To those who think he was stupid…
-
ljshorts — 10 years ago(September 17, 2015 06:30 PM)
This guy was never happy inside himself
I honestly can in no way find why you're saying this, when almost the whole movie he was running around laughing and smiling like a child. Discovering new things about life. He
was
unhappy when he was stuck in society, with garbage parents. Then he left, and was happy. The entire movie was about having fun exploring the world and being free. That simple. There is a correlation, someone who is educated knows that the economic trap called society is going to be a negative force on your life in every outcome. Chris knew this because he bothered to read books.
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.
This is a common new-age fallacy, and is simply not true. Regardless living free to do what you want is better than living as a slave with limitations.
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.
Exactly, he didn't want to be someone who somebody else told him to be. He wanted to go out and form his own identity.
It's like the cult around Kurt Cobain
Yeah because he's a hero to millions for just reasons?
Look man, I appreciate the time you put into giving your opinions on everything. But their will always be people arguing for him, and people arguing against him. The point is if you're educated enough about the way the world works you'll understand why Chris did what he did, and praise him for it. Because it is courageous and many people are in very relatable situations where they are also unhappy being slaves and like to entertain the idea of leaving and living like he did.
BTW, most people are against Chris because most people that live in modern first world countries are brainwashed into fearing nature and death, while taught to value money, possessions and luxuries. So your viewpoint is not popular for good reason. -
zwolf — 10 years ago(September 18, 2015 10:53 AM)
I honestly can in no way find why you're saying this, when almost the whole movie he was running around laughing and smiling like a child.
Because it's
a movie.
It's not quite that way in the book. Anybody can fictionalize an event and put their own spin on it. Which is what Sean Penn did.
Discovering new things about life. He was unhappy when he was stuck in society, with garbage parents. Then he left, and was happy. The entire movie was about having fun exploring the world and being free. That simple. There is a correlation, someone who is educated knows that the economic trap called society is going to be a negative force on your life in every outcome. Chris knew this because he bothered to read books.
There are a lot of things in books that aren't necessarily true. I've read thousands of books, but I don't get my truth from them. Chris had a bunch of untested ideas in his head. As far as "economic traps," nothing'll trap people like poverty. It's all well and good for a guy whose parents gave him everything to reject it and then go out and subsequently die, but what about people who don't have those opportunities? They're not all living wonderfully happy lives just because they have no possessions.
One reason I'm so anti-Chris-McCandless-myth is, I have an old girlfriend who spent years as a nomadic biker. She was "free" as you can get and she'd be the first to tell you she's happier now that she settled down and found some stability and peace. She was a runaway because she was escaping abuse. Chris had an unpleasant life with his parents, but he also had opportunties to get a college education and escape that. She wishes she'd had the same.
This cult built around McCandless is a
dream.
It's an idealized dream, built around a guy who died so he can't debunk it although he'd probably like to.
This is a common new-age fallacy, and is simply not true. Regardless living free to do what you want is better than living as a slave with limitations.
New-age tends to be spiritual. I'm anything but. Spirituality is primitive superstition. But, if you want real limitations, narrow down your options. Chris did. He died from his limitations. You do realize he got
trapped
there, right? He left notes, begging for help, in a place nobody could come because he'd isolated himself there and couldn't get out.
And yet you keep telling me about freedom, and slaves with limitations do you really understand what this dude got himself into? You're buying a fiction created by a movie. Read the book. The book's not totally honest, either, because the author put a slant on it, but it's more to-truth than the movie which might as well be about a character that Sean Penn just made up.
Exactly, he didn't want to be someone who somebody else told him to be. He wanted to go out and form his own identity.
And in the end he signed his real name because he realized it was a mistake. He never had to be what anyone else told him to be, nobody does but he went about it in a naive, simpleminded, and ultimately-shallow way. He didn't face himself, he just ran from himself. Right into a pit.
Yeah because he's a hero to millions for just reasons?
I like Kurt Cobain, and was into Nirvana long before
Nevermind
came out but he wasn't a hero. He was a junkie. He made bad decisions and died from them. I like the guy, I think he's interesting and made good music, but making a hero of him is a big mistake. Since when is self-indulgence a thing to admire? What kind of values revere wasting one's potential? That's the problem with Kurt (who at least actually
did things
and created something before he died) and Chris (who didn't even do that).
Look man, I appreciate the time you put into giving your opinions on everything. But their will always be people arguing for him, and people arguing against him.
Yeah, I know that. I'm just saying people should question why they're making a hero of this guy.
