free counter with statistics Into the Wild | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

wild4.jpg

Woahoho / I Got Some Wild, Wild Life

Into the Wild / John Williams

Film Reviews | September 28, 2007 | Comments (78)


Director Sean Penn faced delays in bringing Into the Wild, Jon Krakauer’s 1996 best-seller, to the screen, and it may seem appropriate that those delays led the movie to be released when so many are celebrating the 50th anniversary of Jack Kerouac’s On the Road. On the surface of it, Christopher McCandless, a young man who deliberately went missing after graduating from Emory in 1990, crisscrossing the country, dying emaciated and alone at 24 after living for nearly four months in a remote region of Alaska, would seem to share the spiritual DNA of Sal Paradise and his crew. But as Louis Menand recently wrote in The New Yorker, Kerouac was “quite explicit about it: the trips in ‘On the Road’ were made for the purpose of writing ‘On the Road.’ The motive was not tourism or escape: it was literature.” Despite his pinballing around the U.S., McCandless — who adopted the name Alexander Supertramp during his journey — had aspirations that connected him more closely to Thoreau than the Beats. However naive it may have been, he appears to have been seeking something even more elusive than fame — an essential self.

Soon after graduation, McCandless sent a check for his entire savings, nearly $25,000, to Oxfam. He then let his parents, Billie and Walt (Marcia Gay Harden and William Hurt), believe he was returning to Atlanta, but instead set out for the west. Like many people at that age, McCandless felt disillusioned by his parents’ WASP-y, materialistic lifestyle, and initially we’re given to believe that this was the impetus for his breaking off ties so completely (in the two years he was gone, he never even communicated with his sister, with whom he was very close). But even when we learn of a deeper anger — stemming from his discovery that Walt had kept secret a previous marriage and child — it doesn’t explain the severity of his reaction, and Penn doesn’t pretend that it can. Millions of people have problematic relationships with their parents — to deal with those problems by heading deep into no-man’s-land with only a bag of rice and a few paperbacks to read is as common as hiking across the Sahara without water or sunscreen because you were annoyed by a slow line at the DMV. No, while many reacted to Krakauer’s work by complaining that McCandless was simply a spoiled, unprepared brat who got what he deserved, it seems truer to say he was a genuine pilgrim destined to meet the world on his own peculiar, unyielding terms.

A photographic self-portrait of McCandless opens the book and closes the movie. He’s sitting and leaning against the abandoned bus that served as his home in the harsh but gorgeous environment where he died. In it, he’s thin, but smiling, thick-bearded, and mature, looking closer to his early 30s than 24. The 22-year-old Emile Hirsch, cast as McCandless, looks closer to 16, even when scraggly and weathered, but this, among other things, makes him perfect for the part. What McCandless did was earnest, foolhardy, selfish and, in its way, big-hearted. In other words, it was young. Because Hirsch looks so boyish and has an effortless wide-eyed wonder about him, he makes it easy (enough) to pardon McCandless’ eventual disregard for those closest to him and sympathize with his desire to discover and stress his limits.

Having read the source material a couple of times, it’s notable how much life Penn has drawn from essentially a twelve-page stretch of the book that describes Chris’ stops along the way to Alaska, which he steadfastly held in mind as his Oz. After Chris, now “Alex,” set out, he met several people willing to help him. Wayne Westerberg (Vince Vaughn) gave him work at a grain elevator in South Dakota. Jan Burres (Catherine Keener) and her boyfriend, Rainey (Brian Dierker, terrific and endearing in his first movie), were fellow roamers who acted as surrogate parents on the two separate occasions when Alex spent time with them. Tracy (Kristen Stewart) was an enamored teenage girl who had her heart broken when Alex abruptly left the desert commune where they met. Most affecting of all, Ron Franz (Hal Holbrook, who has statues in his future for this one) was a retired Army man, a widower who took a shine to Chris and made the strongest effort of anyone to re-tether the young man to civilization. These people helped Chris, but they also liked him. Their assistance was inspired by an enjoyment of his company, not pity.

Penn is widely regarded as one of our very best acting talents, but based on his previous work behind the camera — particularly in The Crossing Guard — his directorial style could best be described as lugubrious to the point of inert. Given the austere, ultimately tragic facts of Into the Wild, there was every reason to fear that his rendition would consist of one three-hour tracking shot of a stand of frozen pine trees set to Mozart’s Requiem on a loop. Instead, the finished product represents a forceful step forward for him. Even the soundtrack of original songs by Eddie Vedder is not the distraction it might have been — Penn calls on Vedder’s baritone judiciously.

The movie is not flawless. Like most stories about spiritual searchers, it sometimes flirts with New Ageism, and it has to sneak in a heavy-handed reference or two to Jesus. It also hops around in time, a successful way to flash forward to (and back from) the bus in Alaska, but a much less satisfying (if necessary) method of learning about Chris’ life before he disappeared. The most grating weakness is the occasional voice-over by Chris’ sister, Carine (Jena Malone), who provides background about the McCandless family that might have proven too difficult or time-consuming to fully dramatize. The voice-overs are no better, though, mostly over-written and whispered in a tone that’s out of step with the movie’s otherwise naturalistic, generous
mood.

In Krakauer’s book, Jan Burres says of Chris, “He needed his solitude at times, but he wasn’t a hermit. He did a lot of socializing. Sometimes I think it was like he was storing up company for the times when he knew nobody would be around.” This observation makes the simple note that McCandless scrawled in his paperback copy of Doctor Zhivago toward the very end (which I wouldn’t dare spoil, though others have) even more poignant. It’s a moment that Krakauer saw as ambiguous, but that Penn and Hirsch convincingly present as a heart-rending epiphany for McCandless. It’s the most deeply moving moment in a movie full of them — a movie that, blemishes and all, is in the running for the best of the year.

John Williams lives in Brooklyn. He’s a freelance writer. He blogs at A Special Way of Being Afraid.


Pajiba Love 09/27/07 | Feast of Love



Comments

I've read this book over and over and over again. I'm thrilled about the movie, and I think most of the reason I'm thrilled about it is because it's impossible to duplicate Krakauer's writing in a movie. What I mean by that is his book was so matter of fact and so... well... not fiction, that the movie will hopefully stand alone as it's own version of the story.

That really makes no sense but I have to work now.

BLAH!

Posted by: David at September 28, 2007 10:22 AM

I flinched when I saw the trailer for this because it seemed to be a bland, by-the-numbers retelling of a much more complex and subtle story. Your review gives me a bit of hope. I should go read that book again.

Posted by: twig at September 28, 2007 10:49 AM

I was worried because the trailer made it look like just another coming-of-age adventure film. Good to hear you enjoyed it.

Posted by: Johnny at September 28, 2007 11:02 AM

i read this book just recently, and i'm..apprehensive about how it can be turned into a movie. i loved it, it was a fantastic book, but it was almost dry, very matter of fact. it almost seemed that it would be made into a documentary - so i'm really excited to see what's done with it that takes it away from that style. also i love emile hirsch. (i've just repressed 'the girl next door')

Posted by: -b'. at September 28, 2007 11:20 AM

Huh. I hated this book. If Penn can make him look less like a "spoiled, unprepared brat that got what he deserved", then he's a damn good filmmaker.

Posted by: Anne (in Reno) at September 28, 2007 11:43 AM

I have read Krakauer's other book, Into Thin Air. I loved that book and I am rather excited to see one of his books be adapted to the big screen by someone would possibly will not turn it into sentimental schlock.

