into the wild

sean penn's into the wild is like a promise fulfilled. virtually every movie aspires to be a cohesive work of art, wherein the story, writing, cinematography, music and art come together to make up a final product of great quality and value. However, it is rare when a director actually achieves a final piece of art that stands as a whole, instead of as a sum of so many parts. it is rarer still when all parts contribute to the same affect, when the art conveys a sensibility on multiple levels and imbues the beholder with emotion and movement.

into the wild delivers on the promise of film. unlike so many movies of great style and little substance, or those that assemble a memorable soundtrack albeit detached from the film, or blockbuster hollywood films that cater primarily to the baser senses, neglecting to engage the mind, into the wild works well on virtually every level imaginable.

chris mccandless' life story proves timeless, perhaps growing more poignant in the time since he lived it. penn and emile hirsch discover a soft balance in coloring mccandless' days on earth. the man lived an amazing life because he believed so greatly, with such ardor, that life could be different, that the trappings of our utilitarian society did not represent an unchangeable sentence neither to be deviated from nor struggled against. this, in and of itself qualifies mccandless as extraordinary. that the film portrays large aspects of mccandless' life and imagines myriad details in such a way as to avoid being patronizing or sensational but rather artfully realistic, is a testament to the quality choices penn and his crew made.

the story follows mccandless from his college graduation to a solitary lifestyle in the wilderness of alaska, flashing back on occasion to a typical american family life rife with so many contradictions which surely contributed to mccandless' overall sense of dissatisfaction with the status-quo. what really comes through though is not that mccandless is an insecure kid who acted irrationally or was disillusioned because he held too many illusions to begin with. rather, mccandless is seen as one of the sane few, living boldly and without pretense. this is not a cowboy movie and when mccandless is caught freeloading a train ride, he is beaten up just like would happen in the real world. despite the fact the train car was empty and the door was wide open and in no way did the train line lose money because of his ride, (he did not have the money to pay for a ride in any case,) mccandless is physically punished for freeloading, which seems ludicrous.

penn is fair, too, in his treatment of his characters. in some stories mcandless' character would be seen as irrational and irresponsible while hal holbrook's elderly retiree would be seen as safe and respectable. here we see the two characters as equals. holbrook's character has something to learn from mccandless, something about getting up and doing while one is still able, something about getting out in the world and staying busy with the business of living. mccandles in turn begins learning his own personal ultimate life lesson, the one thing he overlooked or took for granted when he was growing up in georgia, the simple fact that man is a social animal and therefore, man thrives in company and dies when cut off from it.

into the wild could easily have been an imax film. the cinematography is that breathtaking. and it's not just the footage in the alaskan wilds. yes, the views mccandless woke to every morning were sumptuous to behold on screen and the lighting guy for this production crew comes off looking like a genius, but when mccandless kayaks into mexico, or emerges from a homeless shelter to a menacing night time los angeles, or when he is seen working in the fields of the midwest aboard heavy machinery, the camera work is amazing. it takes you to these places and does not even seem to try to make it look beautiful, it just is and as the viewer, you know it.

the soundtrack for into the wild is an extension of the overall artistic endeavor. watching and listening it becomes obvious that eddie vedder was privy to a screening of the film without music because in crafting the songs, he succinctly matched them to the movie, to the characters, to the settings, to the feel of it all, and it touches the viewer listener in the heart and brain, yeah, but mostly in the gut. these songs are basic. they're that sound you make out loud or in your mind when you achieve something; "unnh." they're as simple and sparse as the alaskan wilderness and as complex and substantive as the notions of personal freedom and utilitarianism the film addresses.

Ed’s voice is unconventional and so sometimes it may not fit certain sounds or genres but it is achingly beautiful here. The recording is of a high quality as well but when his voice cracks on the front end of some words, it is fitting. it gives the song and the lyrics a crackling, hollow sort of quality that fits with a certain theme of wide open disconnection.

emile hirsch is superb as mccandless. while some may complain his performance was understated, they would be missing the point. mccandless did what he did for himself. his story is worth the telling because of how atypical he was in the choices he made, in his actions. there are no indications in jon krakaur's book nor sean penn's film that mccandless was in any self-serving. the fact that he considers writing a book about his experience later in life merely reveals the introspective nature he obviously possessed and one would expect from a writer. at times hirsh stands aside and lets the settings tell the story. at other times, he is keenly keyed in to the emotion mccandless must have felt at failing to translate what he read in books into his real life experience in the wild.

they really do not make films like this in hollywood anymore. it is complex and it embraces contradiciton, revealing it as not only the norm, but worth embracing in order to ask the appropriate questions, in order to have a full life. into the wild is perhaps edifying before it is entertaining, and as art, it satisfies at the highest aesthetic level. sean penn achieves something through this film few american directors achieve these days; art.

