Into the Wild: A Pretentious Escape Spoilers

Into the Wild, which burst onto the scene in 2007, paints a poetic picture of wilderness and wander. It is like a travel bible for many adventurers and backpackers.

However, in my perspective, the protagonist's journey into the wild is like a childish act of running away from home and a pretentious escapade.

The male lead, Alex, comes from a privileged background, but his parents have been on bad terms and constantly arguing since he was a child. Growing up in a dysfunctional family like his, Alex never frets about being cash-strapped but is starved for love. He becomes indifferent to tangible possessions, and even disdains material goods that sustain human lives. He believes that true purity lies in nature as it is free from lies and conflicts. Thus, after his graduation, Alex leaves behind everything that he has, cuts ties with everyone he knows, and heads into the wilderness all by himself.

However, the movie makes us realize that he has not really grasped the reality of society. His pursuit of freedom by venturing into the wilderness is just a childish (and misguided) form of revenge against his parents and society.

Why is such behavior perceived as childish and pretentious? For instance, when his parents offer to buy him a new car, he strongly objects to it while repeatedly ranting "things, things, things" like a lunatic. As he begins his journey on foot after abandoning his car, he burns the remaining cash he has, only to end up working odd jobs to earn money again. He despises human connections, yet he never turns down help from others. In fact, without the assistance of these strangers, he would not have survived in the wild for so long. Many of his actions are contradictory. He continues his nomadic way of life by relying on human society which he abhors, but remains oblivious to it.

Alex showcases his disdain for society in a very formalistic approach, but he never really gets to the heart of the matter. He knows what he does not want, but he is clueless about how to go about getting what he truly desires.

He never really considers why humans argue or lie, and whether his parents might have their own untold struggles. He fails to give thought to the possibility of achieving a different kind of freedom by improving his own knowledge and making changes to society. Instead, he opts for the simplest way out— to avoid anything that he dislikes, as if he is living up to the saying, "I don't like it, so I'm out."

Needless to mention, his selfish departure inflicts immense pain on his parents who love him. He does not even think of making a quick call home to let them know he is okay. He carries the agony caused to him by his parents during his childhood and does the same to them after he becomes a grown-up. His actions have not made the world a better place; they are merely executed as part of a ludicrous revenge.

Even though this idea is rather childish, it is not completely unworkable, with the caveat that you need to know what path have chosen and are fully prepared for it.

But as for Alex, besides his blind courage, his survival skills are basically non-existent. The moment he sets foot on the Stampede Trail, his fate has been sealed. The food (ten pounds of rice), clothing (a pair of non-waterproof hiking shoes, plus the boots given to him by the pickup driver), and weapon (a rifle) he carries – none of these can possibly keep him alive in Alaska.

If his intention was to die, or if he dies after encountering an extremely rare event after making adequate preparations, I will respect him. However, the reality is that he is neither aware of the difficulties he will face along the path he has chosen, nor adequately prepared, which ultimately leads to his food poisoning after eating wild fruits. So, I cannot have any respect for him.

Moreover, Alex's immaturity and hypocrisy are also evident in his inconsiderate behavior of undermining the interests of others just to fulfill the act of "entering the wild".

At Lake Mead, he blatantly disregards the prominent "No Driving Off the Road" signs and forcefully drives to the riverbank, before ultimately being forced to abandon his car and travel by foot. The pickup driver who takes him to the Stampede Trail asks if he has a hunting license, considering he may need to hunt for food along the trail. In response, Alex says, "Hell no. How I feed myself is none of the government’s business. Fuck their stupid rules."

When he is working at the McDonald's in Bullhead City, Arizona, he walks around barefooted without socks. Homeless, he does not shower and often turns up for work reeking of a stench. He will only put on socks after being reminded by his manager. Are these requirements unreasonable? Are they just for show? In federally managed parks, the prohibition of reckless driving is aimed at protecting the natural environment; the requirement of a hunting license aims to control the killing of wildlife and prevent overhunting that disrupts the ecosystem. McDonald's requires employees to wear socks to ensure its food is safe for consumption by customers. These rules are indeed established by human society; they might limit freedom to a certain degree, but do they not help more people pursue greater freedom?

However, Alex dismisses this point and views any rule that impedes his personal freedom as a "stupid rule". Is this not a manifestation of absolute antisocial personality disorder? He believes that by opposing all rules, he is standing up against human society, and pursuing freedom. However, he fails to recognize that his repeated violations of regulations are actually an act of encroaching upon others' legitimate rights and presumes that he is standing on moral high ground.

I certainly agree that humans should interact more with and love nature. However, the most essential prerequisite for deriving pleasure from nature is to respect nature, respect others, and cherish one's own life. Entering the remote mountains of Alaska using Alex’s way is a complete disregard for nature, and nature will punish you in its own way.

As someone who opposes consumerism, I also concur that humans should reduce their dependence on material possessions in this modern society. Nonetheless, following the path of Alex – discarding all possessions and burning all cash, but ending up working again to earn money, and relying on basic necessities donated by others – is quite a foolish move.

Into the Wild is adapted from Jon Krakauer's bestselling memoir of the same name launched in 1996. The book mentions that the majority of the criticisms Krakauer received after its publication came from Alaska. Alaskans who spend their entire lives in the harsh cold that cost Alex his life understand the wild best and have the most rights to comment on this story. Their viewpoints can be summarized as such: if you do not do anything stupid, you will not die. I am absolutely with them.

I hold deep respect for all those who embrace adventure, love nature, and dare to question the meaning of life. They have all my blessings and respect. However, for those who lack basic reverence for nature and treat entering the wilderness as a mere show, the ultimate consequence they face will be one that aligns with the principles of Darwin's theory of evolution.