Chris Mccandless

Words: 620
Pages: 3

The book Into the Wild, and the film Into the Wild are extremely similar. Both film and book go in depth about the life of Chris McCandless and his two years of venturing around America. They are the same in the sense of the fact that they tell the story of this once young man and how he met his demise. However, the book lacks certain information that was seen in the film. The book is also more neutral, whereas in the movie McCandless is courageous, and passionate, and almost pitiful. The story lines, and facts are the same, but there is lack of information and different forms of opinions offered about McCandless. Regardless of these, both the movie and the book had done justice of telling McCandless’s story in a way all people could see, and comprehend. …show more content…
Was he just following what he believed, or was he a nincompoop that burned all of his money? The public had spent a long time figuring out what he was after the newspaper clipping was made about him. But clearly stated in Krakauer’s book, it says that it is the readers judgement. In the movie, the viewers are are seeing McCandless as almost as a sad hero. A man that followed his beliefs and with that met his demise. Due to lack of information, and just the lack of no one being around McCandless during times, a side of him is shown that couldn’t have been depicted in the book. Such as Chris talking to himself, his actual death, and what he did exactly during his time away from society and people. The components give of the sense that McCandless was not arrogant, just mislead, where the book lets the reader make that view for themselves. Another part that could’ve added to the movies effect was the fact that there were elements left out. (Krakauer, J., Franklin, P., & OverDrive, Inc. (2013). Into the wild. New York: Books on