Into the Wild

Two weeks ago, I was in Des Moines, and (lacking confidence in Iowa City's movie theaters) went to see Sean Penn's Into the Wild, based on the book by Jon Krakauer.

Into the Wild is one of my favorite books. I read it during a particularly formative time in high school and connected immensely with the book's real-life protagonist, Christopher McCandless, an Emory graduate. Rather than begin a life similar to his parents, a suburban household preoccupied with social standing and material possessions, he burns his money, cuts up his credit cards, and disappears, literally, "into the wild." Ultimately, he ends up living alone in a deserted bus in Alaska, and perishes from starvation.

The book presents McCandless' tale from both sides, and Krakauer inserts a great amount of his own analysis. The amount of internal monologue, diary entry, and additional information from the author composes most of the book - presenting a difficult challenge when making the transition to film.

At first, I was convinced it would suck. How could this amazing book be changed into a film without losing the meaning and depth? But then, after watching Oprah (OK, laugh if you will, but I freaking love Oprah), my mind was changed. Sean Penn and the adorable Emile Hirsch appeared to tap into McCandless' psyche, and the McCandless family and Jon Krakauer endorsed the film as accurately depicting the book.

"So many people live within unhappy circumstances and yet will not take the initiative to change their situation because they are conditioned to a life of security, conformity, and conservatism, all of which may appear to give one peace of mind, but in reality nothing is more damaging to the adventurous spirit within a man than a secure future. The very basic core of a man's living spirit is his passion for adventure. The joy of life comes from our encounters with new experiences, and hence there is no greater joy than to have an endlessly changing horizon, for each day to have a new and different sun."
-Chris McCandless, March 1992

So when I sat down to watch the film, I was ready for it to change my life, just as the book had five years prior.

That did not happen. While altogether a fabulous film, it cannot pack the emotional punch the book wields. After pondering why this is for the last two weeks, the only thing I can come up with is the absence of Krakauer's voice. In the book, he plays such a prominent part, providing analysis of events and conjecturing the thoughts behind McCandless' actions.

The movie is beautifully made, Hirsch is gorgeous (he should always walk around in a tattered sweater and five o'clock shadow), and for those that haven't read the book, a compelling story. While I'm not of the school of thought that books are always better than the movie (Harry Potter, for example), that thinking fits this book.

This movie should be seen as a supplement, not a substitute, for the book. I have some serious issues with how Penn chose to close the film, since they deviate so far from what he can accurately conjecture really happened. But I won't spoil it, because hopefully the movie does get the wide release it deserves.

— Susan