To those who think he was stupid…
-
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.
-
palisade-1 — 10 years ago(August 26, 2015 10:36 PM)
I haven't read the book yet
The book is certainly worth a read, but it has a tendency to romanticize its subject as well. There are a number of short pieces written about McCandless that shed light on his background, character and personality from a variety of points of view. I found the character likable myself, but many viewers do not, for which I partially blame Penn.
However, an interesting complementary film you will doubtless enjoy watching is Ron Lamothe's documentary
Call of the Wild
It's told by a contemporary of McCandless who had long been enthralled by his story and who decided to make a road trip, following in Chris's (literal and figurative) footsteps, starting at Walden Pond and ending up in Alaska. Along the way he meets a number of people who knew Chris well and who contribute completely different insights into his life and experience. The film is full of coincidences, including the fact that one of Lamothe's college roommates had been Chris's college roommate at Emory before transferring to Tufts. Along the way Lamothe has insights into how times and attitudes have changed since Chris's odyssey, and the conclusion, while low-key, is moving and thoughtful.
I think you will like it. It's worth the price if you have to buy the DVD (you can probably get it from the public library)
Here's a blurb about it:
http://www.denverfilm.org/filmcenter/detail.aspx?id=21455 -
zwolf — 10 years ago(September 09, 2015 06:58 AM)
In what way was what he did "important"? And how was it something "worth dying for?"
You make this guy out to be some great hero, but heroes do things for others. They put their lives on the line rescuing someone from a fire, or fighting off something that would cause someone harm, or something of the sort something of
benefit
to the world. Those things can be worth dying for. If this had happened to him while searching for a lost child in the wilderness or something, then, that'd be different. But McCandless did nothing of any benefit to anyone. He wasn't trying to do anything noble. In fact, he inspired others to imitate his foolishness and they died, too. And he left grieving friends and family.
This is not a "hero." And he's not a "martyr" that would imply he died for a cause, sacrificed himself to try making things better for others. But he didn't. This was no more than a mentally ill young man who threw his life away doing something that had no real point, and which he wasn't even prepared for. He wasn't even good at roughing it he gave a moose a slow, painful death and then wasted all the meat because he didn't know what he was doing. There's really nothing admirable about any of it. Even if he'd succeeded, he wasn't doing anything "heroic" he was just
camping.
It's not courageous as much as it is foolish.
Why people see this guy's story as "inspirational" is puzzling. There are things worth sacrificing your life for, but what McCandless did is far from it. He threw it away in exchange for nothing. He did himself harm and no one else any good. There's nothing here to admire. It's a sad story of a sick boy who
could
have done something with his life but wasted it instead, miserably and foolishly.