Scott of the Antarctic (1948) Poster

Scott of the Antarctic (1948)

  • Rate: 6.8/10 total 713 votes 
  • Genre: Action | Adventure | Biography | Drama
  • Release Date: 20 April 1949 (USA)
  • Runtime: 111 min
Our Score
92/100
999 user reviews.

User Score (vote now)
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars
Loading ... Loading ...


You're here : » » Scott of the Antarctic (1948)...

SCOTT OF THE ANTARCTIC. 'Birdie, the doctor and me' Journey up the glacier Scott of the Antarctic profile with Sir Ranuph Fiennes The Big Bang Symphony: a novel of Antarctica The Deaths of Evans and Oates - Scott of the Antarctic (Ost) [1948] South Pole Diary: Trailer 

Scott of the Antarctic (1948)

Scott of the Antarctic 1948tt0040761.jpg poster

  • IMDb page: Scott of the Antarctic (1948)
  • Rate: 6.8/10 total 713 votes 
  • Genre: Action | Adventure | Biography | Drama
  • Release Date: 20 April 1949 (USA)
  • Runtime: 111 min
  • Filming Location: Ealing Studios, Ealing, London, England, UK
  • Director: Charles Frend
  • Stars: John Mills, Diana Churchill, Harold Warrender | See full cast and crew
  • Original Music By: Ralph Vaughan Williams  (as Vaughan Williams) 
  • Soundtrack: Will Ye No Come Back Again?
  • Sound Mix: Mono (RCA Sound System)
  • Plot Keyword: Explorer | Antarctic | Ealing | Antarctica | Character Name In Title

Writing Credits By:

  • Walter Meade (screenplay) &
  • Ivor Montagu (screenplay)
  • Mary Hayley Bell (additional dialogue)

Known Trivia

  • Ralph Vaughan Williams later transformed the score into his seventh symphony, the “Sinfonia Antartica.”
  • Captain Scott’s log and many of the personal effects of the explorers were loaned by The British Museum to add to the authenticity of this near-documentary.
  • Chosen as the Royal Command Performance film of 1948.
  • Vaughan Williams wrote nearly 1000 bars of music for the film, much of it before filming had even started. In the event, less than half of what he wrote was actually used.
  • Additional dialog was provided by Mary Hayley Bell, the wife of John Mills.
  • The scene where the explorers land at the Bay of Ross was specially extended in the cutting room merely to accommodate the power of Vaughan Williams’ score for the sequence.
  • The hut where Scott and his party stay throughout the winter months before their final push to the South Pole still exists today and is a tourist attraction for those few who travel down to that part of the world. The intensely cold, dry air has preserved everything almost exactly as it was a century ago.
  • The temperatures recorded by Scott and his team on their ill-fated expedition remain to this day some of the lowest ever recorded.
  • Much of the Antarctic scenes were shot on location in Norway.
  • James Robertson Justice was so keen to play P.O. Evans he even shaved off his beard for his first scene.

Plot: The true story of the British explorer Robert Falcon Scott and his ill-fated expedition to try to be the first man to discover the South Pole… See more » |  »

Story: The true story of the British explorer Robert Falcon Scott and his ill-fated expedition to try to be the first man to discover the South Pole – only to find that the murderously cold weather and a rival team of Norwegian explorers conspire against him Written byMichael Brooke <[email protected]>

FullCast & Crew

Produced By:

  • Michael Balcon known as producer
  • Sidney Cole known as associate producer

FullCast & Crew:

  • John Mills known as Captain R.F. Scott R.N.
  • Diana Churchill known as Kathleen Scott
  • Harold Warrender known as Dr. E.A. Wilson
  • Anne Firth known as Oriana Wilson
  • Derek Bond known as Captain L.E.G. Oates
  • Reginald Beckwith known as Lt. H.R. Bowers R.I.M.
  • James Robertson Justice known as P.O.'Taff' Evans R.N.
  • Kenneth More known as Lt. E.G.R. 'Teddy' Evans R.N.
  • Norman Williams known as Chief Stoker W. Lashly R.N.
  • John Gregson known as P.O. T. Crean R.N.
  • James McKechnie known as Surgeon Lt. E.L. Atkinson R.N.
  • Barry Letts known as Apsley Cherry-Gerrard
  • Dennis Vance known as Charles S. Wright
  • Larry Burns known as P.O. P. Keohane R.N.
  • Edward Lisak known as Dimitri
  • Melville Crawford known as Cecil Meares
  • Christopher Lee known as Bernard Day
  • John Owers known as F.J. Hooper
  • Bruce Seton known as Lt. H. Pennell R.N.
  • Clive Morton known as Herbert Ponting F.R.P.S.
  • Sam Kydd known as Leading Stoker E. McKenzie R.N.
  • Mary Merrett known as Helen Field
  • Percy Walsh known as Chairman of Meeting
  • Noel Howlett known as First Questioner
  • Philip Stainton known as Second Questioner
  • Desmond Roberts known as Admiralty Official
  • Dandy Nichols known as Caroline
  • David Lines known as Telegraph Boy

..

 

Supporting Department

Makeup Department:
  • Barbara Barnard known as hair stylist
  • Harry Frampton known as makeup artist
  • Ernest Taylor known as makeup artist
  • Harry Wilton known as assistant makeup artist (uncredited)

Art Department:

  • Norman Dorme known as draughtsman (uncredited)
  • Roger Hopkin known as draughtsman (uncredited)
  • Jack Shampan known as draughtsman (uncredited)
  • R. Thurgarland known as draughtsman (uncredited)
  • Len Wills known as assistant art director (uncredited)

..

 

Company

Production Companies:

  • Ealing Studios

Other Companies:

  • Philharmonia Orchestra, The  music played by
  • Survivors and the relatives of late members of Scott's Last Expedition, The  this film could not have been made without the generous co-operation of: to them and to those many other persons and organisations too numerous to mention individually who gave such able assistance and encouragement, the producers express their deepest gratitude

Distributors:

  • General Film Distributors (GFD) (1948) (UK) (theatrical) (released through)
  • Eagle-Lion Classics (1951) (USA) (theatrical)
  • J. Arthur Rank Film (1950) (West Germany) (theatrical)
  • J.Arthur Rank-Film (1949) (Austria) (theatrical)
  • Parvisfilmi (1949) (Finland) (theatrical)
  • 905 Entertainment
  • Mainostelevisio (MTV) (1977) (Finland) (TV)
  • Poderosa Filmes (Brazil) (VHS)
  • Warner Home Video (1989) (UK) (VHS)
  • Yleisradio (YLE) (1966) (Finland) (TV)
  • Yleisradio (YLE) (2008) (Finland) (DVD)

..

 

Other Stuff

Release Date:
  • UK 29 November 1948 (London)
  • UK 7 December 1948
  • Sweden 7 March 1949
  • USA 20 April 1949
  • Italy August 1949 (Venice Film Festival)
  • Japan 23 August 1949
  • Italy 8 September 1949
  • Austria 9 September 1949
  • Finland 21 October 1949
  • Denmark 20 December 1949
  • Hong Kong 13 April 1950
  • West Germany 21 July 1950
  • Portugal 16 November 1950
  • USA 25 February 1951 (New York City, New York)
  • France 16 May 1952
  • East Germany 26 December 1967 (TV premiere)

MPAA: Rated PG for mild thematic elements and brief language

..

 
 

Filmography links and data courtesy of The Internet Movie Database


Scott of the Antarctic (1948) Related Movie


The Three Caballeros (1944) Movie Poster
Tarzan the Tiger (1929) Movie Poster
Luck by Chance (2009) Movie Poster
Captain Abu Raed (2007) Movie Poster
Stranded (2001) Movie Poster


Posted on April 11, 2013 by freeonlinemoviestreaming in Movies

10 Comments

  1. leonard-1 ([email protected]) from MIddleburgh, NY, USA
    11 Apr 2013, 11:05 am

    The Ealing Studios production `Scott of the Antarctic’ is a work of artandan inspiration to human achievement. The film depicts the polarexplorersof the Second Scott Antarctic Expedition (1910-1913). They are portrayedfirst as pygmies against the terrible backdrop of the ice continent, thenasdauntless giants within the enclosed spaces of their fragile tents astheyawait their certain death.

    The mood of the film is High Victorian, although strictly speaking thesetting is Late Edwardian. Edward Adrian Wilson, the artist, played byHarold Warrender, is the quintessential gentleman naturalist. As thefilmbegins, Wilson is shown in the summery garden of his tranquil countryhomestead in England, meticulously creating a scientific illustration ofamounted bat. At the end, when Wilson is among the few remainingexplorerswho face frozen death in their wind-whipped tent, his spirit drifts awaytohis English home.

    The Victorian faith in mechanisms is brought forth by close up shots ofdistance-measuring wheels that are attached to the backs of clumsyman-drawnsledges, and by the heroic but flawed powered tractors that break down inthe awful cold.

    The film invites the viewer to arrive at his or her own conclusions aboutthe character of Captain Scott. The film makes no judgments – it merelyportrays Scott through the superb acting of John Mills.

    `Scott of the Antarctic’ is a timeless film about eternal values: humanendeavor, achievement and triumph.

  2. ubercommando from London
    11 Apr 2013, 11:05 am

    OK, we’ve heard a lot about the "real" history and the debate overwhether Scott was a hero or a complete imbecile. Whatever the truth isand whatever revisionist or hagiography history is being peddled,"Scott Of The Antarctic" is a beautifully made film: One of the bestlooking early colour films which evokes a bye-gone era and is strangelycompelling and haunting at the same time. The music by Vaughn-Williams,the greatest British classical composer of his time, is powerful and,again, haunting. In some scenes, they’ve recreated exactly some of thephotos taken during the Scott expedition. The casting is spot on; lookat the original photos and Millsy is uncannily like Scott, Kenneth Moreis Teddy Evans, Reginald Beckwith and James Robertson Justice do theirreal counterparts well and John Gregson, in one of his first filmroles, captures Tom Crean perfectly (compare his performance with PaulMcGann’s Crean in "Shackleton", which was pretty good). Many filmcritics feel that "Scott of the Antarctic" was somewhat robbed at the1949 Oscars.

  3. ianlouisiana from United Kingdom
    11 Apr 2013, 11:05 am

    Mr John Mills is magnificent as Captain Robert Falcon Scott,a VictorianGentleman Adventurer out of his time.Soon enough the world he occupieswill be irrevocably changed on the killing fields of the Great War forcivilisation.Expeditions such as his will no longer be redolent of theWardroom vs the Lower Deck.What passes in the British psyche foregalitarianism will infiltrate all fields of endeavour.Mr Mills conveyscourage without actually doing anything courageous,a challenge to thefinest of actors."Scott of the Antarctic" was a prestigious productionin 1948,in the twilight of the British Empire's last gleaming.CaptainScott was widely regarded as a worthy successor toRaleigh,Cooke,Stanley and Rhodes,adventurers whose names we hardly dareto speak in the 21st century.His brand of bloody-minded determinationhas been replaced by the "yeah,whatever…."culture. As expeditionleader Scott was as much a victim of the hierarchical society as hishumblest hewer of wood and drawer of water.Leadership was theprerogative of his class regardless of their abilities. In 1948 wewatched the movie without the benefit of nearly sixty years ofhindsight.It may be flawed as a historical document,but as a cinematicachievement it is worthy of a place in the top rank of BritishCinema.Much of its impact is dulled on the small screen of course,younever get the sense of the futility of the small figures strugglingacross the ice,the insignificance of man in the face of raw nature yetat the same time his indomitability that can be conveyed in a movietheatre.If the truth about Scott does not live up to the legendperhaps,as a tribute to a brave man,we should as John Ford said in "Theman who shot Liberty Vallance"….."Print the legend".

  4. vaughan.birbeck from Solihull, England
    11 Apr 2013, 11:05 am

    There is a general feeling, already noted here, that this film whitewashesScott and turns him into a heroic figure. This is not surprising when youconsider that when it was being made survivors of the expedition andrelatives of those who died (particularly Kathleen Scott) were stillalive.

    Nevertheless, the film does raise some questions about Scott’s leadershipand judgement: his desperation to be first at the Pole with inadequateplanning and resources; his last-minute decision to take a fifth man tothePole when supplies had been calculated for a four-man team; the fact thatnone of these questionable decisions are challenged by subordinates boundbyRoyal Navy discipline.

    The scenes at the Pole are particularly telling. When the British reachtheNorwegian camp it is Wilson who enters their tent, while Scott tellsBowersto "check the position". Wilson’s look of disgust emphasises Scott’srefusalto face hard reality at a critical moment.

    So, yes, this is the story of a "national hero", but watch it with careandit is far from uncritical.

  5. Graham Watson from Gibraltar
    11 Apr 2013, 11:05 am

    I have to pinch myself when I see this as I can't believe that it wasmade all the way back in 1948, almost 50 years ago. The cinemaphotography is surprisingly good and the music score is haunting androusing at the same time. The ability to feel that you are with the illfated team at the South Pole was an incredible feat in it self. Thecostumes were excellent and the props they used were authentic onesused in Scotts expedition. The outdoor scenes were very effective andthe visible deteriaton of Scotts team was probably as good as you couldexpect from the make up department in the immediate post war years. Theacting was very good and the cast were all very believable in theirrespective roles. The last 40 mins of the movie was the best and youreally believed that they were at the South Pole in 1912 not some areain Greenland in 1948. Very absorbing viewing!

    The only problem with the movie is that from an historical point ofview is that it all paints a very romantic and heroic picture of Scott.Of course as time has elapsed, this view is not shared by everybody.Evidence has come to light, as well as expert opinion and analysis thatcalls into question this notion and that in fact it was a tragedycreated by hubris and basic errors which could have been avoided. Also,were some of Scotts diaries carefully doctored by Scotts wife or thingsdeliberately omitted ? Was the account on Scotts own request changed,or did his wife and relatives take it upon themselves to do this toenhance his image and keep his reputation intact? I've heard storiesthat raise these questions and seen the occasional documentary which iscritical of Scotts actions. Was this all an early 20th Centuaryvariation on spin? I'll let others argue and speculate over that but Ido have a few observations and opinions on this.

    Revisionist history questions many things that we have taken forgranted over the years and Scotts expedition is just one of many eventsthat is being revised. The idea that people would distort the truth forcommercial reasons i.e. to sell a book should certainly not put it pastthe realm of possibility, even back in 1912. What we do know is thatwhen you just fall short from your objectives you question any numberof things that might have made the difference! Man-hauling what was inall intensive purposes was a cast-iron bathtub stacked full of food andequipment over 800 miles was probably not the most efficient way oftraveling. The weather conditions were so bad that apparently onlythree times since 1912 through the next 50 years was it as brutal andso cold. If they had made it to ONE TON base camp many of thesequestions would ever have been raised.

    Remember, there was no satellite navigation, rescue vehicles,helicopters or aircraft and cell phones. These were explorers who weretrying to get to the earth's South Pole and return for the first time,There was a lot at stake and risks had to be taken. Do people criticizeIrving and Malory for failing to reach the summit of MT. Everest backin 1924. Nobody says that they should have waited 20 or 30 years untilthey had better equipment! You use the equipment and conditions thatyou have not the ones that you want! Was it really fair to use dogs,could this not be construed as cheating? Even after being beaten byAmudson by three weeks wouldn't have still been a greater achievementto have done it purely on there own without dogs? Did Scottdeliberately just give up at the end, so disappointed at missing outafter so much work? Did he think that his reputation would be enhancedif he died rather than make it back? Possibly, but the physical andmental state of Scotts party should not be easily be over looked ordismissed as a contributing factor to them succumbing to the unusuallycold conditions. Also, after so many weeks in the bitter cold, undernourished, suffering from malnutrition, frost bite and hunger, 11 milesmight has well have been 1100 miles! There are limits to humanendurance!

    Today, when you here of people dying of hypothermia after just 2-3 dayslost in the wilderness, look at what Scott and his team had to put upwith. It's not a bad film, you watch it and make your own judgment!

  6. Kirasjeri from Brooklyn NY
    11 Apr 2013, 11:05 am

    The first thing to remember is that Scott fouled up mightily in his attemptto be the first to reach the South Pole in 1912. He was stubborn, ratherarrogant, yet malleable to the wishes of his wife. When his diaries werefound on his frozen remains they were in fact later edited and altered byhis wife (and the publisher) to depict Scott as a Great Heroic Figure. Thatwas a lie; the depiction of him in the movie is a lie. And in recent yearsthe unedited diaries were released proving the old myth was not the reality.It should be added the U.S. polar explorer Richard C. Byrd was an evenbigger fraud – as his recently released personal notes also demonstrated.

    This film is generally well done, and the Antarctic (actually Greenland, Ibelieve) scenery is spectacular. The very slowdeterioration of Scott’s team is fascinating to see; their heartbreak uponviewing Raoul Amundsen’s Norwegian flag flying over the Pole in the distance- meaning they had lost the race to the greatest of all explorers – ispalpable. From then on it becomes a matter of survival and getting backhome. Bit by bitthe elements wear them down – untill they can finally go on no longer. Whenone says "I don’t want to wake up tomorrow" with the wind howling justoutside their little tent as they try to eat a morsel of cold food. . . youknow it’s over for them. Heartbreaking.

    BUT THE CAUSE OF THE DISASTER IS NOT DELINEATED!! WHY did it happen? Badluck? Scott’s decision not to rely only on sled dogs? Yes. But his planningand leadership was also flawed badly – and that was not shown, as mentionedabove.

    I had no particular problem with the acting. It could possibly have beenmore emphatic and emotive, but then I assume the English were indeed asstoic as depicted in the film. Mills’understated Scott is to be expected as part of the MYTHICAL version of Scott- the REAL Scott I have no doubt was more emotional and weaker, as seen inthe uneditied diary.

    All in all, a moving film worth seeing – so long as you know this is not thereality of the Scott expedition but the cleansed version to make Scott andcompany as heroic as possible. If you want a better Arctic film try "The RedTent", and check the reviews on the IMDb for background on it.

  7. jack_bagley from United States
    11 Apr 2013, 11:05 am

    Sir John Mills is the quintessential Scott — he even looks like theexplorer in this film. The rest of the cast (Wilson, Evans, Oates, andBowers especially) are also lookalike actors, similar to what was donein "Titanic" with the historic figures. Such movies have more "realism"to them if the actors resemble the characters they portray.

    The movie is flawed in that it does not present what actually happenedto Scott and his party all the way through, and does "hero-ize" theexplorer and his polar party members more than they deserve. The deathof Evans, for instance, is done far differently than what actuallyoccurred, but has a true cinematic heroism to it. Evans did not die inScott's arms, in the snow, as depicted — he actually fell into a comaand died in the tent that night. And there is a bit of a fumble withOates' dramatic last words, but only a slight one.

    Scott as hero is evident in this film, and even though recentdevelopments have reduced his stature in the eyes of the world, heshould still be viewed for what he was — a true explorer, alongsideShackleton (who does not get nearly enough of the credit he deserves),Amundsen, Peary, etc. Sure, they had their moments of being total jerks– but don't we all?

    For the last eighteen years, I have used this film in my middle-schoolclassroom as a teaching tool during a unit on Antarctica. The story ofthe race between Scott and Amundsen is a classic tale and deserves tobe told. There are probably much more useful films that students cansee about the event, but for sheer beauty (yes, I know it was shotmostly in Greenland, but some scenes were indeed filmed down south) youcannot beat Scott of the Antarctic.

  8. tedg ([email protected]) from Virginia Beach
    11 Apr 2013, 11:05 am

    I had a choice between seeing this and "300," and I chose this.

    Its because there is a certain kind of movie story based on nobility.There are only a few ways to do it. All of them abstract reality in adramatic direction. But you know, war isn't inherently dramatic.Deprivation is. Struggling against nature is. Being incredibly flawedas a result of cultural blindness could be, depending on how it ishandled.

    The story here is of two teams competing to be the first to the southpole. For reasons unexplored here, it really mattered in the popularimagination who got there first. It was a matter of national pride,akin to whether a team wearing your emblem wins a game. Socially, Ithink all the steam went out of the explorer hero with theman-on-the-moon adventure where the feat really was a demonstration ofnational strength, capability, will. But in those days as recently as ahundred years ago, national pride was bound in the last generation ofindividuals who could be called explorers.

    The Brits were particularly keen on this expedition because it wasexploration largely divorced from imperial landgrabs. As with the moonshot, it was wrapped in scientific clothing as a thin excuse. Theevents in this movie happened before the first world war and the filmwas made after the second, when England was a different place, eager toseize on old models of what made then Brits. And because they arehighly introspective, they'd want to look at their own foibles togetherwith their strengths.

    The facts are damning. The Norweigian fellow got there first. He madeevery decision matter, and he made all the right decisions. The Britishteam made huge errors and miscalculations. They did have bad luck withweather, but it has to be noted that Amundsen (the Norweigian) hadprecisely the same weather to deal with.

    What we see it remarkable. All the mistakes are seen only as thetrigger for noble response, because after all is done, the English mindlikes to think of its heroes as gentlemen who responded to adversity asgentlemen. And gentlemen they were; they chose not to rely on dogs,instead pulled the sleds with their own bodies for hundreds of miles.The reason? Dogs are our friends. Amundsen used dogs exclusively fortransport, eating them along the way. The Brits carried books and othertokens of civilization, a huge burden while the Norweigian cut and cutand cut to the bone.

    It has to be noted that the party froze only 11 miles from a cache ofstores, so even 2 pounds over 1800 miles would have mattered. In thefinal legs where ounces mattered and they were tossing items from thesleds, they kept 30 pounds of "interesting rocks."

    The film turns all this into a celebration of Englishness. One man wasinjured before beginning the final, disastrous leg. He could have saidsomething and been replaced, but he didn't. His act alone damned theparty. But we remember him as a gent, because at the end he politelyinformed his partners that he was going out of the huddled tent into ablizzard "and would be gone a while," never to be seen again.

    But the most gentlemanly affect was Scott's writing in the journals ashe knew doom approached. All the men wrote dear letters; they and thejournals were found later in the tent with the frozen bodies. What wehave of the story, we have from those writings, which we see writtenthroughout the movie. The device is amplified by us hearing narrationfrom the three last members of the party.

    If you are interested in how film affects national identify, formingand reflecting it, shaping history and remembrance, and you want toescape war pictures which, so far are dull with few exceptions, thentry this. Its the gentle thing to do.

    Ted's Evaluation — 3 of 3: Worth watching.

  9. jc-osms from United Kingdom
    11 Apr 2013, 11:05 am

    There have recently been a lot of dramatised and documentary programmeson UK terrestrial and satellite TV on the pioneering polar explorers,erstwhile rivals and colleagues Scott & Shackleton so I was keen toview this British made dramatisation of the former's doomed 1912expedition to the South Pole. I was not disappointed. It is obviouslydifficult to maintain cinematic excitement for the viewer of what isbasically a long march (a similar problem as in "The Spirit of StLouis" and "The Old Man & the Sea"), but the true to life tragedy hereproves compelling in the end. Jack Cardiff's colour photography issplendid and I was surprised to observe so few "process" shots for afilm from the 1940s, given the scale of the task here. John Mills isexcellent in the key role of Commander Scott but the supports are allexcellent, many of them chosen for their physical similarity to theirreal life counterparts – Mills too bears a more than passing likenessof physiognomy to Scott. In the post – war climate, Britain obviouslysought comfort and inspiration from past heroes as the country rebuiltitself in economic austerity and Scott must have been an ideal modelfor glorification. Regardless of sniping comments from historians aboutScott's poor planning, the film quite rightly avoids judgements andasks the viewer to recognise and admire the human heroism of thesegallant men. There is surely no more tragic sacrifice in allexploration than Oates' "I'm going outside, I may be gone some time" -exit and the movie captures this moment with the necessary pathos,later repeating the sensitivity as Scott and his last two colleaguesexpire with the so near and yet so far "11 miles" on their freezinglips. The Vaughan-Williams music is suitably sweeping and elegiac. Onewonders why Hollywood ignored the film at the Academy Awards of 1948,certainly the acting, cinematography and music, to name but three, wereworthy of recognition. I wonder if anyone would remake it in the modernera as we approach the centenary of the triumph and tragedy of Scott'sexpedition. Are you listening Peter Jackson…?

  10. natnce from United Kingdom
    11 Apr 2013, 11:05 am

    Although it verges on being a hagiography and cannot be considered tobe historically accurate (what historical film is?), Scott of theAntarctic is a beautifully shot film with a great score and a solidcast. Some of the equipment from the actual expedition was used asprops.

    One of the other commentators on here makes mention of various failingsof Scott's. Skis were depoted on the plateau due to poor surfaceconditions, as it was easier to haul without them and to carry themwould have meant a considerable extra weight. Scott's own team depotedtheir skis, but went back for them when the conditions improved – theydid after all have an extra 200 miles to travel than Teddy Evan's team.Taff Evans wasn't abandoned on the Beardmore: he was suffering frompossible brain damage and unable to pull the sledge. Considering thatthey all faced death if they didn't make the next depot in time, theother expedition members went on ahead with the intention of lettinghim catch up, whereupon he collapsed and died. Out of Teddy Evans'sreturning party only Evans himself came down with scurvy as he refusedto eat either seal or pony meat for months. The other two members ofhis team, Crean and Lashly, didn't come down with scurvy and when thebodies of Scott and his men were discovered, the signs of scurvy werenot visible on them either.

    Nansen DID use dogs on his attempt at reaching the North Pole in1893-95, although his earlier crossing of Greenland was done bymanhaul. Scott already had decided to take skis on his expeditionBEFORE he met Nansen in Norway, as he had gone there to buy the skisand test the motorised sledges. In fact it was he showed Nansen hislocally purchased skis that the great man suggested Scott taking Granwith him. Gran DID teach Scott's men the basics of skiing on the packice on the way south. Scott himself was as good a skier as the averageNorwegian. There is no evidence of an affair between Kathleen Scott andNansen as on the occasion in question she was staying with Americanfriends, not in the hotel with Nansen. According to the evidence theywere good friends and nothing more.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Sedo - Buy and Sell Domain Names and Websitesproject info: freeonlinemoviestreaming.netStatistics for project freeonlinemoviestreaming.netetracker® web controlling instead of log file analysis