Why this is worth seeing

Rating: 10/10 (23 December 2007)

I read Krakauer's book several years ago and was taken by Chris McCandless' story and by trying to understand him. This movie helped with the latter - images can sharpen the imagination. It needs to be kept in mind that both Krakauer and Penn are presenting us with attempts at biography that are necessarily filtered through their life experiences. By his own admission Krakauer, being an outdoors-man and mountaineer, could see elements of himself in McCandless and I think the film reflects a deep feeling for the young man on Penn's part. The opinions I have about McCandless are thus third-hand and filtered through the lens of my own experience.
What makes the McCandless story worthy of attention? It's really not the story, but the man that is the attractor. The story is simple enough - young man becomes alienated by his environment and seeks freedom in adventure. Unless you are quite unusual as a young person you must have had, or have, similar impulses for some adventure. That is an immediate bond most people will feel with him. But most of us don't have the drive or personality to act on these impulses so dramatically. However, McCandless was such an impulsive, romantic, idealist that it appears he could *not* act on these impulses, impulses of long standing for him.
It was quite a feat for Krakauer to have tracked down the details of McCandless' journey, and Penn has transformed his book into an excellent film. Little disputed is that McCandless was charismatic; pretty much everyone he met recognized some special spark in him. That is one thing that sets him apart from your average vagabond, he was no crazed nut case. As shown in the movie he was somewhat of an accomplished pianist and you can't fake that. For me Emile Hirsch captured a personal attractiveness in a way that I got only a secondhand feeling for in the book.
Also often remarked on was how intelligent McCandless was, and not just his being well educated. He had a vision that people recognized as setting him apart, a vision of his relationship with nature and what it means to be really alive. I thought the nature photography in the film gave us more than a hint as to what McCandless saw in nature that so appealed to him.
Most interesting are considerations of the complicated psychology of the man. What would make a charismatic, well educated, physically attractive young man veer off from a future that his society almost ordained he live out? Therein lies the mystery that makes this tale compelling.
McCandless' spirit was more in line with Thoreau and Muir than with Kesey or Kerouac. His seeking was more internalized and personal. However, it is interesting that he referred to the day of his coming upon the bus in the wilderness as "Magic Bus Day." He must have been familiar with Kesey's quest and was, in his own way, in pursuit of going "further." My perception of him is that he was wanting to strip life down to its bare essentials, to get down to the very core of what it means to be alive. It is difficult not to admire that.
Some say McCandless did not die of starvation but rather of stupidity. I think such a statement represents a misunderstanding. He died from an overzealous, perhaps naive, sense of adventure and a vision of how life should be lived. He made it for over three months in primitive conditions. How many people could do that? Albeit most people do not want to, but does that mean McCandless' achievement is to be disparaged rather than wondered at? Absent a couple of naive misjudgments, he would have returned with one heck of a story to tell, complete with lessons learned. And is not his youthful naivety the very thing that makes him such a fascinating character? If this had been a story about a person who did things the *right* way - by studying survival books, buying all of the recommended equipment, carrying maps and compass, studying the trails, planning for emergencies, making experimental shorter trips, telling people of his plans and expected locations - it would not have been a story to capture the imagination. McCandless had the temperament of an artist, not that of an engineer.
There are some very fine performances here. Besides Hirsch, Catherine Keener and Brian Dierker, as an aging hippie couple still living the life, are notable. Hal Holbrook is a standout as an older man who takes a deep liking to McCandless and is about the last person to be with him before he embarked on his great Alaskan adventure. If Holbrook does not get an Oscar nomination for best supporting actor, then there is no justice.
Mysteries remain about Chris. The life force so manifest in him did not seem to express itself sexually, perhaps it was sublimated in some way? And, even though he loved his sister, he did not communicate with her during his journey. He was estranged from his parents, so maybe he felt any communication with his sister would lead to his parents hunting him down? And his charm and ability to be sociable and enjoy people seemed to be at odds with his desire to be alone.
McCandless' life is a challenge to all security-seeking, timid, spiritless souls who have never had the courage to ignore social conventions to live life on their own terms. Indeed, never to be fully alive in pursuing a personal passion. When he starved to death in that old bus it was not only a personal tragedy, but also the loss of a person who could have made a significant contribution.
So, why is this movie worth seeing? McCandless' trip "Into the Wild" can serve as a metaphor for us all to take such a trip - there are many ways to go into the wild.