into the wild movie

[Xterra Guy]

I have this movie on my laptop and love watching it from time to time. But I always stop it and never watch the last 5-10 minutes from his death scene. Love the spirit of "Alexander Supertramp" and his ideals of life. "things things things"....that scene says it all.<br><br>There is a documentary about Chris (forgive me but I cannot remeber the name) and the filmmaker follows his path and does interviews. It was filmed at the same time as Penn's Into the Wild. They were both at the University Grad and such at the same time. Anyways he talks with the medical examiner there in Alaska. There was NO evidence that he was poisoned from wild edibiles. It came down to he starved to death. He shows how Chris lost so much weight from the moment he left that truck til his end.<br><br>So I believe he just couldn't face leaving a failure. I mean sure the river was high as such, but we all know to walk down river and find a better spot to cross. Which would have lead him to a crossing about a mile away at that time. He gave up. Lit no signal fire. Nothing. <br><br>So while I love the ideals of Chris McC. I hate the way in which he dealt with them.

 

[Unchained]

I thought the movie was very well done, but I still wanted to slap the kid. While I appreciate his values and rejection of the all-consuming 'need' most Americans have for 'things things things'... <br><br>The fact remains that going into the the Alaskan wilderness with all of 10lbs of rice, a book on local plants, 400 rounds of&nbsp; .22 ammunition, some sage advice from hunters who barely know where Alaska is and a head full of dreams is just beyond stupid. I suspect that if he hadn't found the bus, he would have been dead in about a week. <br><br>There are many others who have been living by the same principals Chris embraced for decades, but their stories are less compelling because they are still alive. Chris managed to become a folk hero by earning a Darwin award. That doesn't get many points in my book.

 

[bk2valve]

Hmmm, I wasn't going to comment on this because I think the kid was an idiot. I worked in Denali Park for 4 years and met my wife there. I lived in Alaska for 22 years and this kid is just one of many, many misguided, unprepared and totally inept people who try what he did. It is not only foolish but often causes the authorities and rescue folks to put themselves in danger to rescue them. Most are rescued. Some die and some actually make it. That is why there is such a strong vetting and bond paying for climbing mountains like Denali...<br><br>Believe me, there are no people who live in the interior of Alaska...not the banana belt but where it gets 30 to 50 below regularly who think this guy was heroic or deep or enviable because he did what he did. Thousands of folks live in the bush of Alaska and the Canadian north and get by fine...it isn't romantic or necessarily fun, but it is real. Yep, real, that's it. If you don't have your feces together you will die.<br><br>To romanticize it or to think it is special because the movie is well done is totally missing the point and all the movie does is make people think that they could do what he couldn't do....<br><br>As an aside, I know the bus,&nbsp; have friends who hunt that area and my wife and I used to drive partly out the Stampede Trail road to spend the night together in my van when we were dating...lol Oddly enough I was living in a bus at that time...

 

[mockturtle]

He was an idiot.

 

[AltTransBikes]

Some interesting comments, some spot on.&nbsp; <br><br>The film maker Ron Lamothe who made the documentary <strong><em>Call of the Wild</em></strong>&nbsp; <br><a href="http://www.tifilms.com/wild/call_intro.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.tifilms.com/wild/call_intro.htm</a> lived right down the road from me. I had occasion to discuss his project one time with him. Sean Penn's dramatization in <strong><em>Into the Wild</em></strong> was an example of Hollywood types becoming enamored with a story without performing the due diligence necessary yet arrogantly proceeding anyway. In the end it devalues the experience and obfuscates the truths behind the real story.

 

[mockturtle]

I wrote a review on Jon Krakauer's book, <em>Into the Wild</em>.&nbsp; While I admire his writing immensely, e.g.,&nbsp;<em>Into Thin Air</em>, I thought he let his emotional attachment to his subject impair his objectivity.&nbsp; The best part of the book, IMHO, was Krakauer's sideline climbing expedition.

 

[thinker]

Some interesting comments, some spot on.&nbsp; <br><br>The film maker Ron Lamothe who made the documentary <strong><em>Call of the Wild</em></strong>&nbsp; <br>http://www.tifilms.com/wild/call_debunked.htm&nbsp; lived right down the road from me. I had occasion to discuss his project one time with him. Sean Penn's dramatization in <strong><em>Into the Wild</em></strong> was an example of Hollywood types becoming enamored with a story without performing the due diligence necessary yet arrogantly proceeding anyway. In the end it devalues the experience and obfuscates the truths behind the real story.

you're way off on this.<br>penn based his film on a book. he doesn't owe the truth, or certainly not the facts, to the viewer. he is a storyteller and this is the story he chose to tell; he told it well. the truth in it is something else.<br>i've clearly stated my opinion as to what that truth is. the kid wasn't an idiot.

