In one of the rare instances that Sean Penn directs a film, he sets out to deliver a view-changing experience and does just that. The philosophical views and the conflict of moral fibres between the protagonist and his family and friends, are the basis of Into the Wild – a recount of the true story of Christopher McCandless – and certainly sparked an interest in me, as I began to question my own perspective on life. One of the first characteristics that I noticed the protagonist exhibit, was his ability – or rather choice – to prioritise principles over people.
His anti-materialistic attitude is one that challenges his parents from the beginning, and to show that he lives by this completely, he donates all of his life savings to charity and sets out to keep as few possessions as possible. I first became aware of this when McCandless decides he has an issue with the idea of gifts. Now, is this problematic and unnecessary? Personally I believe that yes, although it could be seen as admirable, he only ends up hurting the ones he loves by rejecting their care and thoughtfulness. This is something that I believe he only realises during his final moments of the film.
McCandless is living with a very unique mind-set, and is one that few people will ever understand. I know I would never be able to go through with the decisions he makes and experience the lifestyle he has chosen, because I have such a different view from him. But, this doesn’t stop me from seeing things from his perspective, which is why this film is a masterpiece for capturing a wider audience; everyone has their own way of looking at life. Another more obvious theme that embeds itself throughout the film is the idea of ultimate freedom, and what that means for each individual.
For McCandless, he finds that the social constrictions such as obligations to friends and family, and the oppression of authority, is simply not the way he wants his life to be ruled. In fact, he happens to live by the bare minimum of rules, for he simply believes that the government shouldn’t be in control of what he does and where he goes, which is fairly extreme in my opinion. The desire for isolation, his wonder for nature and careless attitude towards the law is what drives him into the wilderness, and in search for his freedom, but is this morally okay?
No, I believe that it is simply wrong and completely selfish. No matter how thought out McCandless’ life is and how careful he tries to be, I see it as he is only living for his own personal comfort and nature connectedness. His actions not only effect his family but also the society in which he places himself in. He goes against getting a license for hunting because he believes that he should not be restricted on what he can eat, and I instantly thought of what the result might be if more people followed in his footsteps; there would be destruction of species’ and food chains would be threatened.
Thankfully McCandless’ view on ultimate freedom isn’t shared by many. For me, freedom would simply to be travelling the world – within the boundaries of the law of course – with the people I love and to leave all of my worries behind. Similar to the protagonist, but not so extreme. Christopher McCandless is portrayed as a very caring and empathetic person, showing that through his many acts of kindness to strangers such as giving change to those in need, and giving advice to everyone along his journey.
But, I couldn’t help but notice that he was showing this compassion for all of the wrong people. These acts of kindness simply show his selfish side the most, as he is only hurting the ones that are closest to him. Now what does this mean? Throughout the film | couldn’t help but wonder, if he showed this compassion towards his parents and ultimately forgave them for their mistakes and way of life, would he still be in search for his freedom in the wild?
I believe it’s possible, because his resentment of his parents clearly led to his isolation, which in turn, seemed to become a driving factor in his decision to escape society. Personally I see that McCandless reaches out to those he finds along his journey and helps them when he can, because he either feels a personal responsibility to, or because he was unable to connect with his family the way he could with these travellers. Whatever the reason, the audience is left to simply wonder what the outcome might have been if McCandless had thought through his actions and their consequences.
In my opinion, Sean Penn did an exceptional job at recreating this true story into something special, and left me with many questions regarding my lifestyle. Although others may disagree, stating that Christopher McCandless simply made idiotic decisions and ultimately committed suicide. I’m borderline with how I see this, but all in all, it comes down to the viewer and how they perceive this film. Either a tragic tale of a troubled young American, or the ridiculous story of a suicidal adventurer.
