I saw Into the Wild on Friday night. I had read the book in '03 or '04 after reading what is probably my favorite book of all time, Into Thin Air, also by Krakauer. I first became aware of Into the Wild being made into a movie when I saw the trailer before King of Kong a few weeks ago. I knew immediately that I was going to see the movie. I've got some strong emotions and opinions on Into the Wild and Chris McCandless because I think what infected and drove McCandless to do the things that he did are a big part of American culture and affect almost all middle class American males at some point in their youth. I feel especially close to the story because I was pretty heavily infected by it myself. What college-ish aged dude hasn't dreamed about exiting society and striking out on the road just drifting and l-i-v-i-n'? I think it's the fallout from the realization that the whole American-Dream-Manifest-Destiny-Meritocracy thing is more or less a myth; at least as presented. Either that, or people realize that they can just opt out.
During this period in my life I went on my fair share of walkabouts and considered more than once just staying gone. I never did; mostly because I wasn't willing to leave the people in my life. Eventually I forgave my parents and everyone else; something McCandless wasn't able to do. Later, I discovered the usefulness of convention. After that, rebellion for rebellion's sake got too tiring and seemed silly, so the moment passed. But when I read Into the Wild, I knew exactly what Christopher McCandless felt. I said out loud as I read, "Thank God I didn't read this fucking book in 1996."
Strangely, I don't idealize McCandless. I'm angry at him. His story could have been a tale of adventure, growth and forgiveness. Instead it ends in death. The locals near where McCandless died didn't think much of him. To them he wasn't some crusader searching for a pure existence. To them he was an irresponsible idiot - a college boy who didn't have any sense and starved to death because he didn't have the first clue about living in the Alaskan wilderness. Any local or any outdoorsman worth his salt would have gotten by just fine under the same conditions. I often think of what I would have done in McCandless' shoes and I don't think I would have starved to death. Maybe I'm missing a critical point of his philosophy, but would it have been any less pure of an experience if he'd have taken a goddamned fishing pole or another ten pounds of rice? I admire the guy for what he was seeking and even more for setting out so far and wide to find it. However, I think he was misguided and immature. He was too caught up in what he was reading. I doubt if he had any sort of epiphany out there. I think he felt comfortable with his choices because he was doing what he thought he was supposed to be doing. I think he was happy. I just think the value of the experience would have been much, much more if he'd have lived. Then again, maybe nobody would have ever heard of Christopher McCandless if he'd lived and shared what he learned instead of being a martyr.
After the movie I picked up the book again and I've thumbed through it some. What doesn't come across as well in the movie is that there were a lot of ways that McCandless could have survived. He tried to leave but was blocked by a swollen river. He didn't know it, but there was a cable car upriver a little way that he could have used to cross. There were a couple of cabins not far from where he camped. To me, his incompetence as a survivalist taints whatever message there is to take away from his philosophy. That disappoints me.
Krakauer is an apologist for McCandless' actions. He focuses on his noble pursuit of ideals and dismisses much of the criticism as missing the point. I can see both sides, but at the end of the day the death seems so senseless and preventable.
Recent Comments