 

[AltTransBikes]

<span id="post_message_1277647439">

You're way off on this.

<br><br>In your opinion, which everyone is entitled to of course.<br><br></span><span id="post_message_1277647439">

penn based his film on a book. he doesn't owe the truth, or certainly not the facts, to the viewer.

</span><br><br>Couldn't disagree more, which was the point for linking <span id="post_message_1277647439">Ron Lamothe documentary above. If a small indy film maker could get it right, I see no excuse for a connected Hollywood type to not dig deeper.<br><br>That's just my take, as </span><span class="st">Democritus wisely noted "n</span><span class="st">othing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion”.<br></span>

 

[flying kurbmaster]

I saw this film and found it entertaining. The way I see it people jump out of planes and trust someone else to pack their chute, climb inhospitable mountains,&nbsp; jump off bridges with an elastic tied to their feet,&nbsp; set off in the wilderness to fend for themselves with few supplies, base jump, rock climb, jump motorcycles, work&nbsp;in hazordous places,&nbsp;&nbsp;often they die. Insane, idiotic, crazy,&nbsp;adrenaline junkies,&nbsp;freedom seekers, adventurers????&nbsp;or all of the above.

 

[Seraphim]

Have neither read the book, seen the movie, nor have I any intention of doing so.

But, as to the purposes of movies: a documentary is constrained to report facts, and possibly attempt to draw suppositions and conclusions from fact. A Hollywood movie, 'based' on an actual event, is designed for entertainment purposes, not educational, and is intended to be view as fiction based on a true event. But still fiction, and not constrained to historical accuracy.

Having been a mild adrenaline junkie in my youth, I can still report there is a difference between who participates in a risky sport, knowing the dangers and knowing how to participate with minimum risk using tools and safety equipment properly, and some idiot who goes off inexperienced and half-cocked, without necessary tools, knowledge and preparation.

Just saying.

 

[owl]

&nbsp; Seraphim, I agree completely. This person was classic "feeler" not a logical, thinking adventurer. Many are addicted to feeling their way through life with little independent or critical&nbsp;thought.

 

[thinker]

you may disagree, but citing a documentary hardly evidences the flaws in a dramatization.&nbsp;&lt;br&gt;penn DID get it right. it's not that he failed in his objective, but that his objective isn't yours. if i have a right to my opinion, why does penn not have a right to his objective?&nbsp;&lt;br&gt;moreover, this film was an adaptation of sorts. so even if you were right... you'd still be wrong. that is to say, even if a storyteller has a responsibility to the truth he was faithful to the book upon which the film is based.&nbsp;&lt;br&gt;or is it the responsibility of the film maker to vet the book?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;finally, it's not my opinion; it's the consensus of the art world. saying it's my opinion would be akin to saying it's my opinion a reporter shouldn't have to reveal their source. it's the agreed upon ethic of the media and in fact the law. it is the law because ethics are held to be above opinion and not subject to the fancy of an individual. it's why laws are based on ethics.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;

 

[AltTransBikes]

It was a true story about a real person, a misguided youth and a life tragically ended. It was not a work of fiction with a made up character and poetic license to wander. I recall watching an interview where Penn touts the film as true story and expresses much admiration for the real life character. In my view the film romanticizes what was actually stupidity. Not that surprising really since Hollywood typically conflates it allegiance to the truth with success at the box office. <br><br>On another note, I am however thankful for the reminder, lol: http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnwai0fFsL1qmsj87o1_400.jpg

 

[owl]

&nbsp; Thinker, are you saying that there is a law protecting reporters who won't reveal their sources ? I am asking because reporters are often held in contempt of court and jailed when they refuse to cooperate with the court.

 

[James AKA Lynx]

No, a reporter can be jailed for not telling the police or the court his source and have been. I have seen far to many lies from the press to give any kind of respect to reporters.&nbsp; They are just out to "MAKE NEWS" and so make more money. This is called "Yellow Reporting/News". <br><br>Shame on us for letting it continue.<br><br>James AKA Lynx

 

[twokniveskatie]

This discussion has moved beyond any real contribution to cheaprvliving. This topic is closed now.