Sounds like a great movie from this review.

Posted by: Melody at September 28, 2007 11:50 AM

The movie looks good, but it doesn't change the fact that McCandless was a whiny dumbass. Lot's of people go up to Alaska to "get away," but they're smart enough to at least bring some cans of food, warm clothes and a gun. This and 'Grizzly Man' are prime examples of self-righteous people with no respect for nature.

Posted by: konrad adenauer at September 28, 2007 11:51 AM

Wonderful, wonderful review! (And - finally! I saw this last month at the Telluride film fest so it feels like forever that I've been waiting for a review. Anyway.)

I must admit to being a bit biased about this film - like -b' upthread I am a fan of Emile Hirsch (though I did myself the favor of never seeing Girl Next Door), and I guess I have a higher tolerance for voiceovers.

In any case I absolutely agree - this is one of the best of the year. I was absolutely blown away by the strength of the performances. Uniformly excellent. Also the writing: it's clear that Penn knows what he's trying to say from the first moment, and while I often don't love "statement" movies because they feel too contrived and heavy-handed, I think this one manages to let the meaning build slowly and naturally. At the end - at least, for me - all the small moments had knitted themselves together into a heart-wrenching whole.

Posted by: alanna at September 28, 2007 12:36 PM

i am so sad to see that my very favorite site for reviews, where i feel as though we get the real deal from people who are not affected by the self-importance of hollywood, has fallen into the same pit as the more easly bowled-over critics. this movie is not a deep and moving work of art. it is a 2 and half hour masturbation session by sean penn about a self-important kid.

now granted i have not read the book and i obviously did not know christopher mccandless however, in my opinion (and it is, of course, just my opinion), this kid represents the very worst of the "disaffected youth." he spends the entire filming bitching and complaining about the state of the world and doing very symbolically "deep" actions such as burning his money and yet doesn't really take any action to change the state of it. he is every bit as pretentious as those he claims to hate (just in the other extreme) and worst of all, he believes himself to be better than it.

however, he wanted to go into the woods and kill himself basically without regard to anyone else. that is his right.

the fact that this film (and possibly the book?) tries to praise this act that basically amounts to teenage rebellion and elevate it to some sort of enlightenment (which one can ONLY achieve at the ripe old age of 22) is laughable.

the fact that everyone seems to be falling all over themselves to lap it up is ridiculous.

Posted by: alm at September 28, 2007 1:00 PM

i am so sad to see that my very favorite site for reviews, where i feel as though we get the real deal from people who are not affected by the self-importance of hollywood, has fallen into the same pit as the more easly bowled-over critics. this movie is not a deep and moving work of art. it is a 2 and half hour masturbation session by sean penn about a self-important kid.

now granted i have not read the book and i obviously did not know christopher mccandless however, in my opinion (and it is, of course, just my opinion), this kid represents the very worst of the "disaffected youth." he spends the entire filming bitching and complaining about the state of the world and doing very symbolically "deep" actions such as burning his money and yet doesn't really take any action to change the state of it. he is every bit as pretentious as those he claims to hate (just in the other extreme) and worst of all, he believes himself to be better than it.

however, he wanted to go into the woods and kill himself basically without regard to anyone else. that is his right.

the fact that this film (and possibly the book?) tries to praise this act that basically amounts to teenage rebellion and elevate it to some sort of enlightenment (which one can ONLY achieve at the ripe old age of 22) is laughable.

the fact that everyone seems to be falling all over themselves to lap it up is ridiculous.

Posted by: alm at September 28, 2007 1:00 PM

i am so sad to see that my very favorite site for reviews, where i feel as though we get the real deal from people who are not affected by the self-importance of hollywood, has fallen into the same pit as the more easly bowled-over critics. this movie is not a deep and moving work of art. it is a 2 and half hour masturbation session by sean penn about a self-important kid.

now granted i have not read the book and i obviously did not know christopher mccandless however, in my opinion (and it is, of course, just my opinion), this kid represents the very worst of the "disaffected youth." he spends the entire filming bitching and complaining about the state of the world and doing very symbolically "deep" actions such as burning his money and yet doesn't really take any action to change the state of it. he is every bit as pretentious as those he claims to hate (just in the other extreme) and worst of all, he believes himself to be better than it.

however, he wanted to go into the woods and kill himself basically without regard to anyone else. that is his right.

the fact that this film (and possibly the book?) tries to praise this act that basically amounts to teenage rebellion and elevate it to some sort of enlightenment (which one can ONLY achieve at the ripe old age of 22) is laughable.

the fact that everyone seems to be falling all over themselves to lap it up is ridiculous.

Posted by: alm at September 28, 2007 1:01 PM

now granted i have not read the book

... and follow that up with a heaping helping of tl;dr and you have the perfect Friday comments section!

Posted by: twig at September 28, 2007 1:23 PM

I haven't read the book, nor have I seen the movie yet. Still, I feel the negative reviews here are mostly based on some sort of moral or intellectual judgment of McCandless, and not on the movie itself. Granted, McCandless may have been a spoiled middle-class kid who read too much Thoreau and Kerouac in college, but his yearning to find spirituality in the wilderness may have been earnest nonetheless, and from the review it sounds like the movie is able to get that across. Maybe McCandless was short-sighted and misled in his naive idealism, but to me that is even more incentive to go see the movie. How can you not be intrigued by such a tragic story?

Posted by: Carla at September 28, 2007 1:24 PM

I was able to read this script about a year ago because I was working at an agency at the time. Much of it was engrossing and moving but I was constantly annoyed by Sean Penn's pretentious and self-righteous tone. I remember a scene in particular involving a grain elevator, and he'd inserted a parenthetical along the lines of "Hire an actor who knows this shit so it looks natural." Right Sean Penn, because SO many actors have experience operating grain elevators. He also added many preachy "Note to director..." instructions when he knew all along that the director would be himself. It was obnoxious.

Posted by: lady at September 28, 2007 1:29 PM

He is hardly lionized as a "lost genius" in the book. He comes across as an overly-idealistic and unrealistic kid in my opinion, not someone anyone should try to completely emulate.

You can recognize that there are appealing aspects to the concept of the Noble Savage all the while understanding it's neither a complete truth nor a complete fiction.

Posted by: Wednesday at September 28, 2007 1:31 PM

File under: Culling the herd.

Seems to me, homeboy should have taken some Survivorman DVDs along on his quest.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at September 28, 2007 1:41 PM

Hey all. I want to first say that I enjoyed the book, and look forward to the movie, but I want to address all the hate going towards "The Girl Next Door." That is definitley one of my guilty pleasure movies and one of the few where if I am flipping through the channels and it is on HBO, i will invariably sit down and watch the remainder of the film (even though it is residing in my DVD collection a scant few feet away). It's a thouroughly enjoyable high school movie with some amusing characters and, let's face it, a supremely hot Elisha Cuthbert (before she had in her mind to be in Captivity). So yeah, just want to say to everyone who has "avoided" this movie so as to maintain your pristine vision of Emile Hirsch I would suggest putting it on your netflix queue. It's definitley a fun time, and little Emile definitley plays awkward better than anyone (except perhaps Michael Cera) out there.

Posted by: Harley at September 28, 2007 1:51 PM

I have hesitated on writing anything about this film adaptation for a while, ever since I heard it was being made. However, I feel like I can finally vent my feelings, which i surpressed for so long.

