Nisam imao takve stvari na umu...možda bolje da kažem što jesam - naime, Supertramp je prikazan
pozitivno. 'Sestrinska naracija' koju spomenuh ocrtava ga, štoviše, kao heroja. Slično i Krauker. I dok je naracija užasna i boli ju slušati, u svoj njenoj slabašnoj racionalizaciji i tumačenjima koja su na razini nižih razreda srednje škole u najboljem slučaju, to je još uvijek nešto oko čega se ne moramo složiti. Ono oko čega se ne možemo ne-složiti, jest da je on otišao tamo bez kompasa i karte područja. Čovjek koji ga u filmu ostavi tamo je isti čovjek koji ga je zbilja dovezao tamo, samo što je u filmu manje naglašena njegova molba da ne ide tako nepripremljen.
Slijedi citat s Wikipedije:
Unlike Krakauer and many readers, who have a largely sympathetic view of McCandless, some have expressed negative views about those who romanticize his fate. Alaskans have been particularly skeptical
McCandless has been a polarizing figure ever since his story first broke in 1992. Because he chose not to bring a map and a compass (items which most people in the same situation would have considered essential), McCandless was completely unaware that a hand-operated tram crossed the otherwise impassable river 1/4 mile from where he attempted to cross. Had McCandless known this, he could easily have saved his own life. Additionally, there were cabins stocked with emergency supplies within a few miles of the bus, although they had been vandalized and all the supplies were spoiled, possibly by McCandless, as detailed in Lamothe's documentary. Yet Ken Kehrer, chief ranger for Denali National Park, denied that McCandless was considered a vandalism suspect by the National Park Service. The most charitable view among McCandless's detractors is that he was somewhat lacking in basic common sense, i.e., venturing into a wilderness area on his own without adequate planning, preparation, and supplies was almost guaranteed to end in disaster.
Alaskan Park Ranger Peter Christian wrote: "I am exposed continually to what I will call the 'McCandless Phenomenon.' People, nearly always young men, come to Alaska to challenge themselves against an unforgiving wilderness landscape where convenience of access and possibility of rescue are practically nonexistent [...] When you consider McCandless from my perspective, you quickly see that what he did wasn’t even particularly daring, just stupid, tragic, and inconsiderate. First off, he spent very little time learning how to actually live in the wild. He arrived at the Stampede Trail without even a map of the area. If he [had] had a good map he could have walked out of his predicament [...] Essentially, Chris McCandless committed suicide."
Jon Krakauer defends McCandless, claiming that what critics point to as arrogance was merely McCandless's desire for "being the first to explore a blank spot on the map." Krakauer continues that there remain extremely few areas on the world map that would be called 'blank'.
Ne mogu se ne složiti s dotičnim Alaskan Park Rangerom - bilo da se radilo o aroganciji i prepotentnosti, bilo o nedostatku zdravog razuma - ni u kojem slučaju nije laskavo. A Kraukerova apologija u zadnjem paragrafu mi se čini jednako slabašnom (i ne samo to, već je i netočna - obzirom da očito postoji karta područja) kao i racionalizacije nekih drugih odluka unutar filma. Počev od poticaja njegovu odlasku - roditelji mu nisu najbolji ljudi na svijetu. Heh. Dignite ruku svi koje su roditelji nekad razočarali. Kontinuirano nejavljanje je još jedna djetinjastost kojom ih kažnjava. Jer nisu u skladu s njegovim idealima/koncepcijom moralnog. On to doduše zadržava na privatnoj razini (ie, nije postao propovjednik ili pripadnik neke slične organizacije), a i moglo bi se smatrati da je bar njegovo odbacivanje svijeta i materijalizma, ako mu je do toga bilo, na neki način plemenito ili velika gesta. Meni se čini da je to upitno, i kao namjera i kao gesta, ovo prvo jer nisam siguran da postoji dovoljno podataka iz kojih bismo zaključili takvo što, a ovo drugo jer je naprosto trivijalno - štoviše, idiotski je (u starogrčkom smislu, dakle isključenje iz javnog i zabijanje nosa u privatno), pa čak defetistički - a to sve skupa meni ne izgleda osobito herojski.
Dakako, to za film kao film ne znači puno - kao što rekoh, smatram da je kompetentno napravljen. Za neki film koji cilja biti entertainment ne bi me manje moglo biti briga je li historijski točan, no mislim da to ne vrijedi za ovaj, osim ako ne bismo bili cinični. Dakle, da se u filmu radilo o izmišljenoj osobi, meni bi bio nešto bolji (ne puno (jer imam neke prigovore na sam film), ali dovoljno da se ne moram tri dana premišljati oko ocjene), jer bi tako iluzija bila netaknuta stvarnošću.
