To those who think he was stupid…
-
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. -
ljshorts — 10 years ago(September 09, 2015 04:36 PM)
Well your opinion is quite popular that's for sure. This is because most of humanity is more like Chris' parents and less like Chris. This is a bad thing because you are not
living
life if you are like his parents. Chris,
lived
his life before dying, which is what few people do nowadays.
He threw it away in exchange for nothing.
His intention was to throw himself into the world he and everyone else was robbed of. He did that, enjoyed his experience and then died a happy man. So to correct you I would say he committed to a high risk/ high reward situation.
that would imply he died for a cause,
He did die for a cause, he didn't know it would become something bigger like a book or a film. He did it for himself, but the message behind his story is that people need to wake up and free themselves. It takes a lot of courage to do what he did. -
jajceboy — 10 years ago(September 12, 2015 05:22 AM)
He lived his life the way he wanted to live it, and died loving the things he did.
I think it's quite inspiring.
Many of us dream to do something similar, to escape the rules of the society and be free. But for must of us it stays a dream.We are afraid of stepping out of our comfort zone. He actually dared to risk everything and do it
True it didn't turn out the way he expected it to but he was willing to risk it.
And he did die for a cause. -
the_evil_emcee — 10 years ago(September 15, 2015 01:45 PM)
The thing you are forgetting is he didn't do this for anyone but himself. Therefore he did this for selfish reasons not altruistic reasons. Even in the movie it is shown that he cared less for others than he did for himself. He didn't know he was going to die or even think he was going to die. He was planning on being back in August to help with the grain harvest. He went in overconfident and naive.
If you base your entire opinion on McCandless on just what the movie shows then you're only getting a third of the story. If you base your opinion on just Krakauer's book and the movie then you're only getting half the story. Both have created events that never happened. Both have left out things that did happen.
Remember this. IF he had not died and if Krakauer had not written his book then he would have never impacted your life. If he had walked out across the bridge which is 1/2 a mile from the bus you would have never have heard of him and you wouldn't be praising him as the Thoreau or London of our times.
There have been dozens of articles written debunking the heroism of McCandless. If you chose to ignore them then you are just as naive as he was. -
ljshorts — 10 years ago(September 15, 2015 05:21 PM)
If you scroll up like three comments, you will see that I am well aware he did it for himself.
he didn't know it would become something bigger like a book or a film. He did it for himself,
This doesn't make him selfish. This means he cares about his life. Which again, few people actually care about living otherwise they would be doing something similar to what he did. How you misunderstood him caring for other people less is beyond me, when he is shown being kind and helping others along his journey (ie. the old man). There haven't been articles debunking his
"heroism"
. There have been articles debunking aspects of the film. If you care to refute this, please share an article with us. -
caulkins69 — 10 years ago(September 25, 2015 05:26 PM)
Here is one:
http://www.adn.com/article/20130920/beatification-chris-mccandless-thieving-poacher-saint -
ljshorts — 10 years ago(September 25, 2015 06:14 PM)
Thanks for the link. First of all, whether this is a reliable source or not, the person stating these 'facts' is heavily biased against him. So that is something to note.
Now, I read the whole article. Here it is in a nutshell:
"The guy is a poacher, a bum and a thief"
Poacher? Yes, that is what humans need to do to survive, plain and simple. beep the rules?" says Chris? Yes, better to live the way nature intended than to abide by the rules of the satanic tyrants.
Bum? Sure? Label it what you want, doesn't make a difference.
Thief? Accusation, with no evidence. Just bias.
Mentally ill? Accusation, with no evidence. Just bias. -
movieliker1 — 10 years ago(September 25, 2015 02:58 AM)
He lived his life the way he wanted to live it, and died loving the things he did.
I think it's quite inspiring.
He lived his life being a irresponsible, immature, inconsiderate, selfish, baby. He completely abandoned the people who loved him (his brothers and sisters) and killed himself in the process. If you are inspired by this, you are as big a fool as he was. -
zwolf — 10 years ago(September 17, 2015 09:49 AM)
Well your opinion is quite popular that's for sure.
