Key Takeaways:
- Skyscraper Live, a Netflix special, features Alex Honnold’s unassisted ascent of the 508-meter Taipei 101 building.
- The event was a nerve-racking and stressful viewing experience, with the risk of Honnold’s death being a major factor in the tension.
- The broadcast was live, with no opportunity for editing or reediting in the event of an accident.
- The event raises questions about the ethics of creating entertainment that relies on the possibility of harm or death.
- Netflix’s decision to air such an event may have implications for the future of television and the types of programming that are considered acceptable.
Introduction to Skyscraper Live
The recent Netflix special, Skyscraper Live, has left many viewers on the edge of their seats, wondering if they had just witnessed something truly extraordinary or a recipe for disaster. Alex Honnold, the star of the documentary Free Solo, took on the challenge of climbing the 508-meter Taipei 101 building without any assistance, and the result was an hour and a half of nail-biting tension. While Honnold’s athleticism and bravery are undeniable, the question remains as to whether this type of entertainment is something that should be encouraged or condemned.
The Difference Between Free Solo and Skyscraper Live
The main difference between Free Solo and Skyscraper Live is the level of editing and control that was possible. Free Solo was a meticulously structured documentary that was edited to maximize drama and tension, whereas Skyscraper Live was a live broadcast with no opportunity for editing or reediting in the event of an accident. This meant that the risk factor for the viewer was amplified, as they were watching a live event that could have ended in tragedy at any moment. The lack of editing also meant that the pace of the broadcast was slow and plodding at times, with Honnold repeating the same movements hundreds of times, which could lead to viewer fatigue.
The Viewing Experience
Watching Skyscraper Live was a unique and intense experience, with the viewer being taken on a rollercoaster of emotions. The broadcast was like taking a long-haul flight in turbulent weather, with long periods of boredom punctuated by moments of sheer panic. The human mind is not designed to sustain a state of panic for an extended period, and as a result, viewers may have found themselves zoning out or becoming distracted. However, the dramatic skyscraper that Honnold chose to climb, Taipei 101, was custom-made for this type of event, with three clear stages that aggressively ramped up in terms of difficulty. The final stage, which involved Honnold climbing outwards at a 45-degree angle, was particularly harrowing, and even watching it back knowing the outcome was enough to induce a sense of panic.
The Ethics of Skyscraper Live
The success of Skyscraper Live raises important questions about the ethics of creating entertainment that relies on the possibility of harm or death. While Honnold’s achievement was undoubtedly impressive, the fact that the broadcast was predicated on the possibility of him falling to his death is a disturbing aspect of the event. This type of entertainment can be seen as gaudy and explicit, with the viewer being drawn in by the possibility of something going wrong. The closest example of this type of event is Felix Baumgartner’s jump from 24 miles in 2012, which was also sponsored by Red Bull. The excitement and tension leading up to the jump were palpable, but the sense of grim self-examination that followed was a sobering reminder of the risks involved.
The Future of Television
The success of Skyscraper Live may have implications for the future of television, with Netflix potentially considering more live events that could result in the death of a human being. However, this type of programming is not something that should be encouraged, as it can be seen as a Victorian freak show, with the viewer being drawn in by the possibility of something going wrong. Netflix should be careful not to capitalize on the success of Skyscraper Live by commissioning more events that prioritize spectacle over safety. Instead, the company should focus on creating programming that is both entertaining and responsible, without relying on the possibility of harm or death to draw in viewers. Ultimately, the future of television should be about creating high-quality programming that respects the safety and well-being of all involved, rather than prioritizing ratings and spectacle above all else.