I think it's an aboslute travesty that Into The Wild is now a film. I have many reasons for this, but the main is; throughout the book we are repeatedly told of chris mccandless's hate of all things consumer, mainstream and materialistic and now here we are telling his fateful journey in a hollywood movie no less.
Maybe I'm just like everybody else, but when I read the book I connected to it on a whole other level. McCandless reminded me so much of my brother who would take off without a moments notice and hitchhike all the way out to British Columbia, or go backpacking in Egypt...I was fortunate enough to see my brother again. So for me, this whole thing plays out like a glorification of McCandless's journey which I think is ridiculous. He didn't do it to make the world a better place or to even prove a point, he did it because he wanted to establish his place in a world he didn't understand. I feel like this movie is a slap in the face to the journey he went on.

I'm sure I'll receive a lot of critisicm from a lot of people, but I don't care if Penn is able to find meaning in something Krakauer couldn't. From what I took out of the book, it's not something that should have a meaning attached to it and that's why I like the book, it provided closure but at the same time i was left with my own interpretation.
In the end I'm left with sense of betrayal. I feel like the story has now been sensationalized and romanticized into something different from the original intent. It was about the pushing the limits on adventure after all.

ps. Emile Hirsch? Come on. I had more faith in it when Jake Gyllenhaal was attached.

Posted by: citizen_cris at September 28, 2007 2:00 PM

People die climbing Everest all the time, and yet his death was somehow so much more stupid... why?

Posted by: twig at September 28, 2007 2:00 PM

This was a simple suicide and he could have stayed home and eaten rice and died instead of trying to pretentiously starve himself to death in Alaska. The same Alaska where Athabascans, Inuit, trappers and settlers etc. have survived for tens of thousands of years. Would anybody write a book or even read a book about somebody who decided to quit eating and starve to death in suburbia. Okay, if it's a teen age girl you might have an after school special but a guy who graduated from college? If the Grizzly Man had gone around to zoos and jumped into bear cages until he eventually got eaten would anybody, let alone Werner Herzog, have made a movie about that.

Posted by: OscarTamerz at September 28, 2007 2:34 PM

This was a simple suicide and he could have stayed home and eaten rice and died instead of trying to pretentiously starve himself to death in Alaska. The same Alaska where Athabascans, Inuit, trappers and settlers etc. have survived for tens of thousands of years. Would anybody write a book or even read a book about somebody who decided to quit eating and starve to death in suburbia. Okay, if it's a teen age girl you might have an after school special but a guy who graduated from college? If the Grizzly Man had gone around to zoos and jumped into bear cages until he eventually got eaten would anybody, let alone Werner Herzog, have made a movie about that.

Posted by: OscarTamerz at September 28, 2007 2:35 PM

This was a simple suicide and he could have stayed home and eaten rice and died instead of trying to pretentiously starve himself to death in Alaska. The same Alaska where Athabascans, Inuit, trappers and settlers etc. have survived for tens of thousands of years. Would anybody write a book or even read a book about somebody who decided to quit eating and starve to death in suburbia. Okay, if it's a teen age girl you might have an after school special but a guy who graduated from college? If the Grizzly Man had gone around to zoos and jumped into bear cages until he eventually got eaten would anybody, let alone Werner Herzog, have made a movie about that.

Posted by: OscarTamerz at September 28, 2007 2:35 PM

@citizen_cris: So a movie is consumer, mainstream and materialistic, but a book is not? Did they give all the copies of the book away? Just because the book didn't sell half a million copies doesn't mean the author and publisher didn't want it to be popular and make lots of money.

Posted by: Three-nineteen at September 28, 2007 2:36 PM

@OscarTamerz: Would anybody write a book or even read a book about somebody who decided to quit eating and starve to death in suburbia. Probably not. That's kind of the point. And the reason why it wasn't just a simple suicide. I doubt he decided to just quit eating, otherwise he wouldn't have carried a big bag of rice around. I honestly don't understand how anyone can miss the idealism behind this. Foolish or not, he set out to test limits and maybe prove some (misguided?) point. Like twig said, how is this so much more stupid than trying to climb Everest?

Posted by: Carla at September 28, 2007 2:49 PM

Actually, the book very well may have sold half a million copies. It was a huge success.

Posted by: JMW at September 28, 2007 3:05 PM

I tend to fall on the side of judging the movie on its own merits and how effectively it tells its story, rather than the charisma of its characters. By the latter criterion, every Hollywood blockbuster would be a work of genius.

How many movies are populated with rapists, serial killers, and other such that make terrible, selfish, stupid decisions, often to everyone's detriment? The aspect about McCandless' story that intrigues me is that it represents an examination of one person's reaction to the disillusionment that kicks in after leaving the educational system and discovering that the world is populated by ignorant, self-serving, and often mean-spirited people, and that it is these same people that seem to run things. How often did you want to "stick it to the man"? Twenty years after graduation, I still stick it to the man every chance I get. Only in your youth do you have the total lack of perspective to passionately rail against the system. Just think of how many rock songs are about this, and how stupid these same songs seem in hindsight. "I hope I die before I get old".

Many of us did some really stupid things for many stupid reasons when we were young, but not many of us had the balls to really see something through the way McCandless did. I'm not saying I agree with what he did, or that I agree with what he stood for, or that I'd even want to have a beer with the guy, but I'm certainly interested in hearing his story.

Some of us chicken out, some of us die, some of us change the world, and the world changes some of us. But without the passion, and the certainty of purpose that comes with being young and naive, the world would be a bland place indeed.

And perhaps we can learn something from his story. If nothing else, grab a coat and some cans of food before you head off to the Alaskan wilderness.

My two cents...

Posted by: working class hero at September 28, 2007 3:09 PM

At least I knew I was going to get criticized.

three-nineteen: I never said books weren't a form of consumerism (I omitted that from my post on purpose) I'm saying that making it into a HOLLYWOOD feature is kind of like the ultimate slap in the face to how McCandless lived his life.

While I am quite aware that literature is a form consumerism (and can be just as materialistic as a movie)I feel as though making it into a feature film is crossing the line. Maybe I find it being serialized into literature more acceptable because it was quite evident that he had a love for books about adventure that pushed the limits (jack london) and about the search for a more satisfying existence through unconventional pleasures. So for me, documenting his journey in the kind of book he would have liked to read himself makes it more bareable than the idea of it being made into a hollywood film starring hollywood actors.

i don't know if i properly explained what i'm thinking, but it's just my opinion.

Posted by: citizen_cris at September 28, 2007 3:10 PM

Oh another note: I feel like I completely blasted Hollywood (by the tone of other posts after mine).

I'm not saying that hollywood films(starring hollywood actors) don't have their merits. They have the power to create beautiful stories and improve on books from which they've been adapted. I just feel like in this case, according to McCandless' vision of life, it wasn't the right thing to do. Regardless of how you felt about him as a person in the book, does anyone really think he was the type of person who would have wanted his story told this way? I can't speak for him obviously (or read his mind), but again, in my opinion I just don't think so.

Others don't need to feel the way I do about this issue, it's just my seperate opinion.

Posted by: citizen_cris at September 28, 2007 3:20 PM

in answer to those who are asking why it's different than someone who climbs mt. everest, etc... i think, for me, one of the reasons this movie was so infuriating is because it felt as though we were being told what to think. i think "grizzly man" is an excellent analogy. in that movie (admittedly a documentary and not a fictional film), we are presented with this person and given a chance to decide for ourselves if we thought he was big-hearted or idiotic. genius or seriously disturbed. werner herzog didn't tell us what to think. this is where it seems to me (from the comments of those of you who have read the book) the book diverges from the movie (and leads to one of the movie's great failures). it seems (correct me if i'm wrong) that the book presented you with this person and let you decide for yourself what you think of him. the movie, with all of sean penn's egotistical postering beats you over the head with his opinion of this person. whether you think he was the second coming of jesus or not, having it rammed down your throat is extremely annoying.

@twig - not sure what you were trying to say in your comment. all i was pointing out is that i had not read the book so i was even going to try to argue it's merits.

Posted by: alm at September 28, 2007 3:20 PM

p.s. and in the above comment i do mean to blast the movie on it's merits. not just mccandless

Posted by: alm at September 28, 2007 3:25 PM

It is a journey of self-discovery. Much like climbing Everest is a triumph of man over nature and the discovery of what a person can endure, backpacking through the wilderness can be a journey of self-discovery for an individual. Watch a show about people who climb Everest or do other seemingly insane things.

Krakauer has had some sort of controversy about every single book that he has written. Into Thin Air was criticized by the families of those who died. Into The Wild was criticized as a glamorization of a dangerous and somewhat foolhardy idea.

Hey Barbado, what about Man vs. Wild? I bet Bear could have taught him some things about survival.

Posted by: Melody at September 28, 2007 3:36 PM

I'm in the camp that thinks he was a spoiled, selfish brat. He strikes me as a guy who wanted to become a martyr for hippies nationwide.

And Sean Penn and Eddy Vedder's over serious and often sanctimonious assholery has put me off of their endeavors for a while.

If you want a great story that became movie about a guy "out there" "livin' life"? Jeremiah Johnson. True, in real life he was a weirdo who ate the livers of the Crow indians he killed. But that movie was awesome without being pretentious.

Posted by: Tanner at September 28, 2007 3:52 PM

"sanctimonious assholery"

pretty much going to be using that line all weekend.

Posted by: citizen_cris at September 28, 2007 3:58 PM

@ Tanner: "assholery"? you aren't by any chance a dan savage fan, are you? :)

Posted by: alm at September 28, 2007 4:02 PM

Alm, if you haven't read the book and still feel the need to pontificate on the man and his life, I'm going to do you the same favor, not read your comment, and then consider your opinion shaky and ill-considered.

I mean, looking at all these comments it is pretty easy to separate the 'read the book' people from the 'haven't read the book and possibly haven't even seen the movie' people. And maybe people criticized 'Into the Wild' for 'glorifying' someone accidentally starving to death in Alaska, but I have a feeling those people didn't actually read the book either.

In the book, McCandless was a guy. Not a "Grizzly Man" self-promoting, semi-deluded narcissist - just a guy. A guy who didn't seem to bother anyone, or drag anyone down with him, or do anything but what he felt he had to do. A guy who knew how to get around in the world and survive in the wilderness, who made a few bad mistakes and had an accident and died.

Lots of people go on adventures, make bad mistakes and have accidents and die.

I refuse to disrespect a dude who's been dead a decade by short-shrifting him as some kind of idiot or crazy person. I just refuse.

(and yes, all of this was the textbook definition of tl;dr.)

Posted by: twig at September 28, 2007 4:08 PM

I read this book and enjoyed the story. I feel sorry for McCandless, though, if he had been inspited by Thoreau. I remember a literature professor teaching us that Mr. Thoreau had a lot of help and support in his little cabin in the woods. His mother and sister brought him meals everyday and cleaned up after him. Thoreau had many visitors, and was by no means isolated in the way many people think. Do you all think McCandless knew this when he set out on his odyssey into Alaska? I think he was a well meaning but not very careful young man. There was a cabin filled with food a couple miles from his school bus. He was unaware of this. He ate a bad mushroom which tipped him over the edge towards dehydration and death. He just seemed to be caught up in the ideology of individualism without caring about basic survival skills. What can I say. Hero? Idiot? I don't think he changed the world or helped others in any significant way. Well, yeah, he did. I made sure I had a map and some food when I went hiking in Alaska. So, that was a difference. I don't know. Every other review I have read has trashed this film. I trust Pajiba, so I may try it.....oh heck, think I will wait for the DVD.

Posted by: MaggieMay at September 28, 2007 4:14 PM

twig,

if you are so concerned about reviewing the book instead of the movie, perhaps you should consider checking out a website page that is not devoted to the review... of the movie.

but thank you for the textbook definition. i had never seen that particular abbr. before.

Posted by: alm at September 28, 2007 4:15 PM

"...How often did you want to "stick it to the man"? Twenty years after graduation, I still stick it to the man every chance I get. Only in your youth do you have the total lack of perspective to passionately rail against the system...."


***********************************************

Oh I'm way ahead of you, I'm Torrenting and then seeding this sucker and I'm not even gonna watch it.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at September 28, 2007 4:29 PM

i wonder what would have happened if Hollywood adapted "Last American Man" into a movie. The main character also gives up his comfortable life (in Boston, if I remember correctly) to go live on Turtle Island (I think) where he lived off the land, and sought to teach others to do the same. He gave up all the comforts of home and modern society to live out close to nature. Was he any different than McCandless (other than, he survived and thrived)?

Both these men strike me as being more concerned about finding themselves and their place in the universe than with how that might affect others. Often that's called selfish. And maybe it is. But, as my dad always says, the only person responsible for saving you is you. (if that even translates grammatically)

Posted by: Stella at September 28, 2007 4:52 PM

With regards to consumerism and McCandless' intent, who cares. If he wouldn't have wanted his story to pad the bank accounts of hollywood execs, he should have stayed alive. Wait, but then there would be no story . . . oh no, a paradox.

The key to life is figuring out how to go on even after you've realized that the human race is fucked and there's no point to it. The kid obviously wasn't up to it.

"Self awareness begets mental illness"

Posted by: denadn` at September 28, 2007 5:19 PM

and by that quote, I mean that a selfish act is often in the eyes of the beholder. Is our anger at someone who acts selfishly really directed at them, or at ourselves for being affected so much by that person's actions?
In "Last American Man", the main character was often dumbfounded when confronted by the people who cared about him who felt he behaved 'selfishly' when he would disappear into the woods for weeks at a time.
For him, he was just living his life; for them, he was playing with their emotions by leaving them to worry about his safety and whereabouts.

For example, there were plenty of women who fell hard for him (he was a cutie) but somehow none of them stayed with him for very long. They would realize that they could never 'have' him truly to themselves. His first love was Nature, not Woman.
In a similar respect, I think people like McCandless who push the limits of their abilities are characterized as selfish b/c their need to explore their inner selves is greater than their need to be loved or accepted by others.

Posted by: Stella at September 28, 2007 5:22 PM

I'm totally sympathetic with David's initial comment...and it was largely downhill comment-wise after that. Bad day in Pajiba-land, I guess.

I read the book, I liked the book, I have my own ideas about McCandless that fall far short of mean-spirited judgment, and I'm cautiously optimistic about the movie based on the review.

As for those who volunteered their self-admittedly uninformed opinions, if I wanted to indulge in that I'd watch Fox News instead of surfing Pajiba...

Posted by: Grover at September 28, 2007 5:25 PM

Twig, I read the book and, however much it purported to given an evenhanded account of the guy, it absolutely did glorify a spoiled kid for doing nothing more than being moronic in the wilderness instead of moronic at home. You can't meaningfully reject materialism, conventionality and the hypocrisy of society unless you have something else of substance within yourself.

