How the hipsters would like to view reality Or What is a martyr for some people, is a Darwin-Award-winner for others

Rating: 4/10 (3 May 2015)

First, let me begin to say that I'm rather perplexed by the high rating here on IMDb and that this film is in the Top-250 range. But perhaps I shouldn't be. Not if one considers, that many an impressionable teenager and young adult since the films release has equally ran off into the wild, presumably in order to perish like their idol.
To tell the whole story in a few simple terms: Bright young teenager Chris McCandless is sick and tired or living in luxury, decides that the materialism of his background is not for him. He abandons his family, savings and worldly possession, taking off on a road-trip, that will take him across half the country, eventually leading him to an abandoned bus in the Alaskan wilderness. There Chris hopes for the sanctuary and natural living that he has for so long desired, but instead starves (the movie opts for the theory that McCandless succumbed to eating poisonous plant) in his sleeping-bag and, after being found by moose-hunters, his ashes are shipped back to his family. The End.
We could call this the rich-kid's version of "Easy Rider", but rather, another film comes to mind namely Werner Herzogs "Grizzly Man". Equally based on a true story, with a similar tragic end. However, Herzog (and most of those being interviewed by Herzog) do not stylize the subject or try to make Timothy Treadwell looks like anything other than what he was: a full-blown narcissist with less common-sense than your average lapdog, who was literally begging for some hungry bear to come by and consume him (eventually having his wish granted and taking down his girlfriend with him in the process). Sean Penn chooses another approach. His "Alexander Supertramp" - the nome de guerre Chris McCandless - is a martyr, if not the template for a hipster-martyr. But Penn doesn't seem able to describe what this particular form of martyrdom should be. Should be pity McCandless? Because his parents are rich, but shallow, and quarrel a lot among themselves? Who could imagine a fate more horrible than that? There's a telling scene in the beginning, where young Chris contemplates the misery and misfortune of his parents wanting to buy him a new car. His refusal to accept this gift is interpreted by Penn as an act of rebellion. Sorry people, ain't buying. These are sentiments that are reserved for the Upper-10,000's, who can afford the luxury of disdaining money (since they have enough of it anyway) and claim that a bout of depression caused by boredom equals the suffering of a Christ on a crucifix.
Some of the movie could have worked as your typical road-movie and coming-of-age story. Except: the figure of Chris McCandless never comes to come-of-age. He sets out with the determination of somebody who has already consumed the entire bowl of knowledge, culled entirely from a book-shelf. On his way he bestows shallow wisdom and platitudes to all that cross his path (well-meaning hippies; simple, yet down to earth farmhands; a lonely veteran and a horny, under-aged trailer-trash chick), Never once does our protagonist considering things like responsibility - perhaps for your friends and family, who are worried sick about not knowing where or how Chris is - or even the consequences of action. Like, finding certain death in the inhospitable wilderness. In other words, the character of Chris seems to have respect for only one thing in the world: his own intellect, which he considers superior since, you know, he has read a lot of books, from Tolstoy to Jack London. Again, I remind you, we are supposed to root for this character. Did the real Chris McCandless have a death-wish? Did he subliminally commit suicide without having to get his hands dirty? Or did he suffer from a mental-illness, like paranoia or schizophrenia? Much of the evidence that has been presented since, point toward those directions. Yet, the film chooses to ignore each and every one and goes with the martyr-figure right to the end.
So, despite the film having redeeming factors on the technical side, the moral of the story escapes me. What should have been a cautionary tale, is presented as a triumph, where the ultimate fail is portrayed as a victory. Victory over what? Common sense? I'd give it a 4/10-rating for beautiful cinematography, nice editing, good soundtrack (even though to some the Eddie Vedder-compositions may end up sounding too schmaltzy) and the occasional good performance. But these are just technical aspects, that camouflage the utter lack of substance or meaning that is deeper than the bottom of a tea-cup.