Friday, September 21, 2007

Into the Wild on Screen

A while back I wrote about my fascination with Christopher McCandles, the 24 year old who abandoned his suburban life and headed, as the book is titled, "Into the Wild" of Alaska, where he eventually died.

I didn't realize there is a Sean Penn-directed movie out now until I came across this review today in the Daily News.

The reviewer says the movie is an "overly romanticized" version of the book; the book itself, in my opinion, is romanticized as well. The author is pretty clearly intrigued by and sympathetic to McCandles' ideas and ideals, and I'll admit to both intrigue and sympathy myself. Like the author, I'm emotionally connected to the young man that I didn't know. I'll definately have to see this.

For the record, if and when I make my journey into hermitage, it will be to much...warmer climates.

3 comments:

MT said...

I think Herzog, ironically, got the romanticism about right with Grizzly Man. Actually, I think the ultimate is Touching the Void. Anyway, the thought of a Hollywood adaptation of "Into the Wild" makes me sick. Having (quasi-rationally) feared for my own life and having a friend disappear forever in the wilderness, I find this topic about as romantic as alcoholism.

Stroll said...

I think the romaticism is more about the young man than the circumstances in which he died. In other words, they focus in how brave he was, how strongly he stood for his ideals, how smart and resourceful, how *tragic*, when the fact of the matter is probably he was just pretty naive.

MT said...

I think we're talking about the same. I'd say Goethe was naive too, and that romanticism and naivete are two sides of the same coin. The heroism of Touching the Void felt real to me because it was ignominious. Romantic heroism feels like fantasy or malign propaganda.