This movie is about a young man driven by hero worship who follows his leader into an adventure that far outstrips his ability to cope. The twist is we experience the story as it would feel like if he were actually telling it to us, if he were trying to communicate with his traumatized and fractured mind. Normally in a first person movie with narration we will see what the metaphorical fly on the wall sees, with clarification from other people's point of view and back story when needed. But there are no flies in Antarctica, not even viruses we learn. No third party witnessed what happened to this group of men, we will get no clarification. It gets weird right away - for example he tells us there was something in the snow, and that his teammates hated him and talked behind his back. There are times we're confused by what he says, we want to say something like, "Did you just say he fell into the ice and was stuck under it!?." Or perhaps we want to ask, "Did you just say that the ghost of his son was in the room, looking down, or was that metaphorical?" The movie does little to clarify, just giving us the feeling of that first jolt when believing the story, believing the misunderstanding. There is no time for questions as this crazy man pushes on and on. Eventually he loses track of the fact he is telling a story, and falls into delusions, thinking he is there, and taking us with him-- the movie portrays this by switching from first to third person. It's difficult to say what actually happened, what has been warped by his personal perspective, and what is complete delusion. I'd recommend questioning everything he wasn't there to see - this is only conjecture on his part and we know he is not in his right mind. I think he actually fell into the hole in the snow. The radio actually stopped working. And there was an actual British journal. He spends a lot of time conjecturing about what happened to the radio - it was sabotaged while I slept, they heard us but couldn't help us, they were looking for us but couldn't find us. This question is eventually answered for us, but not for him. What happened to the guys in the journal, he wrestles with. He tells, probably ruefully, about noticing the British trek seemed to have lost a member, and the reality that someone could die out there was so far from their minds they couldn't even say it out loud. I think what he tells us about the fate of the British Expedition is true. I don't think there is anything supernatural about the journal. Eventually he is way past the point of breaking and his focus narrows to simply reacting to the people around him, especially his leader. I don't think we learn what the leader actually said, or meant - only what we are told from this biased witness. Eventually we get back to where we started. We leave him, shivering on the ice. At this point he is beyond the ability to talk, so the story must end.
Review of Antarctic Journal
