INTO THE WILD FINAL ANALYSIS

Alexander Supertramp from Into the Wild

The noble savage 

2) the myth of the noble/good savage

The idea of the noble/good savage was created in the 17th century and developed during the 18th century. It consists in the belief that without civilisation, humans are genuinely good people, and that the cause of the violence and hatred between men has been created by civilisation. Therefore humans who have never been in contact with civilisation tend to be  much more respectful, kind and peaceful, for example native Americans, who believe that all objects and living things have souls and that land is not something you can own. It is perhaps more appropriate to use the words of  Shaftesbury,  one of the main founders of this idea:“to search for that simplicity of manners, and innocence of behaviour, which has been often known among mere savages; ere they were corrupted by our commerce”.  In other words he is explaining how before men and women were corrupted by commerce and human civilisation they lived in innocence and this is portrayed as a negative thing by the "civilised" men because they have attributed the negative word of savage to define them and their way of life. He also believed that the moral sense of humans is based on feelings and is natural and innate and does not come from an education through religion. Although many philosophers have studied this notion, not all of them agree, for instance Hobbes believed the complete opposite. Personally I agree with Shaftesbury.

3) a. Chris seems to believe that the wilderness is a more peaceful place, it's composed only of natural beauty and has never been contaminated or touched by men and their civilisation. He believes that our world has come to a hopeless point where living in society poisons us. This is illustrated in the film thanks to the scene when he arrives in Los Angeles and after going to the homeless shelter he walks around the city. During his walk he sees people in suits having drinks in bars and it reminds him of himself and what he would be like had he made different life choices. We see that he thinks money corrupts us and makes us greedy and unkind. This is also seen in the scene where he abandons his car and burns the few dollar bills he has left. For Chris the wild is a place full of beauty and innocence, untouched by man. Whereas society is made of greedy, power hungry people who don't share the same views as him. He therefore embodies the myth of the noble savage in the way that he doesn't want to be influenced by society and civilisation. But he isn't a noble savage himself because he has grown up in society and therefore has experienced and been influenced by civilisation. This contradicts the very definition of a noble savage because a true good savage must have never been in contact with civilisation or society. Therefore I would say that Chris shares the same opinions of a noble savage in his way of thinking and his views on the world, but isn't one himself seeing as he grew up in society.

b. When Chris decides to go live in the wild I think he had in mind a simple but free lifestyle. He hoped he would achieve ultimate freedom as this is the one thing he has always been longing for. He wished to be able to make his own decisions about everything and never have to compromise or make sacrifices. He thought the wild was a pure untouched place where he could be himself and therefore discover who he truly is through a spiritual awakening. He had set his heart on finally finding true happiness.

c. Unfortunately there are a few elements that he failed to grasp when taking the decision to walk into the wild. Firstly he didn't realise how important it is to satisfy basic needs to survive. For instance, in the scene where he goes hunting and sees a female moose, he decides not to kill it because he sees her baby arrive behind her. He is a very sentimental man and clearly didn't have the heart to kill a mother. But when living alone in the wild this could be very dangerous because if he doesn't hunt he can't feed himself. Furthermore, during the beginning of the film he explains many times that he want's to live without material possessions, but the second he finds the magic bus filled with utensils and man-made objects he doesn't hesitate in using them and staying in the bus. The last example we could use is at the end of the film when he poisons himself. He doesn't realise the dangers that nature holds and didn't look carefully enough. These few mistakes eventually got him killed so this also shows he wasn't fully prepared for the dangers he would have to face in the wild.

d. I personally think Chris is more of a romantic rather than a good savage because as I said previously the definition of a good savage is someone who has never been in contact with civilisation. But Chris has grown up and lived his whole life surrounded by civilisation. Therefore, it's only his lofty ideals that link him to the myth of the good savage. His opinions and views are very romantic because he only sees the beauty of living in the wild without taking into account the danger it holds as well. Furthermore the ideals of a noble savage are innate and natural whereas for Chris, I think they were influenced partly by his parents attitudes and he was not born with an incredible sens of freedom and anti-violence, he grew into it as he matured.

e. Although it may at first seem impossible to return to a state of nature after having experienced living in society for obvious reasons such as being used to material comforts and safety, and not having  had to hunt to survive etc. I don't think it's truly impossible. I think that many people like Chris believe that the world is a rotten place and that they would be better off living by themselves in the wild. But they just have to plan it much better that Chris and be much more prepared. I also think that the key element to survive would be to not be alone, as Chris discovered at the end of the film "true happiness can only be found if shared". I think men are not made to live and survive entirely on their own, we are made to interact, share, communicate, and live of one another. So going into the wild by one's self would not be advisable.

Although it would obviously be very difficult and require lots of motivation and preparation I think living in the wild could definitely be possible. A compromise could be to do it for a short period of time, to experience ultimate freedom and independence for as long as it makes you happy and then return to civilisation if you are no longer satisfied by the lifestyle.