MovieChat Forums > Alive (1993) Discussion > Proof the cannibalism was wrong [Mild Sp...

Proof the cannibalism was wrong [Mild Spoilers]

posted 9 years ago by redban02
42 replies | jump to latest

Ethan Hawke's character was the main advocate for the cannibalism, yet when the group first eats a dead person's flesh, Ethan Hawke asked immediately, "Did you eat my sister?" and was relieved when his friend said no.

The hypocrisy is evident. He doesn't want anyone to eat his sister, yet he has no issues eating another person's brother, sister, mother, father, son, and friend.

Just as he doesn't anyone to eat his sister's corpse, he shouldn't go about eating anyone. Self-preservation or not, cannibalism is not right.

[–] norman-dostal 8 years ago

You're dumb. It's just meat dude. We are animals. Only egoism and religious nonsense makes you think otherwise.

[–] sage2112 8 years ago

Fine, die then. But, the opening scene's dialog makes the point you're clearly missing.

[–] Katherina_Minola 8 years ago

You are not taking human emotion into account. I can't imagine what it must have been like to be in that position, but how must it feel to know that the ONLY way to survive is to resort to eating human flesh? He didn't want to do that but knew that they would all due if they didn't. And of course it's perfectly understandable that he didn't want them to eat his sister's flesh. Take your head out of the books and try putting yourself in someone else's shoes. His actions were absolutely understandable.

[–] CatrionaM 8 years ago

I don't need to put myself in other people's shoes. I have my own thanks.

[–] Livana_Faolan 8 years ago

I want to ask you something, seeing as you're so eager to condemn Nando for not wanting the others to eat his sister. How would you feel if you were in that situation? Are you honestly telling me that you wouldn't want someone to eat your sister or someone else who was dear to you?

"Never mind walking a mile in my shoes. Try thinking a day in my head."

[–] palisade-1 8 years ago

I want to ask you something, seeing as you're so eager to condemn Nando for not wanting the others to eat his sister. How would you feel if you were in that situation? Are you honestly telling me that you wouldn't want someone to eat your sister or someone else who was dear to you?

Obviously, in the real situation (as distinguished from the film), the whole group felt that way. The scene in the movie never occurred; the group as a whole decided not to use the bodies of any relatives. So that included Nando's mother and sister; Javier's wife and cousin, Panchito Abal; the Strauch's cousin Daniel, and perhaps someone else I can't recall. So in the actual situation, Nando never asked for any special favor for his own family members, but it was a fact that when he and Roberto departed on their search for rescue, he told Carlitos that if it became necessary, he wanted them to use his relatives' bodies.

As it turned out, it was not necessary. But it's unfortunate the film suggests Nando was asking for special treatment, which he never did. I think it was meant to show the extent of his grief over the death of Susana, which was a powerful motivator in his determination to get out and back to his father. He perceived - and he was right - that his father was totally devastated by the loss of his family (though he did have a married daughter left); Nando's survival helped him, gradually, to adjust, as Nando ultimately joined his business and he and Nando shared a number of interests and hobbies, especially car racing and sports.

A consistent theme in this story is how the survivors acted collaboratively and as a group to solve problems, make decisions and support each other. Not that there weren't many bumps in this road, but there was a consistency in their approach and ways of working together, at the time and over the years since. This is elaborated on in the documentaries, Alive: After 20 Years (which can be found on the DVD of the movie) and the documentary by independent filmmaker, Gonzalo Arijon released in Enlish as Stranded: I Come From A Plane That Crashed on the Mountain.

[–] helpmetwothousand 8 years ago

You are likely alone in this thought. I can see you are being taken to task for this... maybe think about it next time before posting.

[–] mcdemuth 8 years ago

Just Like so many other posters have already said here...

1.) No humans were eaten, until there was NO OTHER OPTIONS for any other kind of food. It came down to eating humans...or die! It's really not right for anyone who currently has food from the grocery store in their kitchen, to pass judgement on this group of people, especially when that person has never been in a life or death situation themselves...

2.) People were not killed so they could be eaten. They were already dead. According to most religions and beliefs, once dead, you're body is just a pile of flesh, since your spirit has moved on. It really isn't much different than organ donation.

Many people give their permission for organ donation without their family approving. How does that family feel then? Is that any different than what the family members felt about their loved ones on the mountain?

3.) I agree with many here... Of course I would not want to see "My Sister" being carved up, and I certainly would not want to eat her, when there are people that I don't know that could be selected first. I also would not want to carve up a survivor's sister and ask them to eat her either. Someone has to be selected... So, picking someone who did NOT have a family member there on that mountain, is just the "right" thing to do. Or at least the "lesser of two evils".

One point no one has seemed to touch on...

4.) Now the part I liked in the film, was when all the survivors started making statements that it was OK to eat each other, if they died. That definitely pushed the whole thing into complete "organ donation" territory, and made it much easier to deal with. ...AND... I am sure, that when one of them died, they moved to the head of the carving table. Everyone truly tried to be as honorable and respectful as they could be, with each other, and even with the dead. But the part I agreed with 100% was, when it was asked of the survivors "To Clean Your Plate!" I agree... take what you need, but eat what you take!

All these moral and ethical, and whatever, codes of behavior that we are taught to believe in, work great under everyday circumstances. But when we are faced with life or death situations, I believe these codes of behavior should only be viewed as suggestions to help guide our actions, while at the same time, we try to stay alive.

Think about this one...

"Thou Shalt Not Kill"

According To Most Laws, If YOUR life is in DANGER, Self Defense is OK. So, You can kill someone, if that will save your Life. As shown in the film, there was no other FOOD, and their lives were in danger. So it should be OK them to eat someone, who is ALREADY Dead, since that would save their lives! In addition, I am sure, that if you killed someone who was going to kill you, their family would not be any more happy about it, than the family members who had their loved ones eaten on that mountain. If you don't kill a living person, you're dead. If you don't eat human flesh, you're dead. What's really worse here? And is there a difference where the family is concerned?

But is it really... "Thou Shalt Not Kill"? or is it "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder"?

Take this hypothetical situation... You see a man walking down a street with an explosive device that will be used to blow up an entire school. You can STOP him before he detonates the device, but you have only have one minute to act, and that leaves you with only one solution, Kill him first...

Do you really think that God would want us to stand there and let a school full of children be killed? I don't think so.

I also don't think, God wanted anyone to die on that mountain either... or he would have had them all just die in the crash.

"Put A Little Love In Your Heart, and then Make Your Own Kind Of Music, on the road to Shambala!"