McCandless had no more depth than what he was rejecting. If had, he would not have died alone and starving with nothing but a poorly written and shallow journal about himself for company. He would have formed meaningful attachments with other human beings and done something productive with his life.

And to say he dragged no one down with him... Did you forget about his family? Or do you, like him, think that because they never gave their money away and went to live in an abandoned van in Alaska, they don't count?

And, to say he knew how to survive in the wilderness... Much has been written by actual outdoorsmen about how utterly incompetent he was. He really wasn't in that remote an area. He was always close to help. And, there was edible food around, he was just eating the wrong things.

As for those who defend him, I really think that they too commit the same error they purport to reject: the exaltation of form over substance. Mainstream society places image, conventionality and the trappings of wealth over what is on the inside of people. But, those who defend McCandless also care more about the image than the reality. Just because he gave away his money and went to Alaska doesn't prove he has anything worthwhile on the inside. He just embraced a different kind of form, equally lacking in substance.

Posted by: Sarah at September 28, 2007 5:26 PM

I'm friends with Carine McCandless' closest high school friend and this book was a deeply emotional one when our cirlce in DC was reading it. (For the record there wasn't abuse or whatever Penn has added to the family drama.)Remember this is a kid who graduated college, gave away his money and never talked to his family again. They didn't talk him out of travelling, but simply wanted him to be safe. For over 2 yrs they had no idea where he was, if he was alive, how he was surviving without money. In the end his body is found starved to death in an abandoned bus with only mad ramblings by an 'Alex Supertramp' scribbled in journals...imagine that happening to your brother or sister.

When I read this book my first thought was that he was may have been mentally unstable. There's something off with his quest, beyond usual curiosity and excitement. I travel abroad a lot, but some of the stuff he did and his insistence on untethering himself to everything and everyone seemed like a slight break from reality. His constant itchiness to get away and refusal to learn skills that would help him survive doomed him. He wasn't spoiled or selfish (remember his journal was discovered after death) but just a kid trying to figure out what to do with his life. Unfortunately he had less to live than most of us.

I wish this movie was less a celebration of guts and more a musing on why and what Gen X is looking for. I suppose it's simply a rohrschach test. The book was good but neutral, whereas a movie adaptation had the potential for so much more.

Posted by: Amanda47 at September 28, 2007 6:04 PM

Sarah, I think what you said is spot-on, especially 'Just because he gave away his money and went to Alaska doesn't prove he has anything worthwhile on the inside. He just embraced a different kind of form, equally lacking in substance.'.

I know many people who live this kind of life and all they achieve is being a burden on the people who strive to make an actual difference in their lives and communities.

Posted by: jules at September 28, 2007 7:29 PM

Ok, someone up there posted that this fellow was doing something to the effect of "what to do with his life" "figuring all out". Well if that isn't a defining statement about Generation Douchebag I don't know what is.

How about getting a Fucking. Job. and paying your taxes like everybody else. It just...it just ANNOYS me how ONLY over-pampered mama's boys/girls from industrialized nations have these existential crises. You don't see any Rwandans sayin' "gee, I feel depressed I won't go out and try to survive today" or Hispanics who come here to clean our toilets and pick-up our dog-crap.

Cry me a fucking river for this loser, he did the right thing.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at September 28, 2007 7:45 PM

I honestly don't understand how anyone can miss the idealism behind this. Foolish or not, he set out to test limits and maybe prove some (misguided?) point. Like twig said, how is this so much more stupid than trying to climb Everest?

Posted by: Carla at September 28, 2007 2:49 PM

Defending one form of suicide by comparing it to another is senseless. The fact that climbers on Everest pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to try something that has a ~20% death rate makes their climb no more significant than someone playing playing Russian roulette with a 5 shot revolver. What does their climb prove other than that the amount of luck they have is above the twentieth percentile if they make it up and back? If you're in the Khumbu ice fall and 100 tons of ice decides to sit on you or if you are at the summit and develop high altitude pulmonary edema and lose conciousness how is that any different than the loaded cylinder stopping under the hammer? What sort of idealism is involved in going out into the wilderness and living in a broken down bus and starving to death? What if he had succeeded in surviving in a broken down bus? Wouldn't that feat have placed him squarely in the ranks of trailer trash all across our great nation? Especially given that his diet would have most likely included a lot of squirrel.

Posted by: OscarTamerz at September 28, 2007 8:31 PM

Dammit, BarbardoSlim, I was ready to get all pissy and defensive because I am kind of over how Generation X (and Y) seems to constantly be derided and fully realizing that I'm being pissy and defensive because I am a member of Generation X. All of that was left by the wayside because.....you have a point. Fuck.

I would like to add that I think that it's more of a class issue than a generation issue. It's a little difficult to be existential-y when you can barely pay the bills and put food on the table.

Who wouldn't be interested in this tragic story? - I believe this was asked earlier upthread. That would be me. Not interested in the book or the movie. Maybe because, from what I have read here, this guy's life wasn't necessarily a tragedy to me - just irresponsible living?

Posted by: Daphne at September 28, 2007 8:49 PM

there's a lot of talk here about tragic figure vs. idiot who caused his own death, but i don't think that they're two separate things. tragic figures are tragic because they cause their own downfall - and this is true in almost all of our literature. it's only recently that tragedy has come to mean something different.

i don't think anybody is denying that mccandless did some pretty dumb things, or that he was young and naive and misguided, but he wasn't stupid - he was a pretty intelligent man with some very good intentions. so his intentions didn't pan out. something went wrong. it's the gap between the ideal and the outcome, and the way he unwittingly caused his own outcome, that's tragic.

he didn't go into alaska to starve. he went in there knowing full well that he might starve - he knew the risks - but he brought food, he brought a guide to teach him what plants he could eat, and he got advice about how to hunt and cure meat before he went in there. he lasted four months. that's a long time. when he finally did die, it wasn't because there wasn't any food, or he stopped eating. he ate the wrong plant - one that wasn't identified in his book and one that, later, 'experience outdoorsmen' couldn't identify. the way the poison worked caused his body to starve to death because he couldn't digest the food he was eating - not because he stopped eating. and he tried to get out - but by that time it was too late to cross the river in his weakened state.

get the details before you start making judgements. of course he was selfish, and naive, and made mistakes - that's WHY it's tragic. he wasn't a stupid idiot who didn't bring enough food or have the foresight to know that alaska might kill him.

Posted by: -'b. at September 28, 2007 11:22 PM

OscarTamerz,
VERY well put. And a lousy USGS topo map would've saved his life.


And to those who say that his diliemma is peanuts compared to a Rwandan or Buddhist Monk in Myanmar - well you can say that about anything that stresses us out in our society. We live where we live at this time in history and deal with the situation accordingly. I could be a miner in West Virginia trapped 500 feet below gound, but I'm not, thank God.


The fact is that he was a compelling and attractive personality who made outstandingly dumb mistakes and died for it - ie, an unfortunate story which made for a great book.


I find Penn to be a talented, yet a self-important prick at times, so I'm reserving judgment on the movie until I see it.

Posted by: Jim at September 29, 2007 1:05 AM

-'b - Glad someone addressed the actual cause of his death. Talk about a lot of people critiquing a book (and a guy) they've never read. Why would you think you get to do something like that and not come off sounding like an asshat? I too found McCandless, based on the book, to be a bit of an insufferable, privileged, middle-America kind of guy, but I really felt for him in the way he died. It was a bad luck of the draw. It also really creeped me out and stayed with me for a while.