texas comfort

george w bush is okay with being disliked. if there is one thing we can say with certainty about this president, it is that he does not lose sleep over people disagreeing with him or thinking ill of him.

a few years ago i saw gary trudeau interviewed on tv. trudeau went to yale with george w bush. he described the would be president as frat guy-ish, and it was clear trudeau at least did not think much of bush and possibly disliked him.

since he has taken office he has thumbed his nose at public opinion to such a degree he has reaped the worst approval ratings of any president ever, including previous criminal presidents. he hires his friends, bypassing a healthy level of nepotism choosing instead the paranoid practice of surrounding himself with yes-men, sycophants and like-minded idealogues. this practice indicates a blatant disregard for the good of our nation.

george w bush represents a blend of mediocre intelligence and egomania. it all makes sense, too. he grew up in an environment where he wanted for nothing, (though he obviously wanted for everything simultaneously.) at school, he probably got away with being a little rude, being a respecter of persons, not apologizing for his class and prestige consciousness. his father was a war hero and a major political player. he went to the best schools. his family had money and associated in elite circles. we know he had those years of drinking a lot of beer and doin' some coke. i guess it was easy to get or be lazy about study habits in his formative years, relying instead on bullying people and maintaining his lifestyle.

it has not mattered to bush when his behavior has been challenged or exposed. he just stands there and takes, or deflects, the heat. it is likely the majority of decisions in bush's administration have been made by dick cheney and karl rove. even when bush made the decision, it likely stemmed from the idealogy he learned from these two pariahs. while rove's role was to gain power, and cheney's role was to set the agenda for how to use the power, bush's role was first to use his pedigree to be electable and second, to stand there and take the heat.

when his cohorts decided it would be worth it to out the cia agent wife of the guy who dared challenge their propaganda campaign in order to send a message about how they viewed authority and how absolute they expected their power to be, bush's role was to answer questions, even if his answers were of the, "i will not comment on an ongoing investigation," ilk.

"we don't torture," bush said knowing the answer was not an answer at all and would infuriate those who knew better or expected a real answer. bush just said it though. he's the decider and this is his big skill. he is the ultimate nose-thumbing president.

who would have the nerve to tell the american people, the most educated nation on the planet, that iraq had weapons of mass destruction? someone who figured as president he had the ultimate comeback to anyone who would challenge him. bush's neocon henchmen did play their role, they did all they could to spread the propaganda and frame iraq as the threat it just could not be. they muddied all the waters, creating links between saddam hussein and osama bin laden, iraq and al qaida, that did not exist, but it was bush who had to say it to the american people to truly begin the campaign that became our phony war on terror in iraq.

jack abramoff received $82 million from indian gaming interests as he peddled influence around the capitol. he also visited the white house a number of times. bush said he did not necessarily remember abramoff. while people do not like liars or being duped in the face of a mountain of evidence, to bush it does not matter. he does not mind if people do not like him.

bush had the nerve to nominate harriet miers for the supreme court, despite her lack of credentials for the position. he appointed a horse guy in michael brown to head fema. he stood up to tremendous pressure to keep donald rumsfeld and alberto gonzalez around as long as possible. he has been the commander in chief during an era of unprecedented torture on the part of americans. from abu ghraib to gitmo to sites of extraoridinary rendition, (the horrifying details of which have yet to come to light,) around the world, bush stands above it all seemingly comfortable with being the object of derision.

many debate how intelligent this president is or how devious and evil he really is. one thing we can know for sure is that he is not bothered by being disliked or questioned or derided. he deflects this stuff if only in his own mind by making up nicknames for the white house press corps and trying to bully the occasional reporter who tries to stand up to his bully pulpit tactics.

he has no shame, whatsoever.

smoking

i was fortunate to be a late bloomer, so to speak, as evidenced by the fact that i never took up smoking. i've been late at everything, all of my life. there have been plenty of times when this lethargy has been painful or unpleasant, but there are also plenty of examples of my deliberate nature being fortuitous, as is the case with smoking cigarettes.

when my friends were experimenting with marlboros and camels, (around the age of 14,) i was still knee deep in baseball cards. as i turned 18 and donned a trench coat and a handful of ska buttons, i tried to smoke the clove cigarettes my friends were fond of to almost no avail. i bought a few packs of the pungent djarum cigarettes and i literally enjoyed dangling one from my bottom lip like james dean or clint eastwood, but the smoke that curled upwards into my nostrils made me cough even when i tried not to breathe it.

cigarettes are destructive. cigarettes are addictive. the cigarette industry pedals destruction and has demonstrated a willingness to act immorally. i am glad i never got into that.