Ever consider the possibility that's for good reason?
This is because most of humanity is more like Chris' parents and less like Chris. This is a bad thing because you are not living life if you are like his parents. Chris, lived his life before dying, which is what few people do nowadays.
Chris was unhappy with his life and tried to escape it and died begging for help because he screwed up. This guy was never happy inside himself that's why he kept trying to seek something else. You're not "living life" if you're not comfortable with yourself. And if you're not happy inside yourself, you're not going to find it by trying to change your external surroundings. All Chris did was re-locate the source of his problems himself. He kept trying to change external situations, and that only works as a distraction.
I've seen Chris's parents in documentaries, and I have very little in common with them. The world's not divided so neatly that you're either a "Chris" or a "Chris's parents."
I
am
living life because I'm very happy doing what I'm doing. That's really all there is to it. You don't have to be off being a hobo to be happy; you just have to accept who you are and get along with yourself. Going out in the woods hunting and gathering would only be taking up more of the free time I use enjoying other things. If you're not good company for yourself, you'll always be bored and discontent, even if you flee into the woods or whatever. Because
you'll
still be there. Changing your name to "Alexander Supertramp" isn't going to change it. The best the external world can give you is a distraction it's not going to make your inner life more worthwhile. Chris wasn't "living" he was running from life, and then he was dying.
I know a lot of people believe a lot of "spiritual" horses***, but the truth is, this life is all there is, and there's no "greater purpose" to it. And, the big secret that a lot of people don't get is,
you really don't need one.
If you need there to be "meaning," you'll never be happy, anyway, because you'll still be avoiding how things really are. If you don't treasure the time you have on this earth, and take reasonable steps to preserve it, then you're throwing it away. Chris was willing to die because his life was not valuable to him. He failed to make it so. He
romanticized
throwing it away because he'd given it such a cheap price tag. He didn't even want to be who he was he kept rejecting everything, from his family, to his name, to his accomplishments, to his identity. He kept trying to turn it into something else. And that's about as far from "living your life" as you can get.
Losing
your life is not
living
it. That's like saying "the best writers never pick up a pen" it's absurd.
His intention was to throw himself into the world he and everyone else was robbed of. He did that, enjoyed his experience and then died a happy man. So to correct you I would say he committed to a high risk/ high reward situation.
The only world that was robbed from him was another 50+ years of life he could have enjoyed, if he'd placed any value on it. He died a desperate man, not a happy one. Starvation is a miserable way to go, and it's not much of a "reward." Especially since he only got to have any real fun doing it for such a brief period of time; he lived there for 113 days which is a very brief period and considering he lost half his body weight during that span, there couldn't have been more than a couple of weeks that weren't miserable and desperate. He wrote as much in that half-assed "journal" he kept (which makes me wonder how introspective he even was what introspective person doesn't
write?
). He barely wrote anything and almost all that was there was regret he's lonely, he's scared, in great jeopardy, wish I hadn't killed the moose, etc. People are imposing some "romantic adventure" on something that he'd probably admit was a huge mistake. What was his final summation - "Happiness is only real when shared," right? And he took himself out of any situation where he could share it. Is that not an admission that he screwed up?
You
think he won. But I think Chris realized at the end that he lost. People aren't seeing that, and are foolishly wanting to re-create his mistake. They think they "know" him, but it's romanticized b.s. because they're not really considering it with any real depth.
If he really enjoyed spending time in the woods, he'd do what most outdoorsmen do he'd make sure he had the skills and knowledge needed to survive there,
so he could keep doing it.
Chris didn't value his life enough to even take a map. It was a waste. It's very strange that so many people seem to envy this guy, when there are plenty of other people who do similar things but
succeed
at them.
Chris McCandless is, absurdly, seen as a romantic hero because he's the one who
died
doing it. People flock around and make pilgrimages to