Slim - It's called Maslow's hierarchy of needs and is classic Psych 101 type stuff. It's worth having around in one's mental tool box.

Posted by: katy at September 29, 2007 1:06 AM

Amazing review John, really enjoyable and well thought out.

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at September 29, 2007 2:43 AM

Daphne: I think there is something to your assertion that class might be an important factor. It's really easy to become a globe trotting, "troubled" hermit who gave it ALL up when you know it's all gonna be there when you get back.

I also wonder if 95% of the sympathy this guy generates comes from the fact that he was a "cute" college guy from a well-off family. I wonder if it'd be the same if he was some fat nerd from Assville USA.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at September 29, 2007 8:25 AM

grover - perhaps you should be watching fox news instead of reading pajiba because apparently you find the idea of someone having a differing opinion to your own incredibly threatening.

sarah - couldn't agree more. and you put it in such an eloquent way, right on.

BarbardoSlim - amen.

all -- while i had been saying this movie had absolutely no redeeming value, i have to revise my thoughts to say that anything that is able to foster this much (for the most part intelligent) debate has to have more value than i initially gave it credit for. thank you all for that.

Posted by: alm at September 29, 2007 10:07 AM

I'm glad everyone's so involved with this -- makes me wish I could re-write the review taking all of the feedback into account! Having read the book twice and sat pretty much transfixed through the movie, I have to say that I don't see either as "a celebration of guts," by a long shot. Both the book and movie tell the story of a misguided, idealistic, selfish, sometimes standoffish, sometimes tender 22-year-old (!!) who made huge mistakes, caused people who loved him (and who he loved) to suffer greatly, and who deserves to be viewed with the same complexity that we would grant to any other human being. He did not intend to commit suicide, nor did he commit suicide, so that word seems horribly out of place in the discussion.

Anyway, nothing usually annoys me more than pampered "seekers," but I really didn't see McCandless as that. If nothing else, he actually went on this search -- he deprived himself, he did the things he thought he should do, however stupid the rest of us think it is. But he wasn't just sitting at the end of a bar, putting drinks on his parents' credit card and bitching about "society."

My two cents, anyway. Not as the reviewer -- just as another voice in this conversation y'all are having (and enjoying, I hope).

Posted by: JMW at September 29, 2007 11:25 AM


As a native-born Alaskan who grew up a little ways north from where McCandliss died, I'm fascinated by the split reaction here and around America. And even moreso how the reaction seems to be different depending on how urban (or suburban) the poster's upbringing was.

When this story first came out in the Fairbanks Daily News Miner, most people just shrugged and chocked it up as another "wooly" who got himself killed in the wilderness. Everyone knows that even in an environment as food-rich as where he died bad things can happen (yes, it's food rich around there, if you know what you are looking for - head to Kaktovik if you want to see desolate).

What appalled most Alaskans were two issues:

1. He basically begged to get himself into trouble. He did some research at UAF library it seems, but then didn't take even 1/4 of what would be needed to survive if you lacked local knowledge.

2. It is believed he broke into another person's cabin out there and destroyed the stores. This is discussed as a 'possibility' in the book, but most locals see it as the most likely case. The guess is he did it to remove temptation or just 'cause he'd gone a little nuts. That his actions could have threatened another's survival really bothers most of us.

We are used to people coming to Alaska to "lose themselves" - and lots of them are a bit twisted, but that's what makes them fun to hang out with!

What grates on most Alaskans is that you lower 48ers make a big deal out of one kid who came to Alaska and was too stupid to set himself on the right path. People want to know why you aren't fascinated by the hundreds of McCandless's that DIDN'T die, and have a nice little cabin going somewhere, with their story of a successful journey to self-awareness.

Many of us born there learned how to survive in the bush, but we are just glad to have flush toilets and not hauling frozen "night soil" away from the cabin in the winter. We leave that "adventure" for you crazy folks who come up every summer in hopes of finding meaning to your lives.

Posted by: morgan at September 29, 2007 5:18 PM

People want to know why you aren't fascinated by the hundreds of McCandless's that DIDN'T die, and have a nice little cabin going somewhere, with their story of a successful journey to self-awareness.

Uh-oh, them's fightin' words! Kidding, morgan!

I don't know, I've never been overly fascinated in the stories of those who go off into the wilderness to find themselves. I have no problem with the choice itself, and you do what you gotta do; at the same time, I don't find anyone who does it (and survives or not) any more fascinating than someone who found a different path to self-awareness.

Sometimes it would seem there is an undercurrent of "oh, that's deeeeep" to those who completely shun material things and live off the land simply because they make that choice (generally speaking). As others have referenced, there are plenty of folks who live well by modern definition, managed to find their place in the world, and still contribute positively to their communities and/or the world at large. It's a choice, and we all make them one way or another. A person does what it is best for him or her. In my opinion, one is not more compelling than the other. Thus, my disinterest in this young man's story. However, I am probably in the minority on this.

Posted by: Daphne at September 29, 2007 5:56 PM

alm:

No threats here whatsoever -- even from you! If you READ my post you'll see that I railed against uninformed opinion, not differing opinion. In fact, I don't believe I divulged enough of my own opinion for anyone else to reasonably infer the degree of difference between my opinion and theirs. Unless, of course, professing to like a book implies liking every character and plot detail contained therein.

I rather like Amanda47's characterization of the book as a Rorschach test. I, for one, am fascinated by the fault lines of opinion on this discussion thread.

Oh well. No harm, no foul -- play on.

Posted by: Grover at September 29, 2007 6:01 PM

I'll admit right off the bat that I haven't read the book, though I did read the Outside article that it became, and I won't see the movie until next week.

I don't see why some people find it so offensive for a book to have been written about this guy. He's clearly a very interesting figure who generates a lot of discussion. Given what I know of Krakauer's writing style, I would guess that he presented McCandless without passing judgment on him.

Of course, given what I know of Sean Penn, I would guess that the judgment is a little more apparent in the movie. But that's the way the cookie crumbles.

I don't think anyone is holding McCandless up as a hero or a tragic figure. I think he's just a guy who didn't fit into normal society and found a way of dealing with it -- and was mostly successful, except for a streak of stubbornness which prevented him from bringing a map that would have shown him the bridge over the river. That, I agree, was stupid. There's living off the land and then there's being an idiot to make a point.

As for the idea that "ONLY over-pampered mama's boys/girls from industrialized nations have these existential crises"...I really don't think that's the case. When poor people don't fit into society, they usually end up mentally ill or drug addicts (in reality or perception), and then homeless.

Posted by: Alex at September 29, 2007 8:44 PM

Ugh. I HATED this movie. Barbado has it totally right. All I kept thinking was what a spoiled, selfish, self-pitying brat this kid was. Boo-hoo, my mom and dad are too superficial and fight a lot, I'm going to go off into the wilderness to die. Nothing noble about it, more like a pouty six year old running away from home. No sympathy whatsoever. Of course, I haven't read the book, so maybe the real guy had more to him, but the character as presented in the movie made me really hate him. What an asshole.

Posted by: Donna at September 30, 2007 12:57 AM

Hollywood this and hollywood that, I get it already.. a little right wing basheroo. wink wink
as it were, Jesus also shunned materialism and the one and only time in Jesus life that he became truley angrey was at the money changers at the temple...
In that aspect the corelation was appropriate. Of course what Chris did was stupid,he and a hundred just like him ,He overestimated himself and underestimated Alaska.. that wasnt the point for those with some depth ,not the usual the shallow comments about his stupidity. This world can be , by reading just the comments in here and I rest my case..., a vapid emotionless place that we especially americans fill up with materialistic things to fill the void of our empty lives with self absorbed extreamly nasty people who claim to be oh so holy yet judge even an honest attempt to potray a man who perhaps felt things too deeply in a empty world..we will never really know.

