Discussion Topic
Comparing and contrasting the major differences and similarities between the book and film adaptations of Into the Wild
Summary:
The book and film adaptations of Into the Wild both depict Chris McCandless's journey into the Alaskan wilderness, emphasizing his quest for freedom and self-discovery. However, the film adds visual and emotional elements, such as music and cinematography, that enhance the storytelling. The book provides more in-depth background and analysis of McCandless's motivations and the people he meets, offering a richer, more detailed narrative.
What are the major differences between the Into The Wild book and film?
Krakauer's book about McCandless and Penn's film about him are two very different pieces. As with most book-to-film adaptations, the movie cuts parts that are included in the book, and the movie also adds parts that are not in the book. For example, the film doesn't include any of Krakauer's personal commentaries or comparisons of McCandless to other people that Krakauer feels are similar. Krakauer spends two full chapters discussing men like Everett Ruess.
If you are looking for concrete differences, then I would go with how each of the stories are organized. Krakauer's account is non-linear, divided into chapters, and contains large sections in which Krakauer is clearly expressing his own opinion. Penn's film is divided into visual "chapters" that focus on McCandless's birth, teenage years, and so on, and is told in a linear fashion.
Another main difference is the difference in mood and tone. Krakauer's tone attempts...
Unlock This Answer Now
Start your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.
Already a member? Log in here.
to stay neutral, but he frequently expresses a tone that clearly shows readers he thinks McCandless was stupid and reckless. The closing part of the book in which Krakauer explains that McCandless could have saved himself by having nothing more than a simple topographic map is a good example. On the other hand, Penn's film sells audiences the idea that we should sympathize with McCandless and think of him as heroic at times.
What are some similarities between the film and book of Into the Wild?
Well, if it is similarities that you are focusing on, you might want to think about the way in which the film presents the life of Chris McCandless in a similar fashion to the book. That is to say there are two time periods: when Chris makes it to Alaska and then his life before Alaska. The film jumps between these two linear time periods. Of course, one aspect the film does not cover is the own incidents of John Krakauer and his own "into the wild" experience that he shares with the readers of his book. I must admit, I thought that the film was quite a faithful rendition of the life of Chris McCandless as revealed to us in the book. It shows how he was able to connect with all kinds of people and also the way in which he was trying to withdraw from society, trying to attain a kind of Emersonian solitary existence just living off his own wits in the middle of nature.
What are the major differences between the Into the Wild book and movie?
There are probably too many differences between the book and the film to list and explain in any kind of concise manner. If I had to pick a single main difference between the two formats for Chris McCandless's story, I would have to choose the tone that each format uses to explore McCandless. Krakauer's book is more of an examination of McCandless's life and death. Krakauer gives childhood background information about McCandless that the movie doesn't go into. That's no fault of director Sean Penn. Movies generally have to leave out a lot of detail in order to fit a rough two-hour time limit.
At other times, Krakauer tries to explain McCandless's actions and motivations by comparing him both to other men that died alone in the wilderness and to Krakauer himself. These comparisons are also something that the movie doesn't bother with.
The book is interesting because the reader often gets the impression that Krakauer is empathetic toward McCandless while also trying to stay objective. On the other hand, the movie's tone doesn't try to objectively analyze McCandless. The big difference in the movie is that Penn seems to want to celebrate McCandless and his individualism. It's possible that Penn steered the film in this direction because he wanted to show audiences McCandless's story from McCandless's perspective. Krakauer's account is going for a more neutral, omniscient narrative point of view. For example, Penn's film shows McCandless as being a bit more indifferent to government rules concerning where he can go in the wilderness and what he can do. Krakauer's account uses dialogue from interviews he conducted with people that knew McCandless, so we see McCandless as a rebellious and angry person rather than a romantic of sorts:
Hell, no. How I feed myself is none of the government's business. Fuck their stupid rules.