Nothing is worth dying to you? Chris knew he could die, it didn't stop him from doing what was important. He wasn't stupid or selfish, he was courageous and a martyr. If you can't relate to him or his story then I understand, but if you can and you still think he was stupid, you're limiting your potential. Think beyond yourselves, find something worth dying for.
shareHe was an idiot. The guy was unprepared for his little adventure and starved to death. The idea of his journey is not the issue, it's the fact that he was so full of himself he thought he could just go live in the wild with out being prepared. He was stupid.
shareThe whole point was to be unprepared (hence the burning of money)... Nobody is prepared for living naturally in the wild, because nobody does that anymore. Everyone lives safely within the confines of modern civilization, with your basic needs handed to you and luxuries afforded at will. His idea was to go back to a more natural, humbled lifestyle that he was raised to detest. I mean come on man this was practically spelled out in the film.
shareYes if he had studied and prepared for living in the wild then it would've not been the same because then he would've just followed rules and it was the rules he was escaping. Of course because he failed then we can call him stupid but if he had succeeded we would call him a hero and a genius. The line between the two is very very thin.
shareExactly, people miss the whole ideology behind it.
shareYou probably missed the part where he died. He was nuts. He won't be reading this because, oh yeah, he's dead. Even my jr high students think he was stupid.
suzycreamcheese RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008
You probably missed the part where he died.
People who concentrate on the ideology tend to forget that he starved to death, because he was dumb.
shareNo one forgot that he starved to death, it's the most dramatic part of the film and a crucial part of his story. So what you're saying is invalid. As far as equating death with stupidity, people consider dying for a greater cause all of the time. They're called martyrs or heroes, and I find it hard to believe you've never heard of this idea before, as there are many people who have done this throughout history. You don't seem like a deep thinker, sorry.
shareI don't really care what I seem like to you. If you think you can profile anyone from a comment, you're as shallow as this movie.
shareDisregarding the laws of man is one thing, but trying to ignore the laws of nature is the height of foolishness. Had McCandless lived, I doubt we would even have heard of him, let alone describe him as a hero or genius. McCandless was a defective person who self-selected out of the gene pool. Hmm, now that I think about it, maybe it isn't such a bad thing if similarly-minded people are inspired to do the same. Darwin Awards all around!
shareNo, if he had succeeded, we would call him LUCKY.
shareI will say this - even our ancestors lived in groups in the wild - because surviving on your own is incredibly hard and most, even trained peeps, didn't fare well over time - one bear attack is all it takes and there are too many chores for one person just for the simple task of surviving.
He should have joined some similar-minded hippies and his odds would have been better.
It's like 'the lonely island' song called "threw it on the ground". I get the protest against the society and social norms, but you are doing it all wrong.
We would not call him hero or genius even if he had made it back alive. The old man was right, but your "Hero" didnt listen. Should have stayed and get adopted by the old man.
shareI'm not saying he's stupid. No more than the man who walks across a freeway of traffic wearing a blindfold. Personally, I see nothing nobel about his adventure.
share[deleted]
You're right. Although his intention was to go "Into the Wild" unprepared and naive. The point of his story is to show that we are all too comfortable living in an immoral modern society and that we should get back to our roots and relearn how to live the right way. To train and prepare for his adventure would defeat the purpose and would just be a standard camping trip. It's because he was unprepared that we was reborn.
I felt that he was smart enough to know the amount of risk he was taking weighed against reward of his experience.
[deleted]
Sure, but his psyche and his past traumas are almost irrelevant as far as why he left, because if the society that he was living in was right and moral, then he could have just stayed and prospered where he was. It was society that motivated him to leave and and allow himself to actually live before dying instead of becoming an slave to America and dying unfulfilled.
shareEvery generation needs its Kerouac, so this is the one for the millennial set. I felt there were too many Jesus-y sentiments there. Mind you, the script was written through the eyes of his grieving, self-flaggelating family in a quest to understand him and to repent their sins of less than perfect parenting. But it's definitely a broad and rich canvas for different people to relate to different things - and to reject different things. I do think he was arrogant not to prepare to retreat from there. I guess He went in thinking that he won't want to come back, had no doubts in his "truthiness". He didn't ask what's the best way to return if he rethinks his whole philosophy - and eventually, that's what killed him. I watched this back to back with Wild, so I liked that she had an exit plan for her purgatory mission. One thing to be said - America is one stunning land...
shareI guess He went in thinking that he won't want to come back, had no doubts in his "truthiness".
Yeah you're right, and I agree. Except I actually like Penn's additions and I think he succeeded in making the character pretty likable, although I haven't read the book yet for some reason.. I should probably get around to that.
shareI haven't read the book yet
you will doubtless enjoy watching is Ron Lamothe's documentary Call of the Wild
In what way was what he did "important"? And how was it something "worth dying for?"
