![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.215.224.21
With the kids getting a little older, I find myself listening to more music than watching films. So, on Friday night, I am flipping the menu of the cable, and see this film will be on, made in 2007, and unfamiliar to me. The opening credits tell me that this was written and directed by Sean Penn, and I realize I must have been more out of touch than I thought. How could I not have heard of a Sean Penn directed film, as much as I loved The Crossing Guard, and liked The Pledge? Plus, I've not seen it discussed here.The film tells the story of Christopher McCandless, played by Emile Hirsch, a kid from an affluent family, fresh from a degree from Emory University, and money in the bank for law school. He donates the money to charity, buys a cheap Datsun, and heads West until the car breaks down, and then he sets out on foot to explore.
The films seemlessly weaves his bereaved parents at home who know not where their child is, with the variety of people he meets, and the adventures he experiences, with his ultimate arrival at the Alaskan wilderness armed only with rice, books, a gun and some ammo. His sister, played by Jena Malone, periodically narrates the story.
We see him meet a hippie couple, the wife played by Catherine Keener, who are having marital difficulties, but who resolve those difficulties with his assistance. We see him canoe ride down the Colorado River, sneaking in a spillway to Mexico, him ditching his canoe, him hitching his way back north through San Diego, his landing in Montana and employment at a farm, hired by Vince Vaughn, to his meeting an old man whose family was killed many years ago and who has watched life pass him by played by Hal Hoolbrooke, and finally to his hitching up to Alaska.
I'll not bore anyone with the details of his life in Alaska. I did not realize the film was based upon a true story until the end credit when we see a photograph real character he took of himself outside a bus in which he set up camp. He kept detailed journals of his travel, and so the film is very close to the original events.
I think Penn is drawn to characters who are possessed by something, to the point of either consuming their lives (The Pledge), redeaming their lives (The Crossing Guard), or ending their lives. This one is the latter. McCandless is apparently consumed with not necessarily the sense of adventure, though he has that, but apparently with completely separating himself from a society he feels has lost itself.
The film is so well written that not a word in the 2.5 hours feels wasted. Penn also avoids the melodrama that can come with a film of this type. I think it too easy to show this kid as a hero, as a rebel against society, who died for our sins. Rather, Penn plays it straight, and we understand that while his heart was in the right place, he has not the experience for this adventure, and his death is not glorious.
Emile Hirsch bears a strong resemblance to the real thing, but in his final scenes in which he is nothing but skin and bones, we see some real acting chops.
See the film, and then read a little about Christopher McCandless. I wish he would have made it out of Alaska. I admire him for walking the walk, when so many just talk. I just wished he would have gone about it a little differently.
Edits: 07/26/09Follow Ups:
A really tragic story - read the book by Jon Krakauer -
A few weeks ago I caught part of a broadcast on one of the PBS affiliates. From the gist of it it seemed to be about another film maker that was doing a piece on the same subject but kept running into obstacles from Penn and the Production company who as the program implied weren't to happy that someone else was doing a film on the same subject.
Penn wanted to do his movie much earlier, but at the urging of Krakauer, who knew them well by then, he promised that he would only do it with the McCandless familys' approval. For a long time they resisted, not wanting their son to be further turned into a freak show started by the book.
Years later, they relented to Penn when they got wind that somebody else was going to do a movie -- somebody they didn't know and who never talked to them. They got scared, so told Penn to get busy.
If Penn was interfering with the other production, it was probably to protect his long-term interest and investment with the family, and also partly to protect the family from "unauthorized" intrusion.
There's a spirit and a heart to the film/character(s) that one either resonates with or doesn't.
I do... in a big way.
"The man is only half himself, the other half is his expression." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
the camera.
"Grizzly Man" can't be topped.
For what it's worth, it was a far superior film......
nt
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
...for this generation.
Excellent film - very well done and with spectacular scenery.
One of my 19 year old daughter's favorites.
Perhaps like "Easy Rider" and "Animal House" was more representative of our generation.
I liked the film, partly because it holds to the book fairly well. Krakauer researches his subjects better than most, so I wouldn't put the story or the movie into the fiction category. It is a documentary, but slanted by recreation of the subject and getting personal with it.
The story itself is wild, so IMO, too much drama in the dialogue or personalities would be overkill. Krakauer tried to get inside of the kid's head to find out why he did what he did, but the only way to do that was to recreate his wanderings and interview the people McCandless met along his way. He never did really figure him out, and that's the way the movie was scripted and acted. That's also a big part of the mystery and attraction of this character.
Without the mystery of the character, the story, book, and movie would not have become as popular as they are. It was preserved throughout all presentations.
