Into the Wild (2007) - 5/10
Oof. I have definitely watched this movie before, but I had very little recollection of its specifics. And I definitely had some expectations going in that were somehow both correct and VERY wrong at the same time.
Point being, I did not anticipate disliking this movie as much as I did, and it has left me a bit conflicted because it makes me feel like an old curmudgeon. There is something sincere and introspective at this film's core, but for the life of me I cannot get on board with its wannabe Transcendentalist/Beatnik vibes.
I'm going to try to judge the movie within the framework I've established, but I think it will be hard to ignore some of my problems with its central outlook. Anyway, let's get into it.
1. Acting
Emile Hirsch serves as the main character, Chris/Alex, and turns in a decent enough performance. Even if I don't particularly like the character, I think Emile does a good job capturing at least a little of who Chris was. At times Chris is personable, charming, and introspective, which Hirsch handles well. Yet at the same time, he can drill down deeper and capture some of Chris' underlying feelings of loneliness, isolation, and existential crisis.
Everything is fairly subtle, but ultimately good enough. There is also an obvious physical performance happening on top of the emotional one. Hirsch's commitment to depicting Chris' withering physical and mental health is commendable and on par with others like Christian Bale or Matthew McConaughey, even if I find the practice unnecessarily harmful most of the time.
However, I think the real strength in acting prowess for this film comes from the various supporting cast members who interact with Chris throughout the story. Katherine Keener, Brian Dierker, William Hurt, and Marcia Gay Harden all stand out in their respective roles.
Keener and Dierker do a great job acting as almost adoptive parental figures to Chris while still standing out as deeply interesting individuals with rich histories that are conveyed through subtle acting choices and nuances. Hurt and Harden also shine as Chris' confused and troubled parents. Their initial celebratory dinner after Chris' graduation is a tremendous scene that really sets the stage for the rest of the film. Their understanding of the characters is apparent right away, and their eventual tragic evolution over time is powerfully captured.
Above all, though, in a very packed list of supporting actors, is Hal Holbrook. Holbrook had been in the industry for a long time and built a varied filmography full of stage, film, and television appearances. He was never a gigantic name for most audiences, but he is one of those actors that I just love to see whenever he shows up in a project.
He is someone who seems to possess a natural compellingness, and his performance here is an excellent example of that. The level of emotionality that Holbrook and Hirsch generate within what is maybe a twenty-minute segment of the movie is really remarkable and is arguably the highlight of the film.
2. Cinematography
One of the obvious, and most vital, things that the film's imagery accomplishes is capturing the beauty of both nature and human interactions.
I think Sean Penn does a great job highlighting the various natural landscapes the film explores and is smart enough to linger in those moments to fully capture them. He also uses a lot of wide shots to get as much into the frame as possible and keeps the camera moving enough to prevent the visuals from becoming stale. Similarly, the warm lighting setups and intimate framing during the film's more poignant conversations are great ways to capture how it feels when humans connect on a deeper level than usual.
Nevertheless, the rest of the film is a bit of an experimental mess for me. Penn plays around with a lot of seemingly random tools throughout the runtime. Using visual effects to insert scrolling text across the screen or including random shots that don't advance the scene at all tends to take me out of the movie most of the time.
The film also feels very long to begin with, and Penn constantly returning to slow motion only further belabors the runtime beyond what is necessary. The shots may look nice or cool in isolation, but shot selection also needs to serve the greater film, and his choices often feel at odds with that goal when he prioritizes "the moment" over the movie as a cohesive whole.
3. Production/Costume Design
I mean, was there really any other move besides going out and filming on location for this film?
The various locales on display are visually stunning and lend a great deal of authenticity and immersion to the experience. Each location feels unique and serves to capture a different part of Chris' overall journey and experience.
I also think the makeup and costume teams did a great job bringing Chris and his adventure to life. It's a very strong and grounded effort that pays off.
4. Writing
On the surface, I like the idea of this movie. It's obviously based on real-life events, but the structure is a smart one. A man, disgruntled with the direction of his life, leaves everything behind to explore nature and himself. Along the way, he meets people who shape both the journey and his understanding of himself. That actually sounds like both a compelling and structurally sound way to build a film. The problem, I think, is that the character is not nearly as compelling as he seems to think he is. And the execution of the journey feels more disjointed than it needs to be.
Let's start with Chris. As a character, we basically meet him at a place of existential crisis. He has seemingly become disenchanted with the path his life was on and elects to radically change things up. He is inspired by, and frequently quotes, the likes of beatniks such as Kerouac and Hunter S. Thompson, and perhaps even more directly by their antecedents like Thoreau or Jack London.