The point is if you're educated enough about the way the world works you'll understand why Chris did what he did, and praise him for it. Because it is courageous and many people are in very relatable situations where they are also unhappy being slaves and like to entertain the idea of leaving and living like he did.
I'm almost 50 and have done a lot of stuff, read a lot of books, and done a lot of living, thinking, and writing, so I know a good bit about how the world works. I can understand why he did what he did, but I also understand it was a mistake. That's proven by the way it ended which was a
very avoidable ending.
First off, you're assuming that everyone who doesn't do what he did is a "slave." That's an incorrect assumption. Different things make different people happy. If you're happy with your life, then you're not a "slave," no matter how you're living it. Earning a living is not "slavery." If you consider that to be slavery, then having to hunt and gather is another form of slavery, too that's gonna take up mo -
ljshorts — 10 years ago(September 18, 2015 07:15 PM)
Wow. Haha.
I think you make good points, and you sound educated. I do agree with you that the film was romanticized and played up to make cinema. But Chris' sister confirmed that she liked the movie and that it was a pretty accurate representation of how he was.
Even if it wasn't accurate, this creation (this movie) in combination with Chris' legacy is inspiring. It's inspiring to people who are in unfortunate situations like Chris', and want to do something about it. Adventurous or not. With reckless abandon or with caution. That's the beauty of art and film-making. It doesn't have to be real to inspire.
Now we're from different generations, so that's probably why we don't agree on a few things here. But the reality is we
are
all slaves, and there's nothing good about it. If you can convince yourself to enjoy it or at the very least put up with it, that's a shame. Especially if the slave-owners are extremely immoral and selfish, while spending their free time dabbling in the occult and Satanism.
Contrary to popular belief, there is objective right and wrong. The New-age deception has done a good job of making people believe that morality is subjective, and can be made up, that is also a shame. Apparently Chris had a stern set of principals on things like ethics, and was an idealist. This is the way it is supposed to be, because with the dramatic decline in ethics, our culture has gone to sh*t. He couldn't put up with it anymore, and I don't blame him. Good people like that just don't fit into society anymore. So you're right I am pretty adamant about what's good and bad, because it can be learned it's not something that's personal to each person.
His story made him out to be a little naive and reckless, yes. I think that is actually meant be part of the appeal of the film. Youthful and blinded by ambition. At least I found that appealing and inspiring.
The last picture he ever took, was of himself smiling with a sign saying how good of a life he had. So there can't be any speculation there because it's hard evidence. He was happy and fulfilled when he died. He left his real name because he was being respectful to his parents, so they could identify his body and his family would have closure.
As for ol' Kurt, it's kind of the same thing. Some people like him, some people don't. He was a junkie yes, but nobodies perfect, he had a stomach ailment and was in desperate need for something to make the pain stop. Illegal opiates are the same thing as prescription opiates. He made good music, did what he loved, and was a social revolutionary. Chris was also a kind of a social revolutionary, he didn't create anything but you don't need to create anything to live a good life and leave a legacy.
People who are less fortunate and can't afford luxuries, would be grateful for the bare necessities. They only want what they need. At least in untainted third world countries. In first world countries people are greedy and want what they don't need. Chris demonstrated life with the bare minimum.
How about appreciating what you have, and where you're at, instead of scorning it?
You can appreciate what you have while scorning greed.
He wasn't even as stupid as people are making him out to be, he survived well all the way up to a point where he made a wrong seasonal judgement. That's quite understandable to me, I think people need to cut him some slack, he did pretty good for someone supposedly naive. -
movieliker1 — 10 years ago(September 24, 2015 08:31 AM)
No, "ljshorts". It is not really a matter of opinion. "zwolf" is correct and you are wrong.
Chris McCandless was no hero or martyr. He was just stupid. He was a selfish, sadistic, stupid fool.
According to his journals and notes, he never intended to die. He tried to do something that was dangerous and he was grossly unprepared. There was no reason for him to die. There was a cable crossing for him to use to cross the raging river within three miles of his bus. And there was a town or outpost within three miles of his bus. But he had no idea because he was so ill prepared.
He had family that loved and cared about him. We can understand him not wanting to communicate with his parents. But he had brothers and sisters one that he was particularly close to. How do you think they felt not being able to communicate with him for two/three years? That is just sadistic.
You can try to sugar-coat it anyway you want to but, Chris McCandless was no hero or martyr. He was just a selfish, sadistic, irresponsible, stupid fool.
