What is the attraction to the book and movie, "Into the Wild"?

[89911]

I read the book when if first came out and thought it was a good read, mainly for the writing style of the author, J. Krakauer. Fast forward to the movie that I just caught of ShowTime. My wife kept asking me about the movie and what made it such a critical award winner. Because Sean Penn directed it? The movie can be summed up in one sentence, A man graduated from college, pushed convention wisdom aside, lives in the Alaskan wilderness, eats poisonous berries, and then dies. I guess its a movie that idealistic thinkers would like to picture themselves in, chucking society, living on their own means and such. Just didn't make for much of a movie. What have I missed?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

I read Krakauer's book "Into Thin Air" which is far more interesting subject matter to me personally, but I learned that I really like his writing style - particularly his "documentary-style" honesty. I figured "Into the Wild" would be similarly written, which I found it mostly to be.

Honestly I find myself relating more and more to Christopher McCandless. As time goes on I get sicker and sicker with our society, how stupid and vapid it's becoming, how it crushes one's soul, etc. I think he was a very smart individual for recognizing that at such a young age and for having the balls to try and get away from it. However his "smarts" were offset by simple dumb hubris which eventually got him killed. It's an interesting story. You can read a lot of lessons into it - everything from "it's okay to be different" to "you should just accept things as they are unless you're willing to get yourself killed".

I didn't even realize they'd made a movie about it. Not much interest in seeing it really - books are always better. I doubt the movie would live up to my memory of the book and McCandless' story.

[Dave L]

I have the book, I have it on my Ipod and I have the movie. For me its the ultimate escape to leave everything behind. See my other thread "15 year waste" and you might see why. I am also a kayaker, mountain biker, snowboarder and have camped since I was 6 weeks old so I have a book case full of outdoor adventure books. In the end Chris was a fool boldly heading off into the unknown vastly unprepared.

I liked Into Thin Air as well, I also read Left for Dead, Touching My Fathers Soul and The Climb which all wrote about the same events as Into Thin Air, it was interesting to read the different perspectives.

I might be going "Into The Mild" tomorrow. I plan to do a 10km hike in Algonquin Park to clear my mind and contemplate my future (no I will not be deciding to live in a Bus in Alaska). http://www.algonquinadventures.com/photos/shows/show10/index.htm

[Dynamik]

As usual, it sounds like the book was better than the movie. I read an article about McCandless in National Geographic(?) and I saw the movie. Having lived in the wilderness for close to 18 consecutive months I can understand some of the appeal but I had a difficult time overlooking the selfishness of McCandless. Running from society and completely eluding family and friends isn’t the answer for worldly problems. Although McCandless’s parents were loving (in their own way) and provided everything he needed and then some (paid for college, showed up for significant events, etc…) he had lots of resentment towards them. He seemed to get along with his sister but his disappearing act included completely cutting off communication with her too. I have two sisters and I could never envision abandoning them and leaving them worried about my welfare. It still bothers me to think about it. Pulling a vanishing act and showing up in front of family and friends in a body bag is completely selfish. In his “wisdom” he certainly wasn’t aware of a major principle… your actions affect others!

[Laneco]

I absolutely despised the book and didn't see the movie at all. I felt like the book moved pretty slowly and then took abrupt detours so that the author could tell everyone about his personal mountain climbing adventures. What the hell did they have to do with this story? It was like "oh shoot, I've run out of things to say about this rather annoying main character but I promised my publisher XXX number of words.... Oh wait - I know, I'll wander off topic and tell everyone about my mountain climbing experience!"

The main character in this book is a lost boy. He is loved by his family, intelligent, healthy, good looking, and good natured. He squanders every opportunity he is given and cannot plan for ANYTHING. No plan, no clue. By the end of the book, you want to ***** slap him for being such a ding bat.

That said, I did take a hike off Stampede road when I was working in Denali a few weeks ago. Curiosity.

angela

[willtel]

I'm not a reader but I did see the movie. I understand his desire to "get away from it all" but my need to keep breathing will prevent me from taking the same path he did.

There is also some debate about what actually killed him. The author used a theory that he ate a bad berry or tuber and it weakened him to the point where he couldn't gather food and he perished. There is another theory that he flat out starved to death over a long period, no bad berries, just not enough calories.

http://tifilms.com/wild/call_debunked.htm

Some more frustrating information is that he felt he couldn't leave the area he was in because of an impassable river. What he didn't know was that there was an overhead cable ferry just a few miles upstream. If the jackass would have bothered to at least take a map with him he would have known about the ferry and had the ability to hike out when his food sources dwindled. I'm sure he enjoyed playing mountain man, unfortunately for him mother nature wasn't playing.

[Rick Lee]

I loved the book. McCandless was from Annandale, VA, which was where I worked at the time of his trek/death. I hated the movie. It didn't capture McCandless's reckless disregard and lack of respect for the wild and other people's advice.

If you like Krakauer, definitely pick up his "Under the Banner of Heaven." I've read it twice and it has really gotten me interested in Mormon history.

[Macroni]

To me it was a story about mental illness.

[cwiert]

Originally Posted by 89911

I read the book when if first came out and thought it was a good read, mainly for the writing style of the author, J. Krakauer. Fast forward to the movie that I just caught of ShowTime. My wife kept asking me about the movie and what made it such a critical award winner. Because Sean Penn directed it? The movie can be summed up in one sentence, A man graduated from college, pushed convention wisdom aside, lives in the Alaskan wilderness, eats poisonous berries, and then dies. I guess its a movie that idealistic thinkers would like to picture themselves in, chucking society, living on their own means and such. Just didn't make for much of a movie. What have I missed?

you're not alone. my wife and i watched it a few months ago and kept saying to ourselves during the movie... "why are we watching this?" not much of a plot if you ask me.

[cmccuist]

McCandless was a tool. What he did was pathetic. Everywhere he turned up, there were people helping him, feeding him, giving him food, transport, employment...

I thought what he did before he went into the wild was more impressive - kayaking down to Mexico and hiking into some pretty barren places.

His great adventure in the "wild" wasn't that remarkable. He stumbled onto a nice bus with a bed and stove. He basically went camping 30 miles off a main roadway and couldn't even get through the summer without screwing up. In fact, the Alaskans that did come into contact with him were not impressed and gave him little chance of survival.

The guy who gave him a ride that final few miles told him "IF you make it out of here, give me a call". There have been others who made it a lot longer in the Alaskan wilderness with a lot less than McCandless had.

[Eric 951]

I too thought the book tedious and the main character UNsympathetic...just pathetic.

On a similar note, I also thought the movie"the perfect storm" an absolute crock. Pure nonsense.

[Rot 911]

Originally Posted by cmccuist

His great adventure in the "wild" wasn't that remarkable. He stumbled onto a nice bus with a bed and stove. He basically went camping 30 miles off a main roadway and couldn't even get through the summer without screwing up.

Agreed! You think he may have done a bit more research before trying this kind of "adventure."

[Rick Lee]

Throughout the book, I kept thinking, 1) How can he do this to his parents? and 2) What a complete idiot!

[livi]

A primitive human drive. Like what the parrot in the John Cleese sketch is explained to be suffering from. 'Paining for the fiords' or something.

[Sunroof]

In the movie, the earmark that signaled his demise was his inability to fielddress the Moose he killed, preserve and prepare the meat. His survival capabilities made him come off like a total doof-ass! To add insult to his isolation and his wilderness experience he was tempered by the ever present vapor trails from passing high flying jets. So much for his poetic justice! I agree that by abandoning his family and cutting all lines of communication was an act that was selfish and wrong. Watching the movie, you did not feel for him, not did you applaud his independence. He was forwarned by many. Rather, as an educated young man he failed to arm himself with the proper tools and knowledge knowing he was going into harms way. Youthful innocence? Folly? He failed to keep his creative side in check. It was afterall not Walden's Pond, but in his mind it was no different. Sad loss for his family.

[targa911S]

I thought it was entertaining in the movie that he shot and killed a moose with a .22. Sure.

[Rick Lee]

That's what he had in the book.

[carreradpt]

A friend of mine recommended the book to me. Both of us having been graduates of the USAF survival schools years before, he thought I would get a kick out of it. I did of course, and thought the same as some of the comments above. What a jackass.

I read a story about Penn wanting to make the movie and not being able to get the "rights" from the parents. Took him a couple years or so and the parents finally chose him to do the movie. They "allowed" him to make it with some restrictions and the movie was the result. They left out the parts that ensured the audience would know he was a DS.

U of A has done studies on the berries in the area that his supporters were trying to say killed him and confirmed they were not poisonous. He died in the summer in Alaska after a very short period of time because he had no fringing clue.

But I must say, he had something about him that people took to and made you just love him. That was the interesting part to me, the relationships that he built on the way.

[nynor]

there is no attraction. the book was about a boy, filled with hubris, that made decisions that led to his death.

[aigel]

I enjoyed the book. I did not see the movie and have no plans to watch it. McCandless travels (there is a lot more to the book than the Alaska part) reminded me of some of my adventures as a teen. I hitchhiked and traveled a lot, much of it "bare bones" like he did. All of my outdoors friends enjoyed the book. I think you have to have that connection. If you are city dweller that never gets out, you will not enjoy this book.

McCandless was mentally ill and obviously could not cope with reality. I believe he went out to Alaska to die. One final trip - an adventure overdose - much like a drug addict with mental issues.

George