To those who think he was stupid…
-
ljshorts — 10 years ago(June 19, 2015 11:45 PM)
The whole point was to be unprepared (hence the burning of money) Nobody is prepared for living naturally in the wild, because nobody does that anymore. Everyone lives safely within the confines of modern civilization, with your basic needs handed to you and luxuries afforded at will. His idea was to go back to a more natural, humbled lifestyle that he was raised to detest. I mean come on man this was practically spelled out in the film.
-
Ruispuuro — 10 years ago(June 23, 2015 06:13 AM)
Yes if he had studied and prepared for living in the wild then it would've not been the same because then he would've just followed rules and it was the rules he was escaping. Of course because he failed then we can call him stupid but if he had succeeded we would call him a hero and a genius. The line between the two is very very thin.
-
-
ljshorts — 10 years ago(July 28, 2015 04:29 PM)
You probably missed the part where he died.
Evidently you didn't read the first post of this thread Again, it seems the entirety of this movie went over your head. It's understandable that your students didn't understand it because they're young, but you have little excuse as an adult. -
ljshorts — 10 years ago(August 11, 2015 04:42 PM)
No one forgot that he starved to death, it's the most dramatic part of the film and a crucial part of his story. So what you're saying is invalid. As far as equating death with stupidity, people consider dying for a greater cause all of the time. They're called
martyrs
or
heroes
, and I find it hard to believe you've never heard of this idea before, as there are many people who have done this throughout history. You don't seem like a deep thinker, sorry. -
caulkins69 — 10 years ago(September 25, 2015 04:49 PM)
Disregarding the laws of man is one thing, but trying to ignore the laws of nature is the height of foolishness. Had McCandless lived, I doubt we would even have heard of him, let alone describe him as a hero or genius. McCandless was a defective person who self-selected out of the gene pool. Hmm, now that I think about it, maybe it isn't such a bad thing if similarly-minded people are inspired to do the same. Darwin Awards all around!
-
ljshorts — 10 years ago(August 11, 2015 04:58 PM)
You're right. Although his intention was to go
"Into the Wild"
unprepared and naive. The point of his story is to show that we are all too comfortable living in an immoral modern society and that we should get back to our roots and relearn how to live the right way. To train and prepare for his adventure would defeat the purpose and would just be a standard camping trip. It's because he was unprepared that we was reborn.
I felt that he was smart enough to know the amount of risk he was taking weighed against reward of his experience.
This is also right, he knew what the risks were but decided living was worth dying for. That's why he was happy when he died. -
ljshorts — 10 years ago(August 13, 2015 08:21 PM)
Sure, but his psyche and his past traumas are almost irrelevant as far as why he left, because if the society that he was living in was right and moral, then he could have just stayed and prospered where he was. It was society that motivated him to leave and and allow himself to actually live before dying instead of becoming an slave to America and dying unfulfilled.
-
linak11 — 10 years ago(August 20, 2015 05:51 AM)
Every generation needs its Kerouac, so this is the one for the millennial set. I felt there were too many Jesus-y sentiments there. Mind you, the script was written through the eyes of his grieving, self-flaggelating family in a quest to understand him and to repent their sins of less than perfect parenting. But it's definitely a broad and rich canvas for different people to relate to different things - and to reject different things. I do think he was arrogant not to prepare to retreat from there. I guess He went in thinking that he won't want to come back, had no doubts in his "truthiness". He didn't ask what's the best way to return if he rethinks his whole philosophy - and eventually, that's what killed him. I watched this back to back with Wild, so I liked that she had an exit plan for her purgatory mission. One thing to be said - America is one stunning land
-
palisade-1 — 10 years ago(August 25, 2015 09:03 AM)
I guess He went in thinking that he won't want to come back, had no doubts in his "truthiness".
The movie gives this impression that Chris was permanently moving "into the wild" but that was not in fact the case. He planned for it to be more like a retreat (spiritual and physical), shades of Outward Bound mixed with a stint at a monastery. He had committed to Wayne Westerberg to be back by the end of August, where he would help out with the harvest. He had not rejected society permanently, he was simply fulfilling a long-held dream of camping out in Alaska for a few months before returning. He had discussed his future plans with Wayne, which included more travel and getting married "someday."
The movie is "based on a true story" but contains significant fictional material, including the "poison plants," which did not exist. I liked the movie but did
not
like the fact that Penn's changes significantly diminished the main character, making him appear naive and much less experienced than he was. My theory is that Penn wanted to romanticize his character but in that IMO he failed. The real story is better than Penn's version, but the cinematography etc. are outstanding so I like the film despite its flaws. -
ljshorts — 10 years ago(August 26, 2015 06:05 PM)
Yeah you're right, and I agree. Except I actually like Penn's additions and I think he succeeded in making the character pretty likable, although I haven't read the book yet for some reason.. I should probably get around to that.