Into the Wild: An Analysis on Film and Novel, Essay Example

The novel “Into the Wild”, as written by Jon Krakauer, depicts the life and death of an actual young man named Christopher McCandless, who had left behind a life as a college graduate with upstanding grades for a life out on the road as a traveler making his way with little besides what bare essentials he could carry with him at the time, gradually going onto try his hand at life in the wilderness, foraging for plant life and hunting game while living in an abandoned bus in Alaska. McCandless lasts as long as he can but is, within a relatively short period of time, poisoned from eating the wrong variety of plant and suffers death. After some years, the novel was made into a film of the same title.

The main difference betwixt the novel and film is simply that McCandless is portrayed so differently on either side of the spectrum. In the novel, McCandless is impatient, somewhat selfish and thinks less of others, being quick to anger, for instance, when something or someone arises in his way. A notable instance of this is the part in which he goes to a park ranger office to find some means of boating down the Colorado River and is denied, placed on a waiting period of four years, which does not sit well at all with the young man, who roars displeasure at the waiting, referring to it as stupid. The film treats this in a different way: McCandless merely scoffs at the silly rules and does what he feels regardless of the laws set in place, with nothing to stop him. The novel’s perspective was instrumental in the portrayal of McCandless in that it takes the viewpoint of someone analyzing him for clues and hints towards his behavior, rather than that of the film, which takes place directly from McCandless’ stance as a young man who merely wishes for a life unburdened by the responsibilities of those living a traditional nine-to-five workaday life. McCandless in the film is thus different because the film takes the story from his own eyes rather than via an analysis and thus it is that McCandless comes off as a young, impetuous man full of pep and cheer who is willing to dispense wisdom where he sees fit and where he sees any in need of it. Along with this, McCandless’ relationship with the young lady named Tracy Tatro was somewhat emphasized, along with the nature of McCandless’ family, in the film to a somewhat exaggerated stance, perhaps for some respective romantic tension and back story on McCandless’ life. Finally, Sean Penn, who had directed the film version of “Into the Wild”, had made a substantive change to the story itself: McCandless’ death; McCandless’ demise, as suggested by Krakauer, was the effect of some of his gathered edible plants being infected with mould of a poisonous variety, whereas Penn’s depiction of McCandless’ death was attributed to the consumption of some poisonous plants that the young man had confused with edible ones.

Of all the personages described in the novel or film, I must say that I find myself most relatable to the character Ron Franz, the older man, in that, I would find myself bewildered somewhat by the actions of such a young man as McCandless, but would, undoubtedly, still care enough on a human level to contribute whatever help and aid I might, though from that point the comparison ends: Franz, upon hearing of McCandless’ demise, declares himself a godless man and turns to drink for solace, something I myself would not do.

Naturally, as with nearly any film, this story was altered so as to appear different, somewhat, some might say, more enjoyable for the viewers and altered so as to appeal in certain ways for the viewers to take to heart. In a way, the film presented a more cautionary tale for viewers in that one might see with one’s own eyes the strife and challenge of living by oneself out in the wild and how easy one might have life when it is so easily accessible from the comfort of what some might refer to as civilization.

What comes into question for me personally is the plight of McCandless and whether the young man really needed to leave behind such a life as the one he was to make for himself upon graduation from school. Granted, in the film it describes his reasons for leaving behind a life of expectations, but from my perspective, McCandless’ life, simply because it was governed by expectations, did not need to be. To put it plainly, McCandless might have been compelled to live a planned life which he would find suffocating, but that would not necessarily mean he would need to go along with the plan. Yes, he did break away from his planned life, planned as his parents had planned it, but a man need not jump off the high dive into the unknown to know how he can lead his life when confronted with tough decisions.

Furthermore, there are no true villains in the story, just as true villains in life are hard to come by. Just as unwonted as his parents had controlled his life and how it was to come, McCandless, as a youth, left his family behind to worry when they merely wanted what they felt was best for him. In this, both sides felt they were acting for the best, but both led to gradual dramatic alterations: McCandless suffered death, but not before learning self-reliance whereas his family (as depicted in the film, at least) was gradually brought closer together back home, out of grief for their missing son.

Finally, the film brings the following truth about our culture and society to light: some people need not direction from their family to survive but merely require the chances to go out there and to fight for it themselves, earning their keep by fighting for it and finding their own path in life rather than accepting it with no alternatives.