Into the Wild: The Sean Penn Version

Throughout class this week, we had been discussing how some textbooks select what you read and learn.They use specific word choices to convey a bias of theirs. And this use of passive voice and conntations to deliver a particular effect on the reader does work. We focused on how a certain textbook created an image of the Native Americans as victims and the whites as oppressors. If it had not been for our analysis of the text during class, I would have completely agreed with the author's words. But as we considered the selection created by the author, it seemed pretty unfair. The words he chose whether it was the "Indians Cheated" or "Indians are Restricted" make the reader feel guilty for the mistakes of our ancestors.

But this type of word selection and secret messages really got me thinking after I had watched Into the Wild last night. Here's an article that places the movie against the book http://www.avclub.com/articles/book-vs-film-into-the-wild,2168/. I had noticed how many parts of the movie were different than those of the book by John Krakauer. Much of the movie was narrated by Chris' sister Carine, in the words of the article, in a "dreamy melancholy that further idealizes him." Which is pretty much right. She goes into great detail of his imperfections and his beliefs, although throughout the book, she doesn't have a major voice.

I believe Sean Penn had over-emphasized the positives for Chris McCandless and for the most part, ignored the negatives. He threw in a scene of Chris' parents fighting violently, his little sister crying and Chris holding her and trying to shield her away from them. Yet, the fighting was never mentioned in the book. He never showed the real frustrations that Chris encountered, like when he was lost for a couple of days in the canal, paddling in circles. He showed the more romantic, happier images. Many people criticize Penn for misrepresenting the truth, of getting "too Hollywood." But Penn claims he was just making a film from what he believes would have been McCandless' perspective. It wasn't supposed to be a documentary.

I think a lot of the problem was that no one really knows what McCandless was thinking. Sure, we have his words and the passages he highlighted. We could talk to those close to him, and try and piece together what kind of man he really was. But I don't think we'll ever be able to do that. Was he really happy? Just like you'll never know the true extent of the person next to you, we'll never be able to know what he was really going through and thinking.

So as Penn chooses to idealize McCandless, he represents his story exactly in that way. Idealistic. A lost soul trying to find himself. Or the book that claims McCandless was a pilgram. But was that who McCandless really was? Or is that what the authors have led us to believe? I think everything we've read or watched about McCandless is based more on the opinions of others than who McCandless really was. They're all collections of others' perceptions and stories. Very little is from the mind of Christopher McCandless.