Ever since I finished
Into The Wild, I have wanted to watch the film written and directed by Sean Penn. I had heard many good things about the movie, and since I liked the book, I thought it would be a good idea.
Now that I've finished, I'm dissatisfied. Sure, the acting and the format of the film were great, but I don't think the movie reflected Chris McCandless and his journey in the same way that Jon Krakauer did in his book. It all seemed too simple. Sean Penn answered too many questions, that as Krakauer explained, simply couldn't be answered.
 |
| Chris and Tracy in the movie |
What was particularly frustrating, was his creation of the romance between Chris and Tracy. In the book, that was a minor detail: a girl had a crush on him, he did not reciprocate it. But in the movie, it played out into this dramatic montage where Chris spent lots of time with her. Now, this may have happened for all we know, but Krakauer did not include this in his book. If he had found that Chris' relationship with the girl had been significant, he would have included it. I know this because Krakauer studied the relationships that Chris made so that he could understand him. This relationship that Penn creates makes Chris seem too normal. One of Krakauer's biggest points in his book was that Chris didn't need female companionship or companionship at all. He didn't to be involved with women or surround himself with loving people to feel complete. I know that Penn wanted to have romance in the movie and used his creative license to do that. But with a story so complex and serious as Chris', I don't think he should have had the right to that creative license. The story isn't about love. It's about Chris' journey and what was going on in his mind.
Penn failed to show these things. As a film, disconnected from the book and story, it was enjoyable. Ron Franz's character was stunning and extremely moving. The voiceovers from Carine were well done and strong narrative. But the movie shouldn't have to be disconnected from the book to be good. They are a package deal. The movie should compliment the book, not fictionalize it.
I completely agree with what you said. Most movies that are non-fiction nowadays are "based on a true story" because the directors or writers don't believe that the story by itself is entertaining enough. But is that really the main purpose of a non-fiction movie? I think its main purpose is to try to retell the story. There is a huge gap in that story when they don't even portray the main character correctly. Whoever mad the decision to add the romance into the story probably found the need to make it appeal to more people, so they added the romance without regard for one of the big things made Chris himself; he didn't have the need for a companion.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the idea that Sean Penn's movie and Krakauer's book should be a package deal. We discussed in class how Krakauer inserts himself heavily into the book to the point where his influence and narrative become integral to the structure of the story. Seeing as how Krakauer had nothing to do with the film (it was written entirely by Penn) I think it is fair that Penn put as much of his creative influence into it as Krakauer did into the book. They aren't very complimentary at all, mostly because they seem to exist for the audience their medium appeals to most. The film adapts Mccandless' story into a romanticized drama, and of course what is a good drama without a love interest like Kristen Stewart's Tracy? The book, though, is paced much more deliberately, and jumps between topics so often that it would seem totally incoherent if condensed into a feature-length movie. I think you just have to take each piece for what it is, and not expect the same sort of feel from the book and the movie. That said, I think one of the reasons I enjoyed them both is because I saw the film before ever reading the book, at an age when I was happy enough being entertained rather than requiring factual accuracy. Good post Leah, you make some really good points.
ReplyDelete