![]() ![]() Heyerdahl and his mates were often out of their depth (ah!) when facing the technicalities of navigation and survival at sea.īut where the documentary easily dismisses problems, the movie gives us a more dramatic cross-section of the events. The movie is exceptionally well-crafted – and if here and there seems to play fast and loose with some incidents, it certainly captures the same happy-go-lucky attitude that the original documentary gave us. The crew of the Kon-Tiki is there to be us – to give us a shot at being like the first explorers. The raft and the men on board are just an accessory, to drag the viewer into this huge, fascinating place. It’s a perfect synthesis, to me, of what the Kon-Tiki expedition meant to those men that lived it – and a lot of us, in the years that followed.īased on Thor Heyerdahl’s eponymous book – and stealing a few shots from the 1951 documentary – Kon-Tiki is a story about the empty vastness of the ocean. There is a moment, ninety minutes in Ronning & Sanberg’s 2012 movie Kon-Tiki, in which the camera backs away from the raft, lost in the middle of the pacific, and climbs up through the clouds and the atmosphere, catches a glimpse of the sun beyond the curve of the planet, pans across the Milky Way, catches the moon hanging in space and then plunges back towards the ocean and the Kon-Tiki. ![]() ![]() ![]() And after the documentary, the dramatized movie. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |