Alive Assignment: The Miracle In The Andes
Alive Assignment: The Miracle In The Andes
On October 13, 1972, the Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 had crashed in the Andes, leaving members of Uruguayan rugby team and their families to fight for survival. Of the 45 people who boarded the plane, 12 died in the crash, and another 5 died the next morning. This left the remaining survivors to form a society, create laws/rules, and work together in order to survive.
Throughout the film, it is apparent that the group functions by working together as one. From the start, up until the end, the group continually worked to support one another, providing ideas to ensure success, and overall, to ensure survival. This is evident in how directly after the crash, they helped one another to free themselves …show more content…
These laws included no stealing, no taking leftover food, everyone gets an equal share, even if they are unconscious, and no killing someone for a source of food. In each of these laws, consequences were placed on should anyone decide to break the law/rule. For example, when the mechanic (Carlos Roque) stole a jacket from someone unconscious, Antonio said “you do that again and I will kill you.” This represents the fact that Antonio had created a law/rule and had placed consequences should another person steal. He enforced this by returning the jacket to the person that once owned it, and by using a threat/force to prevent anyone from stealing once more. Therefore, failure to act under that particular law would be punishable by death. Another example is through the law of “no killing another person just for a food source.” In this law, it was more so the idea of “everyone needs to stick together to ensure survival” (spoken by Nando), rather than a punishment. If someone were to kill another person just for food, the group may not stick together, may not forgive the other person, or may kick them out of the group. In my opinion, I think that the laws and rules were reasonable (given the situation). I have come to this conclusion through the fact that it is a life and death situation, and that while the group was in hardship and despair, they needed to stick together. I think that if a member of the group is unable to see this then they should in fact be kicked out of the group (or have consequences), for the safety of the group
On October 13, 1972, the Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 had crashed in the Andes, leaving members of Uruguayan rugby team and their families to fight for survival. Of the 45 people who boarded the plane, 12 died in the crash, and another 5 died the next morning. This left the remaining survivors to form a society, create laws/rules, and work together in order to survive.
Throughout the film, it is apparent that the group functions by working together as one. From the start, up until the end, the group continually worked to support one another, providing ideas to ensure success, and overall, to ensure survival. This is evident in how directly after the crash, they helped one another to free themselves …show more content…
These laws included no stealing, no taking leftover food, everyone gets an equal share, even if they are unconscious, and no killing someone for a source of food. In each of these laws, consequences were placed on should anyone decide to break the law/rule. For example, when the mechanic (Carlos Roque) stole a jacket from someone unconscious, Antonio said “you do that again and I will kill you.” This represents the fact that Antonio had created a law/rule and had placed consequences should another person steal. He enforced this by returning the jacket to the person that once owned it, and by using a threat/force to prevent anyone from stealing once more. Therefore, failure to act under that particular law would be punishable by death. Another example is through the law of “no killing another person just for a food source.” In this law, it was more so the idea of “everyone needs to stick together to ensure survival” (spoken by Nando), rather than a punishment. If someone were to kill another person just for food, the group may not stick together, may not forgive the other person, or may kick them out of the group. In my opinion, I think that the laws and rules were reasonable (given the situation). I have come to this conclusion through the fact that it is a life and death situation, and that while the group was in hardship and despair, they needed to stick together. I think that if a member of the group is unable to see this then they should in fact be kicked out of the group (or have consequences), for the safety of the group