You make this guy out to be some great hero, but heroes do things for others. They put their lives on the line rescuing someone from a fire, or fighting off something that would cause someone harm, or something of the sort... something of benefit to the world. Those things can be worth dying for. If this had happened to him while searching for a lost child in the wilderness or something, then, that'd be different. But McCandless did nothing of any benefit to anyone. He wasn't trying to do anything noble. In fact, he inspired others to imitate his foolishness and they died, too. And he left grieving friends and family.
This is not a "hero." And he's not a "martyr" -- that would imply he died for a cause, sacrificed himself to try making things better for others. But he didn't. This was no more than a mentally ill young man who threw his life away doing something that had no real point, and which he wasn't even prepared for. He wasn't even good at roughing it -- he gave a moose a slow, painful death and then wasted all the meat because he didn't know what he was doing. There's really nothing admirable about any of it. Even if he'd succeeded, he wasn't doing anything "heroic" -- he was just <em>camping.</em> It's not courageous as much as it is foolish.
Why people see this guy's story as "inspirational" is puzzling. There are things worth sacrificing your life for, but what McCandless did is far from it. He threw it away in exchange for nothing. He did himself harm and no one else any good. There's nothing here to admire. It's a sad story of a sick boy who could have done something with his life but wasted it instead, miserably and foolishly.
Well your opinion is quite popular that's for sure. This is because most of humanity is more like Chris' parents and less like Chris. This is a bad thing because you are not living life if you are like his parents. Chris, lived his life before dying, which is what few people do nowadays.
He threw it away in exchange for nothing.
that would imply he died for a cause,
He lived his life the way he wanted to live it, and died loving the things he did.
I think it's quite inspiring.
Many of us dream to do something similar, to escape the rules of the society and be free. But for must of us it stays a dream.We are afraid of stepping out of our comfort zone. He actually dared to risk everything and do it
True it didn't turn out the way he expected it to but he was willing to risk it.
And he did die for a cause.
Glad to see someone in this thread understood the movie. It's true sometimes I wish I had the courage he had to just get up and leave.
shareThe thing you are forgetting is he didn't do this for anyone but himself. Therefore he did this for selfish reasons not altruistic reasons. Even in the movie it is shown that he cared less for others than he did for himself. He didn't know he was going to die or even think he was going to die. He was planning on being back in August to help with the grain harvest. He went in overconfident and naive.
If you base your entire opinion on McCandless on just what the movie shows then you're only getting a third of the story. If you base your opinion on just Krakauer's book and the movie then you're only getting half the story. Both have created events that never happened. Both have left out things that did happen.
Remember this. IF he had not died and if Krakauer had not written his book then he would have never impacted your life. If he had walked out across the bridge which is 1/2 a mile from the bus you would have never have heard of him and you wouldn't be praising him as the Thoreau or London of our times.
There have been dozens of articles written debunking the heroism of McCandless. If you chose to ignore them then you are just as naive as he was.
If you scroll up like three comments, you will see that I am well aware he did it for himself.he didn't know it would become something bigger like a book or a film. He did it for himself,
This doesn't make him selfish. This means he cares about his life. Which again, few people actually care about living otherwise they would be doing something similar to what he did. How you misunderstood him caring for other people less is beyond me, when he is shown being kind and helping others along his journey (ie. the old man). There haven't been articles debunking his "heroism". There have been articles debunking aspects of the film. If you care to refute this, please share an article with us.
Here is one:
http://www.adn.com/article/20130920/beatification-chris-mccandless-thieving-poacher-saint
Thanks for the link. First of all, whether this is a reliable source or not, the person stating these 'facts' is heavily biased against him. So that is something to note.
Now, I read the whole article. Here it is in a nutshell:
"The guy is a poacher, a bum and a thief"
He lived his life the way he wanted to live it, and died loving the things he did.
I think it's quite inspiring.
Well your opinion is quite popular that's for sure.
This is because most of humanity is more like Chris' parents and less like Chris. This is a bad thing because you are not living life if you are like his parents. Chris, lived his life before dying, which is what few people do nowadays.
His intention was to throw himself into the world he and everyone else was robbed of. He did that, enjoyed his experience and then died a happy man. So to correct you I would say he committed to a high risk/ high reward situation.
He did die for a cause, he didn't know it would become something bigger like a book or a film. He did it for himself, but the message behind his story is that people need to wake up and free themselves. It takes a lot of courage to do what he did.
This guy was never happy inside himself...
I honestly can in no way find why you're saying this, when almost the whole movie he was running around laughing and smiling like a child. Discovering new things about life. He was unhappy when he was stuck in society, with garbage parents. Then he left, and was happy. The entire movie was about having fun exploring the world and being free. That simple. There is a correlation, someone who is educated knows that the economic trap called society is going to be a negative force on your life in every outcome. Chris knew this because he bothered to read books.
I know a lot of people believe a lot of "spiritual" horses***, but the truth is, this life is all there is, and there's no "greater purpose" to it.
He didn't even want to be who he was -- he kept rejecting everything, from his family, to his name, to his accomplishments, to his identity.