Posted by: Lynne at October 1, 2007 8:10 PM

Into the Wild Movie/Book.. my review

I found it upsetting that someone would CHOOSE to live like this. College Educated, and making such POOR decisions.. thinking he was prepared to go into the wild --- He WAS NOT PREPARED.. I am saying this as I live in WA STATE where we do go into the mountains and being prepared is essential.

One thought was he is a VERY distubed young man, and his parents were not talking to him about his issues. His main issue was WITH SOCIETY. His sister not telling his parents of the returned letters, only delayed in not finding him. He was someone who definately needed counseling. I left with the feeing that possibly this young man was mentally ill. He did have brains which he applied in college, but he also had a whole other set of emotional problems.

He CHOSE to end his life short. True he tried to get out, but Way TOO late. His college education I thought should of given him more common sense, but then you can't learn common sense from a book. It needs to start at home.

If I were his parent or sister, I would of not made this movie. What he had to say, was he was wrong in ending his life short, and it was his choice. Why make a movie of out senseless actions. This all could of been avoided. I hope he is looking down and seeing what people think of his life and how he wasted it.

Posted by: patty at October 2, 2007 2:48 PM

Into the Wild Movie/Book.. my review

I found it upsetting that someone would CHOOSE to live like this. College Educated, and making such POOR decisions.. thinking he was prepared to go into the wild --- He WAS NOT PREPARED.. I am saying this as I live in WA STATE where we do go into the mountains and being prepared is essential.

One thought was he is a VERY distubed young man, and his parents were not talking to him about his issues. His main issue was WITH SOCIETY. His sister not telling his parents of the returned letters, only delayed in not finding him. He was someone who definately needed counseling. I left with the feeing that possibly this young man was mentally ill. He did have brains which he applied in college, but he also had a whole other set of emotional problems.

He CHOSE to end his life short. True he tried to get out, but Way TOO late. His college education I thought should of given him more common sense, but then you can't learn common sense from a book. It needs to start at home.

If I were his parent or sister, I would of not made this movie. What he had to say, was he was wrong in ending his life short, and it was his choice. Why make a movie of out senseless actions. This all could of been avoided. I hope he is looking down and seeing what people think of his life and how he wasted it.

Posted by: patty at October 2, 2007 2:48 PM

This world can be , by reading just the comments in here and I rest my case..., a vapid emotionless place

Oh, please. Because not everyone agrees that one man's life isn't particularly compelling or fascinating? Or that some pass judgment on him for irresponsible behavior? Hell, people do worse than that for a celebrity who dares to go out in public with no makeup. Last time I checked, there is little considered sacred around these parts, so this "clutching of the pearls" mentality about this man is perplexing. One opinion is no more or less valid than the other - because they're opinions. Also, there are a LOT of pertinent, more relevant examples of the world being vapid and emotionless than the comments here. Calm down, please.

Posted by: Daphne at October 2, 2007 11:52 PM

I wondered if perhaps Sean Penn was forced to glamorize Chris McCandless in order to get his parents to sign off on the movie. I am fascinated by the story of this gifted young man who self-destructed. There is nothing "enlightened" about all the grief he caused to the people who loved him. He shunned possessions, yet had no problem with stealing when he needed to.

Even though it was his own life to waste, as a mother, I would like to bitch-slap some sense into him.

Posted by: Hippo at October 6, 2007 7:59 PM

I was bored to tears by this film.

McCandless spends a good portion of the duration of the film with his arms upstretched "into the wild".

I did find the parallels between him and Biggie Smalls intriguing, though...

And no, I'm not joking.

Posted by: DCMovieGirl at October 8, 2007 8:22 PM

Amanda47, I have to dis-agree with you, I knew Chris, and his sister from the first marriage Shelly . Shelly told me her dad actually fractured her moms back at one point. As the kids turned 18 they all stopped going to VA to visit their dad. Guess that says something about him.
I was in their house on Willet Dr. In Annandale on several occasions when the yelling began. (I lived next door). There was definitely abuse physically and mentally. Walt was a large intimidating guy with a very bad temper.
Chris showed personality quirks caused by Walt even before he was a teenager. His actions were driven by his anger at his father that he couldn't show any other way. It is a sad story about how a parent can screw his kids up.
Chris was very self confidant and figured he conquer nature itself before he was done. Unfortunately he found out to late he couldn't beat nature and he did need people.
I personally wonder how the rest of Walt's children made out.

Posted by: Jeff Johnson at October 14, 2007 9:49 PM

I think it is painfully obvious here how few people of Gen X/Y have a connection to nature. Those who think he was trying to "prove a point" by going into the woods obviously do not know what can be gained by spending time in the setting that humans were intended to inhabit -- watching sunsets, observing animals, breathing air that smells like trees and not like chemical air fresheners. To the reviewers who trivialize his relationship with his parents, consider yourselves lucky -- you obviously did not grow up in households with abuse and cannot imagine what that does to a person.

I found the film to be disturbing and sad. Its beauty and the magnetism of the main character (and actor) were somewhat redeeming, but as someone who greatly fears dying alone and in pain (as do I think pretty much all of us), it was difficult to watch. As far as I'm concerned, the real tragedy was that no sooner had he realized that he could not lead a satisfying life alone (--and keep in mind that a lifetime of abuse and competition with his father had led him to constantly keep others at a distance), he was unable to rejoin society. This was, yes, a result of his own foolishness and youth, but also part of his decision to define himself by a different set of standards -- by the tests of nature rather than those of society. This is why he dies with a smile on his face -- he fails, but at a test that he was at least a willing participant in (that of nature rather than of academia or the corporate world). Again, it's a shame that more of these reviewers don't share that same longing to watch the clouds roll by on a sunny day or climb a mountain just for the view. . .

Overall, a good movie but part of me regrets having seen it. I think I might agree with the native Alaskan who said that a film about one of the McCandless's who have a nice little cabin somewhere might have been a bit more inspirational. . . Killing the main character is always a mistake as far as I'm concerned.

And for those of you who raise the issue of class and whether or not he was a spoiled subarban brat, I think the very real tragedy of suburban America is that people have been made to believe that they can exist happily without others. In other cultures and in less wealthy societies, it is acknowledged that people need each other -- even in the Slab community in the film, there is a sense that the poverty has brought people closer together. Chris's problem is that he was not loved by his parents in any direct sort of way and did not realize the value of community because he had never truly had it. He even feared having sustained relationships because the most important ones in his early life had been fraught with anger, injustice and betrayal. I still maintain that much of the "soul searching" done by the upper classes is because they have never known true community and thus go to great lengths to find it. Again, consider yourself lucky if you've never found yourself alone and without anyone to talk to, save a paid therapist.

Again, a beautiful fim, but perhaps too tragic of a character. . .

Posted by: jackie0 at November 11, 2007 11:25 PM

I enjoyed the book. I never like a movie as much as the book, and have not seen the movie to date, but I will. So these comments are neither about the book, or about the movie. They are about those that have made comments above and below.

