Christopher McCandless dies at the end. There, I’ve said it. It’s not much a spoiler. Pretty much everyone who sits down to watch this knows this part of the story if nothing else. Since we already know how it all ends, the focus must be instead be this young man’s journey to his ultimate end.
Sean Penn, who both wrote and directed Into the Wild, seems keenly aware of this. More screen-time is devoted to McCandless’ two years of wandering around the US than to the fateful Alaskan adventure that has so captured the public’s attention. That’s just as well since this allows him to flesh out McCandless through his interactions with the people he meets.
And of course, what a journey it is. McCandless hitch-hikes, treks, train-hops and even kayaks across America. As he travels, he meets a plethora of colourful characters including many who live off the grid and lead unconventional lifestyles. There’s no faulting the joyful sense of freedom and adventure that the film succeeds in capturing. The spur to spontaneous action and sheer love of the natural world here speaks through to even the laziest of couch potatoes.
The film is also visually appealing. How could it not be, with its vistas of snow-covered forests, the raging Colorado River, the natural earth-tones of American farms, even the riotous colours of the hippies of Slab City. Emile Hirsch is charismatic as McCandless and the supporting cast is strong as well.
Still, I find myself being let down by Penn’s heavy-handed direction. He obviously feels an affinity with McCandless and his beliefs. I’m aware that this is in line with Jon Krakauer’s book but Penn’s leftist politics and scepticism of capitalism are also well-known. In any case, the film spares no effort in glamorizing McCandless’s exploits and holding up him as a hero. He is given the full Hollywood treatment, being imbued with the saint-like ability to positively affect everyone who meets him. That he has a gorgeous teen-aged girl pining for him, a detail apparently invented just for the film, is just extra icing on the cake.
Browsing around the user reviews on IMDB, I’m not surprised by how polarizing this film is. About half of the reviews are in love with the film for being a Thoreau-esque escape from civilization. The other half detest it either because the reviewer is a nature lover who is disgusted by how McCandless’ failure to take proper precautions in the wild is being glorified or the reviewer is a parent who is aghast at such a display of irresponsibility and immaturity. It seems to me both sides have their points and this film is all the weaker for choosing to depict McCandless only in a positive light.
In the end, I find that this is a film that is based on some very strong source materials and backed up by good production values, but is ultimately let down by weak direction. In a the hands of a surer director or at least one less determined to send a moral message, this could have been a great film. As it is, it is merely decent.