It's like the cult around Kurt Cobain
I honestly can in no way find why you're saying this, when almost the whole movie he was running around laughing and smiling like a child.
Discovering new things about life. He was unhappy when he was stuck in society, with garbage parents. Then he left, and was happy. The entire movie was about having fun exploring the world and being free. That simple. There is a correlation, someone who is educated knows that the economic trap called society is going to be a negative force on your life in every outcome. Chris knew this because he bothered to read books.
This is a common new-age fallacy, and is simply not true. Regardless living free to do what you want is better than living as a slave with limitations.
Exactly, he didn't want to be someone who somebody else told him to be. He wanted to go out and form his own identity.
Yeah... because he's a hero to millions for just reasons?
Look man, I appreciate the time you put into giving your opinions on everything. But their will always be people arguing for him, and people arguing against him.
The point is if you're educated enough about the way the world works you'll understand why Chris did what he did, and praise him for it. Because it is courageous and many people are in very relatable situations where they are also unhappy being slaves and like to entertain the idea of leaving and living like he did.
BTW, most people are against Chris because most people that live in modern first world countries are brainwashed into fearing nature and death, while taught to value money, possessions and luxuries. So your viewpoint is not popular for good reason.
Wow. Haha.
I think you make good points, and you sound educated. I do agree with you that the film was romanticized and played up to make cinema. But Chris' sister confirmed that she liked the movie and that it was a pretty accurate representation of how he was.
Even if it wasn't accurate, this creation (this movie) in combination with Chris' legacy is inspiring. It's inspiring to people who are in unfortunate situations like Chris', and want to do something about it. Adventurous or not. With reckless abandon or with caution. That's the beauty of art and film-making. It doesn't have to be real to inspire.
Now we're from different generations, so that's probably why we don't agree on a few things here. But the reality is we are all slaves, and there's nothing good about it. If you can convince yourself to enjoy it or at the very least put up with it, that's a shame. Especially if the slave-owners are extremely immoral and selfish, while spending their free time dabbling in the occult and Satanism.
Contrary to popular belief, there is objective right and wrong. The New-age deception has done a good job of making people believe that morality is subjective, and can be made up, that is also a shame. Apparently Chris had a stern set of principals on things like ethics, and was an idealist. This is the way it is supposed to be, because with the dramatic decline in ethics, our culture has gone to sh*t. He couldn't put up with it anymore, and I don't blame him. Good people like that just don't fit into society anymore. So you're right I am pretty adamant about what's good and bad, because it can be learned it's not something that's personal to each person.
His story made him out to be a little naive and reckless, yes. I think that is actually meant be part of the appeal of the film. Youthful and blinded by ambition. At least I found that appealing and inspiring.
The last picture he ever took, was of himself smiling with a sign saying how good of a life he had. So there can't be any speculation there because it's hard evidence. He was happy and fulfilled when he died. He left his real name because he was being respectful to his parents, so they could identify his body and his family would have closure.
As for ol' Kurt, it's kind of the same thing. Some people like him, some people don't. He was a junkie yes, but nobodies perfect, he had a stomach ailment and was in desperate need for something to make the pain stop. Illegal opiates are the same thing as prescription opiates. He made good music, did what he loved, and was a social revolutionary. Chris was also a kind of a social revolutionary, he didn't create anything but you don't need to create anything to live a good life and leave a legacy.
People who are less fortunate and can't afford luxuries, would be grateful for the bare necessities. They only want what they need. At least in untainted third world countries. In first world countries people are greedy and want what they don't need. Chris demonstrated life with the bare minimum.
How about appreciating what you have, and where you're at, instead of scorning it?You can appreciate what you have while scorning greed.
[deleted]
You're dead on my man.
shareNo, "ljshorts". It is not really a matter of opinion. "zwolf" is correct and you are wrong.
Chris McCandless was no hero or martyr. He was just stupid. He was a selfish, sadistic, stupid fool.
According to his journals and notes, he never intended to die. He tried to do something that was dangerous and he was grossly unprepared. There was no reason for him to die. There was a cable crossing for him to use to cross the raging river within three miles of his bus. And there was a town or outpost within three miles of his bus. But he had no idea because he was so ill prepared.
He had family that loved and cared about him. We can understand him not wanting to communicate with his parents. But he had brothers and sisters --- one that he was particularly close to. How do you think they felt not being able to communicate with him for two/three years? That is just sadistic.
You can try to sugar-coat it anyway you want to but, Chris McCandless was no hero or martyr. He was just a selfish, sadistic, irresponsible, stupid fool.
You are correct zwolf, and ljshorts is wrong. Chris McCandless was no hero or martyr. He was a selfish, sadistic, irresponsible, stupid fool.
[deleted]
Zwolf-
Some of the best comments on any thread in IMDB history....
Zwolf-
Some of the best comments on any thread in IMDB history....
"Philosophers are unsuccessful people." ... Wrong? They push humanity forward?
There is also little to no ego in my objective arguments for Chris being a good human being. Just observations of the facts that we have been presented with.