Mon 14 Apr 2008
Into the Wild
Posted by Ian Forbes
[2] Comments

Run, Emile! Run!
Theatrical Release Date: 09/21/2007
Director: Sean Penn
Cast: Emile Hirsch, Marcia Gay Harden, William Hurt, Jena Malone, Catherine Keener, Brian H. Dierker, Hal Holbrook, Kristen Stewart, Vince Vaughn
All of the promotion and buzz about “Into the Wild” speaks of a true story – involving a free spirit, living that romanticized life on the road, not worrying about gaining material wealth but concerned with enriching the spirit and finding peace of mind in the natural world around him.
However, the flip side of Christopher McCandless’ tale is that he was a smart young man, angry at his parents and looking for a way to channel that anger. So he donates his college savings to charity, burns his money and disappears – telling no one of his plans. For years, he lives off the land, with odd jobs and through new acquaintances.
Sure, there’s something liberating about this life. But to completely drop off the face of the planet is a bit much. I can even cut him some slack in not wanting to speak to his parents, from whom all of his frustration seems to sprout. His sister is another story, considering he was essentially abandoning and relegating her to deal with the family neither felt would win any parents of the year awards.
That’s where the film completely fails. Emile Hirsch’s portrayal of Christopher McCandless is unsympathetic. I couldn’t care less what happened to him. Combine that with his fascination with a great Alaskan adventure and the first thing that comes to my mind is Timothy Treadwell from the documentary, “Grizzly Man“.
In both cases, each person was capable of changing their lives and coping in more constructive ways. Heck, Treadwell’s far more sympathetic because he appeared to be bi-polar and therefore in less control of his faculties. There doesn’t appear to be any psychological or medical reason why Christopher McCandless would be quite so selfish and reckless.
We’re all prone to bouts of those destructive emotions but spending months on the road with nothing but the clothes on your back should allow enough time to come to your senses. We’re not talking about a weekend bender.
Now, on the plus side for the film, the supporting cast paint the kind of glamorous picture of hitching across America that many of us have daydreamed about here or there. While Hirsch does a good job, it is these other characters, floating in and out of his life that create an enjoyable framework for the story.
Hal Holbrook especially is amazing. I now see why he earned an Oscar nomination for best supporting actor and while I’d still have given the award to Javier Bardem, Holbrook comes close to catching him.
The much-ballyhooed Eddie Vedder soundtrack meshes well with the tone and subject material of the film. The picturesque locations all speak to the beauty of this great nation many of us pay taxes to (including myself, don’t get any ideas IRS). And I can’t say that a part of me doesn’t envy McCandless for having the stones to disappear into a new existence, exploring the little known byways and crevices between the cement Interstate freeways.
However, while I can on one hand admire some of his spirit, I can’t ignore the carelessness he used in regards to the feelings of the people who knew and loved him. Furthermore, I think part of the charm people find in his tale is one of anti-establishment. A person who went the other way and channeled his anger into making money and cutting deals would be branded a greedy bastard. A bit of a double standard, I would say.
So, while Penn maneuvered the time line of events very well and gleaned good performances from his actors, it’s just too hard for me to feel any of the sympathy that the script and film are looking for. I’m giving “Into the Wild” a 3 out of 5. The events that befall Christopher McCandless are sad but he led his life in a manner that involved risks. One can’t be too surprised at how things turn out when caution isn’t heeded.


Rantrave.com -
A place to rant and rave about everything that matters.
November 13th, 2008 at 9:05 am
First of all: nice comment!
But:
You mustnt forget the circumstances, which make Chris behave like he does – his family.
He doesnt hurt the people he love because its his intention, but in his situation and background hes just not able to love and to forgive.
therefore he needs to make this experience “in the wild” and there he learns that happiness is only real, when its shared. there is potential for a happy end, the more tragic it is that he gets trapped in the wild – a thing i wouldnt think that its his fault.
so in fact chris’ human developement is extraordinary – its only tragic that he cannot profit of his made experiences and meet again the people he had hurt by accident. So I think the movie, or the story, deserves a 5 of 5
write me your opinion about my thoughts;-)
November 13th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
I agree with you that he doesn’t intentionally hurt other people. It’s clear he has a very deep love for his sister and has been trained to deal with his parents as he does through years of very poor communication and mutual respect amongst the family.
However, I think his development as a person leaves much to be desired in the film (clear distinction between real person and cinematic representation) because there are multiple opportunities for him to change, to break the cycle … only he doesn’t.
Sure, there are psychological reasons why that’s very hard to do and the movie doesn’t work as well if he figures himself out and goes home instead of Alaska.
I just think that the production as a whole feels very self-serving in the sense that they are glorfying this kid who rebeled because he didn’t know how else to manage his feelings and the tragic end that befell him only makes the story more poetic … not heroic.