Society of the Snow (Quim Vives/Netflix)

It seems that no improbable survival story will ever escape movie treatment, or at least receive a book deal. The Uruguay 1972 Andes flight disaster has received both several times over. It’s easy to see why. This plane crash occurred not only in the Andes but next to a glacier. Sixteen out of 45 passengers survived after 72 days of being stranded in the mountains. They managed to get help only after two of the survivors hiked for 10 days to a nearby village, and this was after numerous deaths and failed attempts to attract passing planes. Later, the survivors admitted to the press that they had been forced to eat the dead to survive.

All the ingredients, so to speak, are there, and the past few years have brought Society of the Snow: The Definitive Account of the World’s Greatest Survival Story, a 2022 account by Pablo Vierci, who had known most of the survivors since childhood, and this film adaptation of the book from J.A. Bayona.

Bayona’s approach is a classic Hollywood tug-on-the-heartstrings affair. We are introduced to the characters, most of whom play on a rugby team, as they are boisterous and excited to compete in Chile (some family members and supporters accompany them). The emphasis is on their youthfulness and happiness. They joke around once they get on the plane, and then, of course, once it crashes, things get bad fast. Bayona’s focuses here on the smashes, booms, and screams—the sound cuts out and then returns in classic blockbuster fashion. Then in the longest section of the film (the struggle for survival), Bayona works to heighten the drama: the huddling for warmth, the agony of watching loved ones die, the struggle to maintain morale, the moral dilemma of whether or not to eat the dead.

You would think, given the material available (avalanches, cannibalism, plane-crashes, treks across the mountains), that it might be the kind of story that would excite a filmmaker’s imagination. Bayona, however, has told this story at a clipped pace, but with as little imagination as possible. Everything, from the dialogue to the deaths to the crashes, is rendered in the most platitudinous fashion. Watching this film feels no different than watching any other Hollywood blockbuster. Scarcely a sad moment passes without the zooming in on a character’s face and the addition of music. While I do not expect those stranded in the Andes to be uttering great and weighty thoughts, I could not believe for a second the blasé dialogue about finding meaning amid tragic events that occurs in one scene. All of this serves to lessen the impact of the events depicted, even if one is heartened to see the survivors make it back to society.

Furthermore, with the exception of one late scene dominated by the snowy landscape, not much use is made of the scenery. Bayona is more intent on his actors’ faces than on the surrounding environment, which feels like a missed opportunity. The cast is strong, and one shot, in which a group of survivors sit on plane chairs in the snow during a rare lighthearted moment, captures their situation in an arresting way.

As noted by The New York Times, Roger Ebert stated that it might be impossible to tell this story of endurance when reviewing Alive, a 1993 film treatment of the incident. I doubt he is right, though a long period of waiting can be difficult to dramatize and it’s fair to say that this experience would be difficult to put into words. Followers of this story will doubtless want to see this adaptation, as well as those dedicated to survival stories. Many others will not miss much by skipping it.