Saturday, January 26, 2008

Into the Wild


To begin; I read the book before seeing the movie, so I lacked the anticipation and unknown expectation while watching the film that someone who doesn't know the story might feel. I put off seeing this film because, reading the book, I was off-put by the character of Chris/Supertramp. I will say, although I still don't love Supertramp, the film painted a softer picture of the person than I had read in the book. However, much of this softening can be attributed to less emphasis on those characteristic which are unattractive.
It is hard to comment on this because I left with such a luke-warm feeling about the film as a whole; there were parts of interest and parts of thought, but very few parts of personal/emotional connection. It is worth seeing this film for some of the cinematography and to have the challenges and goals of one's personal life questioned.
Hits
Story- While I don't like the main character and don't agree with most of his choices, for someone to chase their dreams/demons at the cost of their own life and in opposition to the standard/normal way of getting through life, it calls into question the essence of society. Movies with a question for the audience are always worth seeing and thinking about.
Emile Hirsch- While his acting didn't blow me away. He put his body through alot to make this picture. There is one story that when the crew went to shoot the rapids scene they drove past the class 3 rapids he had been prepared and trained to film and stopped at class 5 which he was told they would film him shooting without any dry-runs.
Misses
Character Development- I didn't hate Supertramp, but I didn't really care for anyone in the movie. I felt I was watching dominos fall; interesting to watch, but ultimately a non-spiritual event.

*Additionally* Vince Vaughn is no longer an actor. He has become a personality who is funny, likable, and charming no matter what the role. I cannot see him ever playing Norman Bates again.

1 comment:

Unknown said...

I'm dying to see this movie; I hate that I missed its theater run. I, too, read the book, and I had a lot of the same reactions that you mention here. My interest in seeing the movie is two-fold. 1) It's got to be beautiful on film. 2) The book spurred quite a bit of controversy. Was Chris McCandless a heroic visionary or simply a slightly-deranged rich kid with too much ego? I'm assuming from the sweeping previews of the movie that I can guess which side of the debate the filmmaker rings in on, but I'm interested to see how the film portrays the young kid who burned all his money and headed west. How does the film, if at all, handle the issue of responsibility/accuracy of storytelling? Is the opposing view highlighted in any way? I realize that the film is Hollywood and not documentary, but as it is also based in non-fiction, is there a responsibility or attempt to show all the angles?