A Chicago Blog

3 Responses to “Into the Wild”

1. DGM
   June 17th, 2008 at 11:04 am

   

   Great, beautiful movie.
   It led to some interesting debate with friends, family, and colleagues.
   If you read Jon Krakauer’s book, on which much of the film was based, the voice (opinion) of native Alaskans is discussed.
   The majority, if not ALL of the Alaskans that were referenced in the book, (and original article in Outdoor magazine), thought Christopher McCandless was naive/stupidly idealistic if not suicidal. A point of real anger and head scratching from many Alaskans was Christopher’s refusal to carry/retain a map of the area.

   While the movie encouraged a sympathy/empathy for McCandless and the friends and family he left behind, the book had me feel a bit different (I pulled it off the book shelf and reread it). While my sympathy remains intact to a certain degree, I also can see/understand, and agree with the Alaskan native perspective which holds that McCandless was essentially an “idiot.” To go off “into the wild,” without a map, without adequate food, depending on “living off the land” is foolhardy and idealistic at best, stupid and deadly at worst.
   Krakauer notes that from a psychological perspective, McCandless was monomanic, that is, “obsessive preoccupation: an obsessive interest in a single thing, or a preoccupation with a single idea or thought.”
   He was NOT perfect. In fact, my brother noted his seeming hypocrisy that he (McCandless) didn’t defend or address: namely, he gave his money away, and burned the cash he had…yet he would work menial jobs in order to attain the quite necessary money that was needed to fund his travels, and eventual Alaskan trip into the wild.
   Like any human being, when one starts to analyze under the microscope the life that was led, idiosyncrasies, seeming hypocrisies in conflict with promoted belief systems emerge. McCandless may have stated he wanted to be an ascetic in the vein of Tolstoy, but his actions (and one could state life in 20th century America) did not always support that wish.

2. Mike
   June 17th, 2008 at 2:28 pm

   

   I think there is much to debate about his mental health, and the relative merit of expecting to survive in “the wild” without even the slightest preparation for potential dangers.

   And yet, I think what is beautiful about the movie is that McCandless goes to extremes to “live” life, and yet as he was dying he seems to have realized that he was worshiping a false god and that true happiness was back in slab city with loved ones And yet, it took his extreme isolation to force this recognition upon him and by the time the recognition was made, it was far too late. It was all very tragic to me. But tragic in the Shakespearean sense that his greatness was his greatest weakness.

   Whatever the truth about McCandless happens to be, the story told in the movie is still a profound one.

3. Rex Austin BArrow
   June 18th, 2008 at 10:22 pm

   

   Mike you got it right on. The point was that life is useless without the privledge of company. It took McCandless the journey to figure this out. However, DGM’, characterization of the book is way off base. Krakauer does discuss the Alaskan mindset, but does not come to any conclusions on their musing, as a good writer shouldn’t. Also, there is a great account of one of Krakauer’s own ridiculous journeys in Alaska where he thought he would die on several occasions, but kept pushing on as McCandless did. He lays out this personal Alaskan journey to draw a comparision between himself and McCandless no doubt.

   If you have not read the book you should. It made the movie even better. I won’t say the book is better, as I know that Sean Penn had been trying to obtain the rights for more than ten years, and his devotion to the story came through.

   My most favorite moment was when he was washing in his homemade shower with the fast speed film slow motion play, and you know he has found what he could only find by coming into the wild.