The book is by a journalist who interviewed the family and people who remembered him from the various places he was at. I think there was a journal in the bus in Alaska that was used. The book does not have much straight from his mouth except post cards letters and what people remembered by talking to him. So as I tried to say above most of the sanctimonious lines are probably made up for the movie, which I have not seen. But the book certainly talks about wanting to live free or whatever so I don’t think the movie is drastically departing from the book. It is just a different narrative style.
I see. If one find materialism to be destructive, you have to live like a caveman. There’s no middle ground whatsoever. Check.
I saw the movie, didn’t read the book. I thought the movie tried to find some glory in what appeared to me to be a deeply disturbed individual who almost certainly could have used serious psychiatric help. I thought it was a very good movie, but I left having no sympathy for the character at all.
I also found him extremely annoying. But his “screw you guys, I’m not bound by society’s rules” attitude is comparatively pleasant and refreshing when contrasted with the knuckleheaded “you must be condemned if you don’t live up to how I interpret you must live up to your personal moral code” type of comments like the two above.
Good point, but a bit too wide: the guy who commits suicide by cop is vastly different from Christopher Columbus. I won’t say that either of them "deserve’ to die, but death is a probable consequence of their actions.
Instead of “death wish,” I’d substitute “gambler’s high,” where the reward is the thrill of the risk. They’d jump off a bridge for $50 as readily as for $5,000, just so long as they get to jump. This thrill is so powerfull it short-circuits contemplation of the consequences.
I think it’s a natural human impulse, but in most people it requires alcohol to come out. I’ve done it, both with and without alcohol, and willingly admit that it was because I gave free rein to the bravado of holding my life in contempt, low self-esteem, and a childish attraction to the fact that while in danger, one feels so tremendously alive. “Embrace the void,” and all that bullshit.
Thoreau wanted to live simply and at Walden Pond he did, in a small cabin. The difference is he acknowledged the limitations and planned, Alexander Supertramp did neither. My problem isn’t that he tried to distance himself, but that he continually says he has broken all the bounds of civilization while enjoying the fruits of it.
I was mainly going by the Golden Globes, which I figure to be the best predictor of Oscar nods. It only got two nominations, both for music.
Meanwhile, that bloated, pretentious piece of crap Atonement racked up. (Throw in an elaborate tracking shot, and the film geeks go wild, I guess.)
I think the proper response to his masturbatory self-congratulating babbling is to recognize that he most likely had a serious mental illness, not nitpick the way he went about living up to his… uh… interesting views on materialism.
Besides, what what I saw from the movie, he was more concerned with leading a solitary life, rather than one free of technology. He appeared to me to be a recluse, not a Luddite.
I read the article in the New Yorker. I pretty much agree with the general opinion here. A columnist in our local paper grew up in Alaska, and wrote about how harsh it was, and how people in her town who knew what they were doing died from the environment. She didn’t have a lot of sympathy for this guy.
Krakauer concluded he most likely accidentally poisoned himself, although we’ll never know for sure.
Where did anybody say he must be condemned? That’s a ridiculous interpretation. We said he was inconsistent (which he demonstrably was) and that his death was his own fault (which it demonstrably was). Nobody said “I’m glad that idiot starved to death for his hubris”- that’s not the moral. The tragedy of his tale is that there is no moral, it was a senseless death.
Side question about the movie: does anybody know if the final portion was filmed at the actual bus?
The bus has become a shrine and site of pilgrimage of course. In the past couple of years McCandless’s boots were stolen as were bits and pieces of the bus by souvenir seekers. at least one of the bus pieces causing a storm when it wound up on eBay. Penn was livid over the thefts in one interview. I was just amazed that it took more than a decade, especially for his boots to be stolen- that thing must be remote as all hell. (The bus is supposedly visible on Google Earth though I can’t see it: 63D51’58"N 149D44’00"W .)
What I liked best about the film was that we were not being told how to feel towards McCandless/Supertramp. It was a straightforward presentation, leaving us, the viewers, to make up our own minds without any prodding.
Obviously, people are going to have some different or at least mixed reactions to what the young man did with his life.
I hope Hirsch, Holbrook, and Penn get Academy nominations.
That’s all.
Re: my last post- the coordinates seem to be in question. One google earth “explorer” says they are in fact 63D51’58"N 149D44’00"W .
Well, NinjaChick kinda did. But she’s young and arrogant so we should probably not be too judgmental. 
Eh, I guess I may have overstated my case a bit. But the idea that since you and the OP believe that this Supertramp guy believed X, then should have lived up to your expectations on Y and Z. The OP was more outspoken in this regard than you. I suppose you could say the criticism is implicit, but it’s there. (Hey, I’m criticizing the guy because I think he was nuts!) But I do think that he was more concerned with removing himself from society because he had a nearly complete inability to relate to people, rather than being a Unabomer type who rejects anything more advanced than an agrarian or subsistence economy. At least, that’s what I took away from the movie.
The last shot in the movie was a long pull-back from the bus, drawing back into a wide shot of the landscape, IIRC. If it wasn’t at the actual site, they did a convincing job of making it look like they were in the middle of nowhere. I’m really curious how the bus ended up there.
As Roget defines it, “To acquire as a result of one’s behavior or effort,” I’d say McCandless deserved it. God knows that, by any sensible standard, he worked hard and did most everything needed to get where he ended up. And I don’t always agree with Heinlein, but the penalty for either stupidity or overconfidence is often death.
Seeing as how he survived for 3 months with nothing but a field guide, a 10 pound bag of rice and a rifle I really don’t think he overshot his abilities by as much as people here seem to think.
Those of you who have read the book, were you struck by the impressions he left on the random people he encountered? (I haven’t seen the movie yet; from the book: A few of the people McCandless formed random and temporary attachments to were profoundly affected by his presence.) The positive impact he made on the lives of his friends is reason enough to admire McCandless, regardless of the circumstances of his demise.
I would love to read more anecdotes/interviews from those who knew McCandless during his journey. He must have been a fascinating person.
Managing to not die in late Spring and Summer is not much of an accomplishment, since starving to death when you have no food at all still takes two or three weeks.
I long ago learned to ignore people who are profoundly affected by some hippie bum they happened to meet, especially when they talk about it to a writer. The possibility of getting quoted in a book makes people even more unrealistically enthusiastic than they were before.
That seems a pretty confident statement. Seriously asked: Have you done hunting in Alaska or lived off the land for months at a time? Have you heard of a lot of people surviving that long if lost out in the wilds/shipwrecked? I honestly haven’t.
That’s really what I meant by ‘deserved’. I don’t mean “he was a bad person and deserved death in retribution” as much as “he had it coming.”
I don’t care how much experience he had or how much of a wilderness prodigy he was or how noble/dishonorable his intentions were; he did some amazingly stupid things. Anyone who’s ever read so much as a blurb about wilderness safety could give a long list of the stupid things he did. He might have been the most capable person in the world, he really didn’t do anything to actively try to ensure his survival.
Not really. The Globes didn’t even nominate Crash, which (sadly) went on to win Best Picture at the Oscars.
Yeah, must’ve been the tracking shot, rather than the fascinating story, the amazing acting, the great adapted writing and direction, the breathtaking cinematography, the elaborate set decoration and period costumes, and the all-around tragedy and emotion of the film.
But, oh my god, what a great tracking shot!