Christopher Mccandless’s Journey From Various Perspectives

The story of affluent young man Christopher McCandless and his voyage from the east coast to the wilderness of Alaska is the inspiration for the book Into the Wild. Many theories about Chris and the reasons he left everything behind have been floated. Whether it means strongly endorsing him or denouncing him. The genuine narrative was to be told by two men, Jon Krakauer and Sean Penn, one via a book and the other by a movie. Both depicted comparable thoughts and viewpoints about Chris and his trip, but there were certain changes that affected how the audience saw the tale.

The style of Krakauer’s book, which oscillates between being extremely readable and approachable one minute, and using sophisticated vocabulary like “contumacious” and “analysand” the next, is somewhere between a journalistic investigation and a personal essay on a subject that interests him. (Krakauer 10 and 126) A mix of interviews, McCandless letters and diaries, conjecture, deduction, research, and sometimes a combination of all of the aforementioned, this is Chris’s life narrative as accurately as he can make it. With personal observations, disclosures, recollections, and environmental descriptions, he fills in the gaps. The book also contains a great deal of material that aids in the reader’s comprehension of Chris’s circumstance. The fact that “Alex revealed that the sole food in his pack was a ten-pound sack of rice” and “a.22 caliber rifle” shows how unprepared he is is one such instance (5). All of this gave the information you were reading a far more substantial and realistic sense. The trip Chris traveled and the many individuals he encountered along the way serve as the entire basis for the movie’s plot. The biggest difference is that the precise reason for his death is unknown in the story. Certainly not that we were informed about. In contrast to the film, where we learned about the toxic herbs he had consumed. This is backed by a New Yorker story that states: “I guessed he’d accidentally poisoned himself” (Krakauer). The fact that crucial information like the location and the people he encountered along the way remained quite precise is a notable commonality between the two kinds of media.

Sean Penn’s film is more forgiving since it provides Chris McCandless ties with individuals that most likely did not develop as the movie depicts. Instead of being organized on the locations he saw, the movie was divided into segments about his life, such as “adolescence” and “youth.” Additionally, the fact that his sister narrated the film gave it a very distinct tone from the book. The way that the movie and the literature alternate between many eras is a commonality between both. This makes it difficult for some moviegoers to follow the plot and makes it tough to know where you are in the tale. “Alex’s intelligence was immediately apparent” (18). The fact that Chris is portrayed as going insane by the film’s conclusion is another significant alteration. He is often seen talking to himself, which creates the impression that he had become insane by the time of his death. His frantic acts at the end and the statement, “I believe maybe part of what led him into trouble was that he did too much thinking,” both demonstrated this (18). He didn’t have an ax, insect spray, snowshoes, or a compass, for example, therefore he refused to carry the necessary equipment (5). The few major setbacks in his life were these, together with the fact that he insisted on using nothing but his intellect to determine what was edible.

Both the book and the film have interesting and noteworthy representations. They both performed an excellent job of relaying Chris McCandless’ tale. Both mediums had its advantages and disadvantages, but they were both well-written and produced. It should be noted that Krakauer examines McCandless’ life and death in his book. It is enthusiastically celebrated in Penn’s film. I think it’s really respectful that the plot and the motivations for the travel were accurately depicted in both versions of the narrative. Knowing that the narrative is totally based on a genuine story enables viewers to engage with it on a deeper level.