A different opinion
I remember reading about McCandless’ death back in ‘92 (“Death of an Innocent”- Outside Magazine), and thinking that he was just a foolish young man who died needlessly in the back country of Alaska; that opinion still holds for me. Later, I saw Krakauer’s book about the incident, but never was interested enough to look at it.
In ‘02, I went to Alaska on a self-guided photography trip with a friend. While we were in the Denali area, we traveled up to Healy and drove a few miles on Stampede Road, which, at the time, was about as far in as you could drive a rented car. Afterward, I got a copy of Krakauer’s “Into the Wild”, and loved reading it - particularly the philosophy that was espoused.
I’ve never been a fan of Sean Penn, or his acting, but had read many good things about this film, in addition to seeing Penn‘s publicity interviews. Last night, my wife and I saw the movie, and can’t say that I loved it. The imagery of Alaska was wonderful, but that’s easy to do. What’s more difficult to accomplish is to convey the meaning of this true-life story, re-enact events involving many people that occurred over a course of two years, and to interpolate events that only the late Chris McCandless could have known. I didn’t really care for the multiple flashback technique of the movie, and thought that none of the nudity was necessary. In the 4 weeks between the national release of “Into the Wild“ and our local opening, I was surprised to read of it’s “R” rating. After seeing the film, I can understand the rating based on language content, the gory scene that depicted the moose being gutted, and of course, the nudity. As we walked back to our car, my wife asked me why the nudity had to be there, and I had no good answer. I can see justification for including the (very funny) scene by the Colorado River, if that’s what actually happened, according to the other people who were there, but the scene of Emile Hirsch, as McCandless, floating naked on his back was unnecessary. That scene, like other parts of the film where McCandless was alone, was created in Penn’s mind, unless there was written or anecdotal evidence of it’s occurrence. That is certainly within Penn’s rights as author of the screenplay; I just disagree with his interpretation. I was also disappointed with the underdevelopment of the character played by Hal Holbrook, as I recall that Ron Franz seemed to have been more important in the book. For a movie that ran about 2:20, much was left out. Maybe the DVD will fill some gaps.
I did enjoy parts of the film; it’s a very emotional movie and one particular scene hit very close to home for me. Emile Hirsch’s performance as Alexander Supertramp was believable, but it’s difficult to “act” like you weigh only 67 pounds, as McCandless did when recovered approximately 2 weeks after his death. You have to wonder, if not for the tainted (or poisonous) food, would Chris McCandless have survived long enough to be rescued? But then nobody would have ever heard of Alexander Supertramp. How many of us have done stupid things, but managed to get away with it, thus avoiding the subsequent post-mortem publicity, news articles, and possible book? I think some of us are fortunate to be living, and not famous.
I really wanted to like this movie. My one word review: “Disappointing“. And I’m still not a fan of Sean Penn. - Bob VH
Oh, and read the book, it's a good, enjoyable read--and maybe Krakauer's original Outside article.
