of Me,” and to believe that a human priest can call Jesus down from His Heavenly Throne and literally reprise His sacrificial death and then convert the elements into His literal body and blood is to be consumed, passed through the digestive tract and expelled, is for me, an unacceptable proposition. As Paul told us, He died once for all; I hold that it is impossible for humankind to demand that He repeat His sacrifice at our beck and call, but to remember it through reenactment of The Last Supper is entirely acceptable. Having said that, I conclude by affirming that I have nothing but Christian love for my Catholic fellow believers-in-Christ; affirm that all who truly believe that Christ is Lord have eternal salvation; and finally, have no wish to debate the topic further and will not do so here, posting this comment only in the sincerest desire that everyone conscientiouly investigate the matter and diligently and sincerely seek Him.
I remember the book distinctly, at least in parts. One part I can’t remember was whether it was the Pope himself or a local bishop – I think a bishop – who admonished the survivors afterward that their “comparison” of the Eucharist to what they had to do to survive was not a proper theological one.
The survivors (as neo points out here) were well aware of this and, I think I recall, nettled (to say the least) by the cleric.
I understand there can be a unique bond among people who share a traumatic experience. I can’t fathom how deep this bond could be among survivors of something like this – terrible trauma followed by a terrible decision followed by survival that was only possible because of that terrible decision, followed by the public fallout when that decision became known. I think, of myself, how would I ever have a relationship with anyone who hasn’t gone through all this with me?
I don’t remember whether all the survivors felt such a bond, or whether some of them, instead, took the Prince of Tides tack instead and refused ever to meet with the others or talk about what they’d experienced.
That is, many of them explicitly likened their eating the flesh of their dead companions to the Eucharist, although they were well aware of the differences.
The Japanese writer Shusaku Endo in some of his novels deals with this. How a Japanese soldier kept a starving comrade alive by bringing him some meat he found. Many years later the truth of where that meat came from haunts the soldier who survived. I think it’s in his last novel Deep River.
@ Rick67 > that is also a trope in an anime my kids “made me watch” while they were here for Christmas, called Dungeon Delights (or Dungeon’s Delight). It’s part of the backstory of a couple of characters IIRC.
Jamie:
Most of the survivors meet yearly and share a deep bond to this day. A couple have kept a lower profile but as far as I know none have cut themselves off totally from the group.
As far as the Church goes, within a short while those who had done it were told that it was okay if necessary for survival; see this. Also, from the book, here’s a description of some things that happened shortly after the rescue:
@Steve
>t is well to remember that this was not officially part of RC dogma until the Council of Trent in the Fifteenth Century,
A lot of Catholic dogma that was “officially” codified at Trent (transubstantiation was affirmed at the Fourth Lateran Council in the thirteenth century), and other councils only when these beliefs that dated back to the Apostles were starting to be questioned.
This is why the canon of Scripture, which had been established by the late fourth century was never “official” until the sixteenth. It was only because Protestants were removing books.
The reality of transubstantiation was attested to going back to the earliest of Christian writings. Aside from Scriptural references, including Christ Himself commanding His apostles to _do_ this, not “re-enact this” or “memorialize this”. This is further attested as Christian belief as early St. Ignatius of Antioch in the early 2nd century.
St. Justin Martyr wrote in the middle of the second century, “”Not as common bread and common drink do we receive these, but … the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”
This article goes into some more detail:
https://ascensionpress.com/blogs/articles/heres-the-early-church-fathers-upholding-transubstantiation-in-their-own-words
I’m sorry that you felt it necessary to leave the Church, but you are, presumably inadvertently, misrepresenting our beliefs.