over the weekend.  The book was solid Krakauer and the movie adaptation was good if not a little long.  Both Krakauer in the book and Sean Penn, who directed the movie, approach both projects as though they have personal stake in it. Both seem to personally identify with Christopher McCandless, aka Alex Supertramp.  The story falls into the usual rugged individualism storyline and both writer and director seem defensive of their main subject/hero.

The book and movie also got me thinking about how the storyteller situates its relationship to the content and subject of the story and how important it is to make the connection clear or unknown altogether. For example, is it necessary to know that Krakauer spent several weeks in Alaskan wilderness and considers himself to be a headstrong youngster like McCandless?  Or is that too suggestive?  Sean Penn doesn’t necessarily insert himself into the film but if one knows anything about his personality, it is safe to see why he chose to make the film.  Rejecting the glitz and glamour of Hollywood, Penn chose to live in a simple trailer (that burnt down in the recent fires last fall) outside of Hollywood.  Long known for opposing conservative tradition, Penn has orchestrated sometimes outlandish demonstrations against current politics. His narrative is not too far off from McCandless’s own outsider tendencies.

I don’t have a concrete answer for how I feel about Krakauer and Penn’s involvement in both narratives.  Krakauer does state from the beginning of the book that he does try to maintain outsider status from the story but cannot help but disperse some of his own experience throughout. I don’t know Penn’s direct stance on this, but after watching the movie and reading the book it is easier to see how Penn was influenced by Krakauer’s stories.

It would be interesting to see what others though about this angle.