BEFORE: It may seem a bit weird, but I've got the rest of the year pretty well figured out now, the films are locked in and I can take a 3-week break in September, then some time off in October for New York Comic-Con AND a road trip down South if all goes well, and then I can wrap things up in November and December with a little time to spare. And the path is going to take me through 4 big-ticket films that will be released in theaters: "Blade Runner 2049", "Justice League", "Thor: Ragnarok" and "Star Wars: The Last Jedi". Now to get there, I've got to do a little more bouncing around between the films I've taped off cable (or am planning to), my access to a few key Academy screeners, and a few more films on Netflix. However, this will only work if I break down and watch the "Hunger Games" films in November at a certain point - right now they don't all seem to be available on any one platform, not at a reasonable price, anyway, so near the end of October I'll have to figure out the best way to see them. (Man, I sure do miss that $5 DVD store I used to shop at...)
But when I was putting together this chain, maybe about 6 weeks ago, I paused to think if there were any notable films that might also be missing from my plan - films that I've been meaning to see or had some interest in, but that just haven't seemed to be available. I thought of two films that I've been anxiously waiting for some cable channel to run over the last, say, five years - but they never seem to come around. One is "Into the Wild" and the other is "Drive" - now it turns out they're both available on iTunes, and I'm willing to lay out the $3.99 for either of them, only that means that I don't get to own a copy or put them in the permanent collection. I don't feel I can wait any longer, since you never know when a film can disappear from a streaming service, it seems. So I set out to work these two films into the mix somehow.
Now, since I've got some other Ryan Gosling films coming up ("The Nice Guys", "Blade Runner 2049" and I can borrow the Academy screener of "La La Land") it would seem that November would be an ideal time to watch "Drive" on iTunes. But since Zach Galifianakis has a small role here, and can carry over from "Keeping Up With the Jones" for his fourth film in a row, there's no time like the present to watch "Into the Wild". Seriously, why don't certain films that I want to see run on cable? I've got like, all the channels.
FOLLOW-UP TO: "Wild" (Movie #2,581)
THE PLOT: After graduating from college, Christopher McCandless abandons his possessions, gives his savings to charity and hitchhikes to Alaska to live in the wilderness. Along the way, he encounters a series of characters that shape his life.
AFTER: Now I think I know why this doesn't run on premium cable, it's too damn long. Two and a half hours? It probably can't fit into any programming block on HBO or Showtime, or some cable network executives don't believe that a viewer will sit and watch anything of that length. Meanwhile, the millennials today will binge-watch a new series, maybe 18 episodes all at once, so go figure that one out.
My next issue, and this ties in with it being too long, is that there's a lot of repetitive stuff here - don't get me wrong, the scenery is gorgeous, but how many times can we watch Chris (aka "Alexander Supertramp") hike up a mountain and then be stunned - absolutely awestruck - by the impressive view? This loses its effectiveness somewhere around the 3rd or 4th time - maybe a few of these could have been cut, and the film's running time could have been brought down under two hours? Just putting that out there.
Now, my famous pet peeve, Chris' itinerary, his route to Alaska, plays out completely out of order, which is usually a sure sign that someone wrote the screenplay in order, and realized there were long stretches of boring parts. The easiest solution is to take the most exciting parts, in this case Chris arriving in Alaska and finding the "magic bus" to use as a shelter - from then on, we flashback to him graduating from college, and then burning all his bridges and going walkabout. From then on, the film sort of toggles between his time in Alaska as an "experienced" outdoorsman, and the period crossing the country, making friends and gaining the skills he's going to eventually need in Alaska.
Really, I don't get it - why not play the film out as a linear narrative, which would not only make it easier for the audience to follow along, but also make it feel like more of a powerful accomplishment when he finally gets there? Instead, the filmmakers tip their hand, we already KNOW he's going to get to Alaska, so whatever build-up or suspense about whether he may or may not succeed was dispatched within the first 5 minutes of the film. This would be like a bit starting the first "Lord of the Rings" film with a scene where Frodo and Sam are about to throw the ring into the fires of Mt. Doom, then flashing back to the Shire where Gandalf comes to visit. It doesn't make sense, but so many films are doing this these days.
What would be the problem with charting the course that Chris takes across the country, from Atlanta to South Dakota to Colorado, down to Mexico and then north to Los Angeles in the proper order? Wouldn't we as an audience feel more invested, like we're along for the ride, unsure of whether he's ever going to make it to Alaska? Again, I can only surmise that someone edited the film this way, and it was as boring as dirt. Jumbling up the pieces, making me do the work to put the story in proper order, it's an editing crutch. Going non-linear with the narrative allows for more editing possibilities, and the director then doesn't have to do as much work to set up expectations and then either fulfill or deny them, it's a cheap fix for covering over the boring parts, because he can just cut to some exciting outdoor action whenever things start to slow down. Why make any attempt to follow classic 6-act structure if we can just jump around in time at will? Rules were meant to be broken, right? Sure, if you're OK with subverting reality and making it more difficult for people to follow along.
