Unlikable character, brilliant movie

[deleted]

I do think he was arrogant not to prepare to retreat from there. I guess He went in thinking that he won't want to come back, had no doubts in his "truthiness". He didn't ask what's the best way to return if he rethinks his whole philosophy - and eventually, that's what killed him.

The movie presents an inaccurate picture of this. I'm not sure why Sean Penn decided to present his protagonist as much more naive, unprepared, and, well, stupid than he actually was, nor why he chose to leave out important parts of the story and invent others (such as the phony "seduction" scene, which never happened and which the real "Tracy" found offensive).

In fact, Chris had several possible exit routes, which he knew about from (a) having explored the area thoroughly for a month before settling in the bus, and (b) having a detailed map of the area, which was found in the bus along with his other possessions (including ID and money) after his death. He knew of the park service road downstream, which had a bridge over the river that, as it turned out, was too high for him to cross in late July at the point where he entered. He also had the option of going upstream to where the river is very shallow and braided, and he could have forded it there. However, he did not. And why not?

We don't have the complete answer to this, but we know, from his own account, that he was injured. Penn leaves out the fact that Chris left a note on the bus saying he was injured and couldn't walk out and "for God's sake, will someone please stay and save me." What injury? We don't know. No broken bones, obviously, because those would have shown up on autopsy. But a soft-tissue injury, such as a torn ligament, serious sprain or dislocation, would not have been detectable weeks after his death, but would have explained why he couldn't walk out. The ground is boggy and very uneven, which would present few challenges to an able-bodied young man, but with a sprained ankle or torn cruciate, he might not have been able to manage the trek to the road. It was about a day's hike, but rough terrain.

Chris had never intended to stay in the "wild" (the movie implies this, but it is untrue). He intended his journey to be a kind of spiritual retreat, similar to the Australian "walkabout," where he would challenge himself, commune with nature/God, and return invigorated. He was definite in his return plans, and had told Wayne to expect him back at the end of August (he had promised to help with the harvest).

He also had a great deal of solo wilderness camping experience, going back to his teen years. A fatal missing element was knowledge of the Alaskan bush and the specific skills needed there. He had experience camping alone for weeks in the desert, in various mountain areas of the conterminous USA, but none of the subarctic regions. Unfortunately, his "Magic Bus" was probably his downfall. Had he done as he planned -- camped in his makeshift tent and sleeping bag -- he would have been impelled to keep moving (by bugs, by bad weather) and would not have become too comfortable in the "Wild," and would have not waited until he was too weak/injured to make it out.

Bad luck was a big factor (poisonous plants had nothing to do with it). Also, although his aspirations and journey seem very anomalous today, he was quite typical of a large number of young Americans of his time (early 90's). Many were doing similar itinerant tramping about, sometimes within the USA, often abroad. Most returned from their exploits unharmed and settled down to a normal life. Chris did not, but his risk-taking, while it had tragic consequences, was not at all unusual for his time. Overestimation of one's capabilities is also not unusual for young people of that age, especially males. Their frontal lobes, that enable decision making, planning, and impulse control, are not fully developed until their mid-20's. That's one reason young men make the "best" soldiers in war (from the military leaders' point of view).

I like the film, but I don't like the fact that in attempting to "romanticize" Chris (I suppose) it actually demeans him by changing important elements of his story and character.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

So maybe he was a bit pretentious, he still wasn't trying to convince anybody to be like him. He was egotistical in the sense that he risked his life without much care for those he left behind. At the same time it was a rejection of his parents lifestyle and philosophy of life. The journey was his way of growing up and becoming a man. Unfortunately he died before that could happen. Essentially he made his own journey, he suffered and he died, that doesn't make a person unlikeable.

Maybe poker's just not your game Ike. I know, let's have a spelling contest.
(Tombstone)

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Jack, you do realize Chis died, right? So Chis is not trying to make it look like anything. You are so wrong. I wish you would stop your uninformed hateful posts. Chis was a victim. (He was seriously abused as a child) He was on his journey because he did not want to be the same type of person that he hated. He wanted to be true to himself. If he had lived none of us would know his story. It is not stupid to have convictions and decide to live life under certain principals millions of people do. His death may have been because of circumstances that were not just poor decision making. There does not seem to be an agreement on weather he died because of his own actions, or because he was injured and could not make his way out. It is wrong to speak with such hate. I do not see people idolizing him. The most that could be said in the positive is that people envied his courage to actually commit to something dangerous and uncertain and to actually follow through with it. Many people are posting very negative things.

reply share

add reply

formatting help