The problem is that the film seems to be trying to place Chris on the same level of extraordinariness as these people. His thoughts on life and people are delivered with the conviction of original thought when, really, they are just poor plagiarisms of more famous works. His journey is shown to be inspirational and impressive when, in reality, his entire life is basically a paraphrased version of a book he liked.
And let me pause to make a quick distinction. I am not here to just shit on the real Chris McCandless or his experiences. Much like the authors venerated in the film, there are some serious and largely unacknowledged mental health struggles happening underneath all of this that deserve empathy. But when the film goes out of its way to make it seem like Chris is deep, wise, or brave, without also acknowledging his crisis of self, his suicidal tendencies, or the unhealthy manner in which he completely ghosted his entire life, it does a real disservice to the actual person at the center of all this.
I don't take issue with Chris himself. I take issue with a film that makes his struggles and tragic death seem like something others should aspire to emulate.
If you struggle with the occasional pointlessness of life, or humanity's disconnection from nature and from ourselves, I completely understand. But the answer isn't fucking off into the woods to die. The answer is taking steps to understand why you feel that way and what tools you can use to make peace with it.
5. Sound Design
I may not love the end product, but picking Eddie Vedder to craft an original soundtrack from scratch was a pretty cool choice.
Vedder's baritone voice, introspective lyrics, and folksy tone manage to hit a near-perfect sweet spot for the film's vibe. The only real issue I have is that it starts to feel a bit repetitive at times.
6. Editing
The film clocks in at 148 minutes, which is at least thirty minutes too long for my taste. There is certainly some fat that could have been left on the cutting-room floor here, and I came to resent the film's length more and more as it went on.
I think one of the reasons I really don't enjoy this edit is because it is constructed in a way that could have been interesting but ultimately fails due to its propensity to linger too long. The narrative is basically designed as a series of vignettes where Chris goes somewhere, meets new people, learns or explains something, and then moves on. Rinse and repeat.
Unfortunately, this formula just gets tired after a while, and the repetitive nature of the structure, combined with Penn's choice to stay in these moments for so long, makes the whole thing drag. And while I might forgive some of the film's more indulgent tendencies, I really can't forgive the ending.
Chris' inevitable death is staring the audience in the face the entire time, and when it finally comes time to show it on screen, it takes what feels like twenty minutes. His slow fade toward death is made painful by a series of experimental shots and almost drug-induced sequences that drag the moment out forever. It turns a solemn moment into one where I just wanted the damn thing to be over with.
"Just die already" is not the sentiment I think they were aiming for here.
7. Visual Effects
If there are any visual effects present, they are used pretty sparingly. There are some shot overlays and image blending occurring, but I can't tell whether all of it was achieved in-camera or not.
The only obvious example is the addition of text over certain scenes, but that's really about it.
8. Originality or Strength of Adaptation
Though the movie does touch on some of the factors that drove Chris on his journey, it is far too simplistic in its approach. The end result, whether intentional or not, is what leads to my main critique from the writing section: it feels too much like a celebration.
As for both versions, neither probably does a perfect job of capturing Chris' story. Many critics accused Krakauer of embellishing details or making wild speculations, especially regarding what exactly led to Chris' tragic death. In the end, I'm not certain either version does Chris much justice, and both flirt a little too heavily with exploiting his story instead.
9. Stunt Coordination
Nothing really to note here.
10. Direction
Since Penn and Krakauer seem content to speculate about Chris, I'll follow their lead and speculate that many of the issues I have with this movie originate with Penn.
This film contains a lot of self-indulgence, insists upon itself repeatedly, and generally gives me a sense of arrogance. I realize not all of that is necessarily fair or factually accurate, but I don't care. I just don't like this movie, and I think that with a better director and a better script, it actually could have been something meaningful and long-lasting.
Legacy / Final Thoughts
Into the Wild is a certain type of "vibey" film that I just can't get behind. There are some decent-to-great elements in the movie, but it is dragged down too far by the sum of its parts. It also fits within a family of films that simply are not to my taste.
It strongly reminds me of the type of film that a moody late-teen version of myself would have found "wicked deep," even though it isn't. It's a non-flattering Mount Rushmore that includes the likes of The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Joker, and Cloud Atlas.
I'm sorry if you like this film, but it just reminds me of South Park and everyone smelling their own farts.
(I see the irony. Shut up.)
Comments
Post a Comment