I say this as someone who's currently planning a road trip, from Dallas to Memphis to Nashville. Maybe it's just me, but I want to do things in the most efficient way possible. I know there are people who do things like driving cross-country, or taking their RV to every state in the lower 48 - and I admire the people who do this in the most efficient way possible. And those people who try to visit every baseball stadium in the country in the minimum number of days, that's the kind of thing that really impresses me. Heading out on the road without any sort of plan, to just see where life takes you, I don't think I could do that, it's just not in my nature.
There's a lot to like about the character of Christopher McCandless, but if I'm being honest, there's a lot I don't like about him too. I get that he had issues with his family, and then also issues with the materialism of society as a whole, but I'm guessing there's probably a way to appreciate nature without destroying your IDs, giving away all your money and going completely off the grid. Also, it seems like he did all this not to grow as a person or learn to be self-sufficient, but to lord it over everyone else. Environmentalists as a whole might find their message travels better if they don't act so damn self-righteous about it.
Like, take vegetarians - if they convert to a diet of whole grains, fruits and nuts because they want to be healthier, that's fine, I can get behind that. But if they do it to champion the cause and claim that they're then "better" than everyone else, now we've got a problem. If you want to drop out of society and live out of a camper and follow Phish around, that's fine if that's the lifestyle you want. But don't do it so you can live a life where you're constantly patting yourself on the back for being more natural or less wasteful or more liberal or whatever, because there's a really fine line between being a free spirit and being a hobo. We have people in NYC who live off the grid, we call them "homeless people".
I'll admit that Chris took a hands-on approach, he made sure that he had the skills to trap and butcher animals, plus he learned things like leatherworking and amateur botany along the way, so that he could survive in the wild (umm, up to a point at least...) but that attitude of self-sufficiency seems to have run counter to things like hitchhiking, or accepting food from strangers. Or working in a fast-food restaurant in order to get enough money for the next leg of your journey - congratulations, now you're a corporate shill, how does that jibe with your plan to live off the grid?
Also, was it really the beauty of the Alaskan wilderness that attracted him, based on Jack London's novels, or was that just the farthest place he could think to go, in order to put the most distance between him and his parents? Perhaps there are many people who fantasize about dropping out of society, not telling friends and family where they're going, and then opening up a little surf shack in Maui or something - but it's just not fair to friends and family, who then won't ever be sure if they're alive or dead.
Since I'll never know the real Chris, maybe it's just an actor's choice in how to play him, but he comes off like a real prick here, someone who threw away his education and instead of getting a job and maybe working for things, he gave everything away and essentially disappeared, just to get back at his parents. I mean, that's a long way to go to make a point, giving up every bit of opportunity and every relationship you've nurtured, not to mention every modern convenience that was invented to make human life better, just to stick it to Mom and Dad. Why, because they used to yell at each other? They didn't tell you the complete truth about the family dynamic? They didn't hug you enough? Give me a break.
And the solution is to divest yourself of any promise of comfort or routine, just to throw yourself into the wind, because you're somehow not cut out for a 9-to-5 job? And now it's up to every stranger you encounter to give you a ride, or a hot meal, because you're above it all? This is what's wrong with millennials (Chris was a bit ahead of his time, but work with me here...), they think that the world owes them something, they don't want to work hard for "the man" but still think they deserve to be paid. For what, carrying your guitar around town? Falling off your skateboards? Handing out leaflets about social injustice? Back in my day, you got out of college and started looking for a job, not a path to go live in the wilderness or a bunch of people to form a drum circle with.
By the time these social drifters hit 40 and realize that they didn't spend the last 2 decades crawling their way up to middle management, it's going to be too late, they won't have a retirement account or a work history or any accomplishments, really. Congratulations, you went to Burning Man 8 years in a row, but what skills did you learn there that will help you run this bookstore? And do you think you could maybe wait on customers without telling them that they're part of the imperialist regime, and that they need to do a juice cleanse?
Maybe it's just that I've never had a good time camping - both times I went out to sleep in a tent somewhere, the results were disastrous. Finally I realized that my ancestors invented "indoors" for a reason, and it was probably a good one. Would I rather go camping or stay in a hotel where I probably won't get rained on or eaten by wild animals? Which one of us has access to running water and a working toilet? Sure, when you're out in the middle of the woods and you're having a reaction to some wild berries you ate, suddenly you realize that living in a city, where there are hospitals with emergency rooms, isn't such a bad idea. Hey, you live by the sword, you die by the sword.
Also starring Emile Hirsch (last seen in "Savages"), William Hurt (last seen in "Mr. Brooks"), Marcia Gay Harden (last seen in "The Hoax"), Catherine Keener (last heard in "The Croods"), Jena Malone (last seen in "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice"), Vince Vaughn (last seen in "Delivery Man"), Kristen Stewart (last seen in "Café Society"), Hal Holbrook (last heard in "Planes: Fire & Rescue"), Brian H. Dierker, Steven Wiig, Thure Lindhardt, Signe Egholm Olsen, Robin Matthews.
RATING: 5 out of 10 freight train cars
No comments:
Post a Comment