Chris was just a normal young guy doing what many have done before…
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Into the Wild
!!!deleted!!! (12526472) — 9 years ago(April 27, 2016 04:40 PM)
The thing that made this story stand out was the unfortunate, unusual and yes in some ways stupid, pointless circumstances of his death, and then the way it was picked up by and written about by John Krakauer. He was only 24, that's still young. RE the bus episode - young people do stupid things, it's allowed.
What if he had survived? Nobody would have ever known about him. By now he'd probably just be an average middle-aged guy with a story about going travelling some time when he was young. But don't get me wrong, that's what I love about the movie, and the book (and the movie soundtrack), he was a normal guy that went through some stuff that so many can relate to, in one way or another. The unintentional notoriety he achieved by dying in an unusual way doing something that is on the face of it quite common (solo travelling) is what makes the story poignant and disturbing. If the mistakes that lead to his death will stop others from taking the same level of risk, it wasn't so pointless. -
AlfredCMartino — 9 years ago(July 03, 2016 08:12 PM)
I love this movie. Sean Penn is a master filmmaker. Emile Hirsch and Jena Malone were terrific. While I understand various comments about McCandless being ill-prepared and somewhat naive about what he might face in the Alaskan wilderness, a part of me cheers the "living" he did leading up to, and even including, his time in Alaska. Now, obviously, his deathand I suspect there had to have been a major injury that made it impossible for him to trek to safetysuggests that he was foolish and, ultimately, wrong to go on his quest. But that's what human beings do (hopefully). They push the, or their own, envelope. Sometimes they fail. But often they succeed. That's what living is about.
-
henrimaine — 9 years ago(September 29, 2016 03:26 PM)
doing something that is on the face of it quite common (solo travelling)
The author of the book actually claims that what Chris did was a bit more than just some traveling. He intentionally discarded any maps and making specific plans as to where to go. He wanted to discover wilderness, but since all had been discovered already, he discarded all the previous discoveries and set out to experience the territories as a first human. -
infracaninophile — 9 years ago(October 03, 2016 06:39 PM)
The author of the book actually claims that what Chris did was a bit more than just some traveling. He intentionally discarded any maps and making specific plans as to where to go. He wanted to discover wilderness, but since all had been discovered already, he discarded all the previous discoveries and set out to experience the territories as a first human.
Yes, the author makes a number of claims as to what Chris thought or intended or believed (etc.) but quite a few are pure speculation on his part, and he conveniently overlooks facts that he does know, for example, that Chris did have a detailed map of the area with him (it was mentioned in the coroner's report, from which Krakauer quotes, but he intentionally, we must assume, omits that part). Other feelings and thoughts that he attributes to Chris do not come from any reliable source and are, again, speculation. Some of the books found in the bus with underlining and marginal notes Krakauer takes to have been Chris's notes and underlinings, but some of those books were left by previous campers in the bus, who subsequently came forward and identified the books as theirs. Krakeuer did not change his work to reflect any inaccuracies on his part.
He clearly identified very strongly with Chris's journey and this quite compromised his objectivity. The book has nearly as much about Krakauer in it as it does about Chris McCandless. JK is a good writer, but not an objective one.