In Reply to: I Survived Into the Wild. posted by clarkjohnsen on October 9, 2007 at 09:34:05:
There's a great article about John Krakauer and Sean Penn getting this story into a movie. It took quite some doing. Penn wanted to make it ten years ago, but the McCandless family wouldn't go for it. It took Krakauer a couple of years working with the family to just get the book into print. He did that by slowly winning their confidence that he would do an honest and respectful job with the truth as revealed to him.Penn also respected their wishes to not make a film without their approval. Finally, ten years later, the family contacted him and said to go ahead. What changed their minds is that they heard somebody might make an unauthorized movie of the story. If was going to happen, they would rather have Penn do it.
Penn wanted to shoot it in Utah to save a buck. Krakauer went ballistic when he heard that and told Penn that the movie would suck if not filmed in the Alaska Range. Up to that point, Penn had never been in Alaska. The terrain and mountains are a big part of the events and the story. Penn shot it on location, thus battling the short season and additional costs to make it authentic. I have not seen the movie nor read the book, but I have lived in Alaska for thirty years. I can tell you without hesitancy that Utah is no Alaska. It was a wise investment.
As Alaskans, we saw many freaky hippy dropout types wandering up to find whatever is there to find. Most came with stupid notions of what it would be like, trying to leave their past behind and just drop out. They got little respect from the residents, although most of us were there for similar variations on the theme. The state is like that. We called the low-end of the spectrum "end-of-the-roaders". Most left after they got their asses kicked by the environment, economics, lifestyle, et al.
Was the kid selfish? Sure maybe, as a teenager will be, but was he also selfless? Also yes, as he wandered trying to lose himself and join with everything else in Buddhist fashion. The turning point for Krakauer in writing the story was when Chis McCandless's sister finally confided a family secret that made Chris start his odyssey. His father had a previous marriage, and continued to "see" his former spouse on the west coast and fathering more kids with her after Chis and his sister were well into their teens or late pre-teens. That's a magnum betrayal, and it fucked up his head. As his sister explained, it messed up hers as well, but she didn't have a flambouyant death to write a book about.
I'm looking forward to seeing the flick. I know the region and the kid's perspective. I hope Penn did a credible job.
Edits: 10/11/07
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- National Geographic Adventure magazine, Oct 07 issue. - free.ranger 12:55:09 10/11/07 (10)
- Sort of on location. - sjb 10:03:39 10/12/07 (0)
- Warning: This excellent, informative post (thank you!) also contains a SPOILER. nt - clarkjohnsen 09:01:28 10/12/07 (2)
- The "spoiler" (thank you!) is the magazine article. nt - free.ranger 10:21:56 10/12/07 (1)
- That too, I suppose. But then, wasn't the book as well? nt - clarkjohnsen 10:35:19 10/12/07 (0)
- The family had final approval? That's the death of art, then, isn't it? - tinear 05:05:29 10/12/07 (5)
- Where did you see anything in that post that said the family had final approval? - sjb 09:44:45 10/12/07 (4)
- Shoot, Steve, it says "approval" in both the novelist's and Penn's - tinear 13:28:52 10/12/07 (3)
- There's a differnce between approval (of the idea, principles... i.e. JK or SP) and "final" apporval - sjb 14:19:54 10/12/07 (2)
- They refused to cooperate with others in the past but then - tinear 12:30:09 10/13/07 (0)
- My thoughts precisely. nt - clarkjohnsen 11:19:24 10/13/07 (0)