(no subject)
Is it even possible to hate and love a film at the same time?
If it is possible, that is how I feel about Into the Wild. As you may recall, I read the book in January and loved it.
The problem with the film is that Sean Penn imposes a lot of his own theories of why Christopher McCandless did what he did and he adds scenes just so he can make statements about the injustices of society (ie. the WHOLE Los Angeles scene that wasn't in the book). He adds a love interest that doesn't really pan out...but why?! Jon Krakauer did a fine job telling McCandless' story without this stuff.
I think if Krakauer wasn't so clear about what McCandless' adventure meant to him as an author, Penn might not have gotten it. I'm not saying Penn is simple or dumb. Far from it. His direction is beautiful and he makes good shot choices, for the most part.
He weaves decent story and makes the 140-minute movie interesting, but everything he adds is pointless. The scenes that he adds are almost a study in cinematic cliche. The love interest that doesn't pan out because she's only 16...but an old 16. The father who abuses his wife because he's a hard, scientific man and the wife who is devoted to him because he picked him when he cuckolded his first wife. Been there, seen that. This movie would have been fine at 110 minutes.
Also...there's nothing in the book that suggests McCandless' father was as abusive as Penn makes him. If I was McCandless' father I'd be insulted. It's insult to injury. Hasn't he already lost enough? Why should his name be dragged in the mud? He may have been abusive, sure, but Krakauer doesn't make him so in his book.
Furthermore, it cheapens Chris McCandless' odyssey by pinning such a base motive to it.
I'm all for artistic license when it comes to adapting literature to film. I get that movies are not books and books are not movies. Honest to God, though...when you have a compelling story laid out perfectly for you, why change it?
Tim Brayton is a blogger who posted a review on Rotten Tomatoes and he puts my thoughts into words:
"I am overwhelmed by the intensity of theme, and underwhelmed by the sophomoric content thereof, and so I end up in the middle, sort of whelm-neutral."
That's exactly how I feel about the film. Ex-act-ly.
If it is possible, that is how I feel about Into the Wild. As you may recall, I read the book in January and loved it.
The problem with the film is that Sean Penn imposes a lot of his own theories of why Christopher McCandless did what he did and he adds scenes just so he can make statements about the injustices of society (ie. the WHOLE Los Angeles scene that wasn't in the book). He adds a love interest that doesn't really pan out...but why?! Jon Krakauer did a fine job telling McCandless' story without this stuff.
I think if Krakauer wasn't so clear about what McCandless' adventure meant to him as an author, Penn might not have gotten it. I'm not saying Penn is simple or dumb. Far from it. His direction is beautiful and he makes good shot choices, for the most part.
He weaves decent story and makes the 140-minute movie interesting, but everything he adds is pointless. The scenes that he adds are almost a study in cinematic cliche. The love interest that doesn't pan out because she's only 16...but an old 16. The father who abuses his wife because he's a hard, scientific man and the wife who is devoted to him because he picked him when he cuckolded his first wife. Been there, seen that. This movie would have been fine at 110 minutes.
Also...there's nothing in the book that suggests McCandless' father was as abusive as Penn makes him. If I was McCandless' father I'd be insulted. It's insult to injury. Hasn't he already lost enough? Why should his name be dragged in the mud? He may have been abusive, sure, but Krakauer doesn't make him so in his book.
Furthermore, it cheapens Chris McCandless' odyssey by pinning such a base motive to it.
I'm all for artistic license when it comes to adapting literature to film. I get that movies are not books and books are not movies. Honest to God, though...when you have a compelling story laid out perfectly for you, why change it?
Tim Brayton is a blogger who posted a review on Rotten Tomatoes and he puts my thoughts into words:
"I am overwhelmed by the intensity of theme, and underwhelmed by the sophomoric content thereof, and so I end up in the middle, sort of whelm-neutral."
That's exactly how I feel about the film. Ex-act-ly.