I lived in Alaska when this story broke. It was before Krakauer showed up to get his story for Outside magazine, from which everything else followed. The majority opinion up there, judging from the editorial letters in the Anchorage Daily News, was that the kid was just another airhead drifter. Nobody deified him. He wasn't the first to go up there and do something like that, and doubtful he'll be the last. We called them "end-of-the-roaders." The state attracts people like that. Don't elect them as President.
I didn't think it was a very good film because it was played a little too cool. I never thought much was revealed about him so it just seemed a self-indulgent, drifting kid: nothing exceptional about him except he died during one of his "stunts." Kind of a slow-motion "Jackass" stunt.
Hirsch I found unobjectionable and that was the problem. Sure, perhaps that's what the guy was like but this is not a documentary: it's got to have some drama. It didn't have enough, if any.
Keener, as usual, is magnificent.
What a national treasure and it's a crime of the first magnitude that she's so underutilized.
One of my biggest problems was that there was very little insight into who he was and why he had trouble with society or his parents. That was basically a given in the movie and it wasn't for me. Thus, all of the things that followed seemed mostly stupid although well intentioned.
"I never thought much was revealed about him so it just seemed a self-indulgent, drifting kid:"
Certainly not drifting. He was a product of a very solid upbringing. I thought his thoughts as revealed in his journals contained a very well thought out philosophy, however misguided, that society, jobs, and structure ruined mankind by making him feel safe and strong, when he was not really strong, only comfortable. He was not avoiding work, because he worked virtually everywhere he went, and worked for food.
"nothing exceptional about him except he died during one of his "stunts." Kind of a slow-motion "Jackass" stunt."
I am not sure I would classify his travels as a 'stunt.' The folks of Jacksass perform stunts for commerce, and as a competition against each other to determine who can abuse their bodies the most. McCandless, on the other hand, was competing against himself, following his belief that he could exist without other peoplem, and his philosophy that society killed in men the urge to be what they could really be. He burns his money, and turns his back on the priviledge that was his. Naive, perhaps. Reckelss, certainly. But certainly not a stunt.
One of the things I liked about Penn's story is that Penn places some hints about this kid in the film. His asking the ranch hand in Montana about how to dress killed game. His reliance on a book about edible plants. At the end of the day, McCandless had the knowledge, but not the experience.
"Sure, perhaps that's what the guy was like but this is not a documentary: it's got to have some drama. It didn't have enough, if any."
I think you have to factor in the family. At the end of the film, Penn thanks the family for their courage, and their willingness to essentially relive the events of their son's death. By all accounts, McCandless' family is still very distraught and grieving over his demise. I think adding false drama to make the film more entertaining insults their memories, and Penn seems sensitive to the family.
I think Hirsch chose to play McCandless as a starry eyed, ideological kid who is looking for adventure, and to make his view of the world work. I cannot criticize someone for making a legitimate choice, in light of his performance at the end of the story when death was near. His acting in that last act goes well beyond him looking like a skeleton.
by your own admission, the family.
Admission? I am speculating. The story itself contains pleny of drama for me, and needs no artificial sweetening. I think Penn apparently felt the same way. Sometimes a story and a person and their story are so compelling there need be no additional fluff to satisfy the crowd that requires help along the way. In other words, remedial filmmaking.
Braveheart dramatized. Perhaps that is what you are looking for.
"Sure, perhaps that's what the guy was like but this is not a documentary: it's got to have some drama. It didn't have enough, if any."
I'd disagree about a film having to be dramatic.
For me and others this film was thought provoking and a breath of fresh (Alaskan) air.
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
who ends up starving to death. That seems a rather dramatic event. To portray it as some bad camping experience is to err on the side of caution. His journal only told part of the story, i.e. does one believe what one writes about oneself, wholeheartedly?
Anyhow, glad you enjoyed it. I found the guy and his story self-indulgent and literally pathetic.
"who ends up starving to death. That seems a rather dramatic event."He died very slowly in a very undramatic way, similar to someone with cancer or any other progressive disease.
The story was about the journey, not the destination and if he'd have survived the movie would still have been worth making.
"does one believe what one writes about oneself, wholeheartedly?"
All the characters were interviewed at length so I don't imagine for one second that Penn took the journal at face value.
The impression I had of the main character was of a guy who was very self-centred and who lacked empathy for his family, and whose primary motivation for getting to Alaska was to rebel against his Father and his Father's principles.In that respect I agree with you about his self-indulgence, though I also appreciated his attitude and outlook on life which was thought provoking despite his flawed and naive application.
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Edits: 07/27/09
.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: