Into the Wild Questions and Answers Part One

Well, I will spare you the long and exaggerated essay that my first attempt to write this blog entry was. Instead I want to answer a few questions I was asked by some friends about Into the Wild. Some of these questions are entirely subjective and I do not and would not expect you to agree with all of my presumptions. Also I should warn you these answer do contain spoilers. However, I think this is one of those films where facts about plot or certain visuals don’t so much have an affect on you as the actual watching of the film. After all, everyone probably already knows the end as it appears in every review of the film and is an adaptation of a well known book. It the future I hope to write more answers to certain question that may come up. If you have ideas or question regarding any film, just let me know. If I have no answer for you I will most certainly find one for you.

Question One: Is Christopher McCandless a hero or a depressed, spoiled, tenderfoot with no business trying to live in the wilds of Alaska?

This is of course an opinion question, as I said before, but I have to say the answer to this question seems obvious to me. I cannot in good conscience having never met the real person behind the character say whether or not he was in real life, a hero. However, I can say that without a doubt the character found Sean Penn’s film is neither hero nor “spoiled brat.” I will speak more of this in a second. But to me he is a tragic hero, but also a spoiled, unprepared hero, whose tragic death is both poetic and very very stupid.

Question Two: Does Sean Penn’s adaptation of the book make Christopher into too much of hero? In other words, does Sean Penn’s portrait of Christopher come from a fair and balanced perspective?

While I find much of the criticism of the film to be suspect in regards to Sean Penn’s direction, a valid point could be made that Penn paints too rosy a picture of Christopher. Like me, Penn sees him as a hero. However, I think while on surface it may appear to be sheer admiration I think Penn makes some convincing points against Christopher as well.

Let’s start with a scene very early in the film. Christopher drives past a sign warning of flood areas. He recklessly parks his car and in the morning, even though he no longer wishes to own a car, it is destroyed. From the very beginning we see Christopher as some one who is reckless and unconcerned with how his actions might affect other people in his life.

Christopher is opposed to money. He believes that man should live the out fashioned way hunting and gathering. Money, according to him, makes people cautious. Yet more than once Christopher seeks out jobs in order to make money. While I understand this all in his attempt to find and fund his way into finding his dream, his dependence is somewhat contradictory to his ideology. As is the fact, that Christopher, more than once attempts to leave. He always intended to not return to society. So, in essence, Christopher wanted to only temporarily to live the ideal, but never permanently. If this is best way to live, then why would he only wish to live this way for a short period of time?

The third, and perhaps most compelling, part of Penn’s portrait of Christopher is showing, through the narration of his sister, Christopher’s family history. Christopher’s dislikes of money and material wealth comes from this. In some ways he sees the material world as part of the reason why his parents spent the majority of their time fighting one another. Christopher has unbelievable anger at his parents. More than once when he talks about the effects of society he slips his parents into conversation. In a conversation with Wayne, the man who hires Christopher to work at the grain elevator Christopher, drunk, tells Wayne quite clearly that his parents are the reason he is leaving society. So as Hall Holbrook’s amazingly well acted character knows, like himself, Christopher is not just trying to escape the confines of society but more specifically his family. I think Jane says it best when she asks Christopher where his parents are. He replies “somewhere out there, living their lives.” She responds back, with a bit of reserved remorse and also bit of righteous anger. She tells him he looks well loved and that he is not being fair to his parents. While I can understand and to emphasize with Christopher, it is true that Christopher is not seeking to be enlightened, but merely to run away. And not run away just to find bliss, but to in some way punish his parents. There is something cruel and brutal about that. That Penn more than once attempts to prove what I just mentioned tells me that, yes, Penn does approach Christopher from a balanced perspective. But, as I said, I do understand why one could argue, if they were not looking close enough, how Penn paints too innocent a picture of Christopher.

Question Three: Does Christopher (the character in the film, not the real life guy) truly not believe in love?

I found this to be one of the odder questions I was asked about the film. I think the answer is pretty simple. Yes. In the beginning I think love has let Christopher down. The people that were supposed to provide him with the emotional support could only give him material wealth as a substitute for love. He says, in paraphrasing the novel Walden, that truth is a greater goal than love. Yet I think through his numerous encounters with people he develops a family and discovers the value of love. I don’t know why, but when I had just finished watching the film the first time, the crying women that sat behind me asked me this question. I remember her look of relief when I told her, yes, I did. I am not sure why but she hugged me. What an odd moment that was. So I thought I would answer it here, just in case.

Question Four: Does Christopher learn to forgive his parents?

Penn, quite intelligently never comes out and says whether or not his parents are forgiven. He makes a big deal of the scene in which Hal Holbrook delivers his line about “the light of God” shinning down on him when he realizes the importance of forgiveness. I guess we can make our own decision. I think the fact that the sun shines on Christopher during this scene is the film’s subtle way of, yes, that Christopher was forgiven and that also the demons that haunted the life of Hal Holbrook’s character where also defeated. I think he does forgive them, but I don’t know that, even is he had survived, that they would every have become friends.

Question Five: Would Christopher enjoy a movie about his own life?

This is pure speculation of course. I would say YES. Absolutely. He loves to document his life and said more than once that he would write a book about his journey when he got back. Also the real life person behind the character Wayne, who knew Christopher personally, has said in interviews that he thinks Christopher would love a film about himself.

Actually I have a lot more to say and some of it is more interesting even. I will write some more answers and questions about Into the Wild soon. I hope you enjoyed. By the way if you have any questions, disagreements or general comments, by all means let me know.

A review of In The Valley of Elah is next.