Jon Karkauer’s novel, Into The Wild, describing the journey of a young adult named Chris McCandlesswho went into the the wilderness of Alaska without any appropriate survival supply. The audience can relate to McCandless because of his unsensitive and risk-taking behaviors and his rebellion spirit. Mostly, Jon Karkauer conveys the rejection of materialism through Chris McCandless. Karkauer states, “[Chris McCandless] donate all the money in his college fund to OXFAM America, a charity dedicated to fighting hunger.” (Chapter 3, page 20) The audience will realize this rejection from McCandless’s action of donating all his college fund and leaving his money when he abanduned his Datsun. (Chapter 4, page 26) The audience can see his rebellion spirit when he intend to challenge the nature without any survival supply. Eventually, McCandless’s rejection to materialism lead him to starve to death. In the book, McCandless appears to be a negative character because of his action.
Sean Penn’s film mostly focus the scene of McCandless’s journey, which the
…show more content…
In the book, the audience can see how McCandless establishes his relationships with others; in the film, the audience can only see isolation because the film always show scenes with McCandless being alone during his journey in the wilderness of Alaska. In the book, the author did not focus on one perspective but through varies ways such as journal, interview, and other’s point of view, so the audience can understand how others are effected by McCandless; In the film, the story focus on Chris McCandless, so the audience can see how people reflected McCandless’s action. Overall, Karkauer successfully conveys his message throughout the story, and Penn’s film was only an entertainment for the