Today Mr. Heidkamp mentioned the film Into the Wild in comparison with our discussion in class. In the film, a top student and athlete named Christopher McCandless, who recently graduated from college, decides to leave his life behind. He abandons his family, his money, and most importantly, social constructs. This relates a lot to the question as to whether or not it is truly possible to become existential beings, and whether or not we would be able to live away from systems. Into the Wild examines what would happen if someone attempted to become separate; and the ending of the film could be interpreted in two different ways.
Unfortunately, at the end of the movie, Christopher doesn’t make it through his journey. He ends up dying from accidentally eating a poisonous seed known as Hedysarum mackenzii (wild sweet pea). The film basically suggests that even if we are motivated enough to spend 119 days in the Alaskan wilderness, we cannot strip ourselves from these systems. We cannot abandon social constructs because we need them to survive. This is the first interpretation.
The second interpretation relates to our fear of death. Part of existentialism revolves around accepting pain and suffering, and knowing that eventually we will die. At the end of the film, Christopher seems okay with dying. He is happy for the life he was able to live and isn’t afraid of leaving it behind. I am posting the video to the ending, but keep in mind that it is a death scene (and it ruins a big part of the movie). I’m going to let you choose whether or not you want to see it.
I side more with the second interpretation. I don't think that his death alludes to the inability to escape social constructs, because he lived without them for quite a while. Rather, his death may reveal the difficulty of coping without them. In addition, the fact that he accepted his death supports an existentialist ideology.
ReplyDelete