Wow, many 'plastic' people making comments. By 'plastic' I mean those that wear boots, jeans, a cowboy hat, and don't know what the 'scours' are, or have even driven more than a mile down a dirt or gravel road in their entire life.
For those that have made comments, get a sack of rice, walk 20 miles to some place (you don't have to be in Alaska) and camp for a month (even in a campground). Don't visit with anyone and don't take a bath in a tub, or a shower. But make sure that you tell someone to peek at you from time to time and make sure the red flag is not raised (meaning come and get me!).
Then, and only then, will your pontificating about what Chris did or didn't do, meant or didn't mean, will have credibility. I count myself lucky to have lived in town, and on a secluded ranch in the mountains. A city kid with many days where I could have done any number of dumb things and died in the wild.
One more comment, I learned a few things from the book about Chris, did you?

Posted by: Huckelberry Finn at December 20, 2007 12:06 PM

I read the many comments about how McCandless was a spoiled brat. Giving up the many "things" that make us comfortable in society today. I'm betting that SLIM and ALM are miserable in their own way that they could not do what McCandless did in getting away from all the BS in his life to "find himself", just like that.

McCanless did not go to commit suicide, because there is proof that he made a decision to return for more supplies if he started to starve. What did happen is him made a brutal error that cost him his life. The film even reflects this and makes a point of showing his mistakes.

The film also shows the intellegence McCandless had to survive as long as he did. More than two years undetected from home and family, and a 100 days plus in the Alaskan outback.

My last comment is that this award winning book by Jon Krakauer is much more reflective of all the characters portrayed in the movie and gives so much more insight to the people and Chris McCandless than Sean Penn could ever. The positive is that Penn still does get the point across and does so, in my opinion, with flying colours. The many awards that surround this film are proof of that.

Posted by: Sparky at December 22, 2007 8:20 PM

Have just seen the film tonight, thought it was beautiful and intriguing, and googled to see what others had written about it. Have scanned through some of the comments/reviews/analysis, and while opinions will vary, some of the 'negative' comments seem to misunderstand the film completely.

1. "Spoiled brat" - McCandless is no black and white hero nor villain - the point and beauty of the film is his journey to try to come to grips with and understand the world he lives in. McCandless asks the questions many people do - why so much 'stuff' and so little happiness? Why so much hate? Why the disfunction?

But McCandless's search 'into the wild' doesn't have the (real) ANSWERS he is looking for. Ironically, it is some of those he meets on the way that show what real friendship, solidarity and family can be - and ultimately in the end he recognises that real happiness cannot be in isolation.

Yes, McCandless is flawed - ie he is human.

2. 'It's offensive that a life so oppossed to consumerism is turned into a Hollywood film'. While this criticism is understandable, it seems simplistic. Yes, Hollywood is skewed to making the bigbucks from often the most idiotic fluff. However, when more thoughtful films are made that challenge consumerism, corporate domination and similar, I think that is something to be applauded. Farenheit 9-11, Inconvenient Truth, Sicko, whatever - bring it on.

The issue would be IF Hollywood warped such a film, toning down the anti-consumerism, perhaps having McCandless make peace with the system - that would be a sellout.

But for mine, that's not the case. McCandless reconciles that he is a social creature - but not with the materialist nature of our society.

3. There is a bizarre criticism from someone who says they read the script and were "constantly annoyed by Sean Penn's pretentious and self-righteous tone. I remember a scene in particular involving a grain elevator, and he'd inserted a parenthetical along the lines of "Hire an actor who knows this shit so it looks natural.""

I fail to see what is self-righteous or pretentious about wanting an actor who is using a grain elevator to know how to use such a thing?

I'm a fan of Sean Penn's work, and his interest in social issues more broadly.

Overall, though there were weaknesses, it was a film full of beauty - the landscapes, the animals, the intriguing and fallible characters and their struggles.

Like the film, perhaps even more so, McCandless had plenty of weaknesses and flaws.....

But then, who doesn't?

Posted by: Paul Benedek, Australia at December 30, 2007 8:38 AM

what an incredible movie, just.... not the acting, nor the cinematography, nor even the story line as such, but the bigger picture. One we can all, i hope relate to. that life is tough, and at times we all feel like escaping. escaping from our countries laws, it's regulations, it's politics, and the corporations that inadvertantly control those politics. the western world we choose to live in. one that CAN be escaped..... perhaps not to his extreme, but one we can come back alive from and educate our people that aspects of 3rd world are not something to be looked down upon.

Posted by: Paul Spratt at December 30, 2007 8:52 AM

what an incredible movie, just.... not the acting, nor the cinematography, nor even the story line as such, but the bigger picture. One we can all, i hope relate to. that life is tough, and at times we all feel like escaping. escaping from our countries laws, it's regulations, it's politics, and the corporations that inadvertantly control those politics. the western world we choose to live in. one that CAN be escaped..... perhaps not to his extreme, but one we can come back alive from and educate our people that aspects of 3rd world are not something to be looked down upon.

Posted by: Paul Spratt at December 30, 2007 8:53 AM

Was he diagnosible? Asperger's? He reminded me of Meursault in The Stranger, even down to the epiphany at the end.

The movie was unsatisfying, until the end, when he died. Then it was strangely fulfilling. Poor bastard.

Posted by: Sandor at January 3, 2008 1:32 AM

i'm sorry but i think this movie was amazing. I'm only 13 but i still loved it

Posted by: hello at February 22, 2008 10:57 PM

my husband and i just finished watching this movie and we both wanted to punch the kid in the face. what a pretentious, uppity stupid fuck. the thing that bothered me most about this kid (aside from the fact that he thought that if he read some thoreau he knew everything he needed to know about the outdoors) was the fact that he kept meeting people who were demonstrating to him that the most important thing in this life is the people you love, and still, he can't find it inside himself to call his fucking sister. go off and do your own thing, i don't care, but at least be man enough to let your family know you're not dead. how fucking selfish. ugh, i hated this kid.

Posted by: groanygirl at March 9, 2008 10:13 PM

I enjoy movies based on peoples journeys through life. I can remember those early days when I wanted to get away, to live what I felt my calling was, a lot of us do. Unprepared emotionally, worldly, inexperienced in a wild nature, looking for a dream that was out there for us, for whatever reason. Looking for our own way. The soul searching, say what you will, all find it in a different way. He had to find it in his. It reminded me of how fragile life truly is, how quickly it can be taken away. All that to learn true happiness can only be shared!! It just takes time for us to grow and understand where we belong on this planet. We would all do good to listen to the stories of the dreamers of this world. Maybe we could help them understand that it does get easier. These are the stories our children want to hear, the excape, the adventure...because so many of them feel trapped, and even with a college education they still don't know where they are going! I will have to read the book next, I never heard about this until now! What another wonderful addition to my movie collection. Give them hope!

Posted by: Mathair at March 13, 2008 7:58 PM

I thought the film was fantastic, and intend to read the book at some point, but I can also see where everyone's coming from. I reckon McCandless' ideals and actions are open to any number of interpretations and reactions.

I think he had a lot of admirable beliefs and he wasn't a complete idiot in the execution of them. I can understand that desire to break away and only have to deal with nature. Yeah, he was a bit rash, but he didn't just walk into the mountains with a tin of beans, a gas stove and an extra jumper - he at least knew what he was getting himself into and how to deal with it, and his living out there for over 100 days is testament to this. All things considered I admire him in many ways, but I can see why he makes a lot of people angry.

I say let people hold him up as a hero and let people damn him as a spoilt, pretentious kid. He's both of those things. It just depends on what you believe.

Posted by: Gumble at March 24, 2008 8:10 PM