Into the Wild has gained a status as a cult film among a certain type of environmentalists (the most radical ones, the ones who call for an end to civilization as we know it and a return to a more primitive life). That is both good and bad. It is good because it tells us right away that this is no ordinary movie. It is not pure entertainment and little else, like the vast majority of movies out there. It has a message. It makes you think. And, above all, it helps you see things from another point of view, a point of view that we usually consider. On the other hand, it is definitely bad. It is bad because cult films quickly become sacrosanct relics, objects that cannot be criticized, sometimes not even interpreted in any other manner than the official, orthodox way. We'll talk about all this below.

Into the Wild tells us the story of Christopher McCandless, a young American who, right after finishing college, decides to break apart from his troubled family and wander around in pursuit of his ultimate dream: to live in the wilderness in Alaska all by himself. The movie is actually based on a book by the same title written by Jon Krakauer which, in turn, is based on the real story of a young American by the same name. To some extent, this is a coming of age movie, as well as a story about nature and our relationship with it. It is also a portrait of the vacuum and inanity that characterize our contemporary, highly developed societies. For all our pride, for all our awareness of being somehow superior to the old tribal societies, in reality our lives are as infused with rituals, assumptions and meaningless traditions as theirs. All that, while lacking any sort of direct connection to the environment that surrounds us, the forces of nature or even other human beings. We threw away any sense of community in the name of a "freedom" totally centered on the individual. Even our concept of family was thoroughly undermined after limiting it to the modern nuclear family first, even smaller forms later. As a matter of fact, even the so-called nuclear family is little more than a collection of individuals who share a roof these days. For the most part, at least in "developed" nations, each member of the family, once they reach a certain age, eats by himself, has his own TV set, his own computer and his own hobbies and friends. My impression is that McCandless was trying to escape from all that and, convinced by what he read in authors like Henry David Thoreau and Jack London, embarked on a trip to commune with nature. Others choose to pursuit a commitment to religion or political activism, but in reality they are thirsty for the same type of communion.

From an artistic point of view, the movies is well put together. It tells us McCandless' story without feeling judgmental, militant or boring. It just tells us the story. It tells us what happened, leaving it to us to draw our own conclusions. In spite of the fact that it truly is the story of an individual and his pursuit of a special relationship with nature, it manages to feel entertaining and properly paced, in part thanks to the use of a nonlinear narrative and mixing in other side-stories.

So, what do we make of McCandless' adventure? Was he a hero or an idiot? It depends, I suppose. I'm not a big believer in absolutes. Things rarely are black or white, I think. There is usually a nugget of wisdom in about everything around us, if we pay close attention. In this case, there is something to say for McCandless' dislike of civilization as we know it, with all its pety lies, its hypocrisy and, above all, its short-sighted love for wealth understood as the uncontrolled obsession to possess material things. This is something other people have eloquently written about in the past. It sure is no secret to anyone (now, whether or not we want to accept its implications is a whole different story) that we cannot go on living as we do in the advanced economies anymore. The earth cannot sustain it. We all know that very deep in our souls. Of course, changing is difficult. Breaking away from old habits is hard. McCandless was right in that sense. He also proved that it is possible to live with little. It is possible to live, so to speak, on the margins of the currently existing civilization, with one foot in and the other out. To some, that may be a hypocritical stance to take. Yet, it definitely is much better than what most of us do, comparatively speaking.

However, on the other hand, there is no doubt in my mind that the young McCandless was quite reckless, perhaps even irresponsible, to think that he could survive in the Alaskan wilderness all by himself, without any communication with the outside world, any serious preparation for what was to come and almost no supplies of food, drink and other equipment. Only a reckless mind could have come up with that idea. It doesn't show idealism, but rather recklessness.

If there is something we should remember from both the movie and the book is the followin note that the young McCandless wrote in his journey right before he died:

Happiness only real when shared.

To a great extent, that sentence represents an about face compared to what he had maintained before. He had sought a communion with nature at the price of extreme solitude, only to find out right before dying that it is not possible to be happy if there is nobody to share that happiness with. Or, to put it a different way, that community is just as important as nature. That is, to me, the morale of the story.

For all those whose interest may be picqued, here is a very short trailer of the book and DVD Back to the Wild, which collects McCandless' journal entries and pictures taken during his voyage:

---

Entertaiment factor:6/10
Artistic factor:6/10
Intellectual factor: 7/10

---