INTO THE WILD
SUBJECTS — Literature: Nonfiction; Literary Devices:
        theme; allusion; U.S.: 1945 - 1991;
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING — Taking Care of Yourself; Families in Crisis;
        Friendship;
MORAL-ETHICAL EMPHASIS — Responsibility.
Age: 14+; MPAA Rating -- R for language and some nudity (see the Possible Problems section for TWM's note about why we recommend this film despite its R rating); 148 Minutes, Drama, Color; Released in 2007; Available from Amazon.com.
Note: Responding to the emphasis of the Common Core Curriculum Standards on teaching students to read nonfiction ("informational texts"), TWM has established a category for films that are based on books of nonfiction. For more on this initiative, see Teaching Students to Read Nonfiction: How Movies Can Help. This Guide will assist teachers who show the movie alone or in conjunction with reading John Krakauer's book of the same title.

When showing or discussing the movie, teachers should inform students that the book gives additional details about the events portrayed in the film and recounts interesting facts about the life of Chris McCandless that could not be included in the movie. Description:     Into the Wild tells the true story of Chris McCandless, a young man from a troubled family who was enraged by the moral lapses of his mother and father and their multiple failures as parents. McCandless also had a love of nature and adventuring in the wild. Upon graduating near the top of his class from college, McCandless cut himself off from family and friends to go solo adventuring in the Western United States. His last trip was to the Alaskan wilderness where he was found dead of starvation in an abandoned bus. The movie tells the story of the events at home, McCandless' love of nature, his wanderings in the West, the people that he met, and, in the final weeks, his epiphany of forgiveness and realization of the importance of human relationships. McCandless' journey was investigated by John Krakauer, a writer for Outdoor Magazine, who tracked the young man's travels seeking to understand both his motives for going on the road and the cause of his untimely death.

Benefits of the Movie: Embedded in beautiful scenery and rich in the kind of music that has special appeal to young people, Into The Wild provides important life-lessons that: (1) risky behavior can have fatal consequences; (2) parents need to be careful in raising their children; (3) there are times when children need to forgive their parents; (4) happiness and beauty must be shared to be fully enjoyed; and (5) relationships with people are an essential part of life.

With respect to the ELA curriculum, this Learning Guide assists teachers in using the movie to provide context for the study of Jack London and particularly for his short story "To Build a Fire." It contains opportunities for students to explore the ideas in the movie and its use of literary allusion. The Guide contains multiple assignments of formal and informal writing and an introduction to the history of American adventurism. In addition to Jack London, the Guide offers the opportunity to briefly introduce students to Lord Byron, Leo Tolstoy and Henry David Thoreau.

The book, Into the Wild, by John Krakauer, is an excellent nonfiction text for students in grades 10 - 12. This Guide provides discussion questions and writing assignments for the study of the book. See Teaching Students to Read Nonfiction: How Movies Can Help.

Possible Problems:     MAJOR. There are short scenes of nudity including brief glimpses of people in a nudist colony and a short scene in which a young Scandinavian woman appears without her top and without embarrassment. There is nothing sensual about the scenes of nudity. There are brief scenes referring to love-making that has just occurred or in which we can only hear murmuring and laughter or see people after love-making. There is some profanity and crude language. McCandless is badly beaten by a railroad bull. Squirrels and a moose are killed for food and the audience is shown a squirrel being roasted and the moose being cut-up and dismembered. McCandless is shown slowly wasting away and then dying.

TWM advises using this movie despite its R rating because the benefits of the film far outweigh any negatives. Two reasons are given for the R rating: gross language and nudity. Most of the gross language is uttered by the hippie Rainey in brief comments while McCandless is doing sit-ups. Adults concerned about this language can turn the volume down for three or four seconds during this scene. The remaining profanity consists of infrequent examples of garden variety four letter words that teenagers have heard many times. The nudity is simply three women shown going about their lives. There is one scene in which a Scandinavian girl is talking with her boyfriend and McCandless without wearing anything above the waist. There is also a fleeting glimpse of two women walking at a nudist colony. There is nothing sensual about either of these scenes. Because of the R rating, TWM strongly recommends getting administrative and parental permission before showing the film. See TWM's Movie Permission Slip.

Parenting Points:     Parents can illuminate some of the elements in the film by discussing with their children some of the reasons why McCandless took to the road and a few of the ways that he could have had the same experience with less danger to himself.

 


"... A recent example of raising the artistic and ethical bar was Sean Penn's 'Into the Wild,' an adaptation of John Krakauer's book about Chris McCandless. Penn used a full pallet of cinematic tools to introduce several voices to the story, including on-screen text of McCandless' own writings, a voice-over narration by his sister, and finally Penn and actor Emile Hirsch's interpreation of McCandless' final two years. The result is an unusually sophisticated portrait of an often contradictory protagonist who resists facile pigeon-holing. (See also 'Reds.')" "New Rules for 'based on a true story'", by Ann Hornady (Washington Post) Los Angeles Times, Friday, December 26, 2007, pp. E26 & 27.

Using the Movie in the Classroom

BEFORE SHOWING THE FILM

Introduction, Class Discussion and Writing Assignments
Prior to watching the film, students can be told the following:

In 1990, 22-year-old Chris McCandless left what seemed to be a privileged life in Annandale, Virginia, gave away most of his money, and began a cross-country journey. McCandless told neither family nor friends where he was headed. Months after he left, his car was found washed up in a ditch in the desert with no evidence of foul play. Two years after he left on his trip, McCandless was found dead in an abandoned bus a few miles into the Alaskan wilderness. Prevented from hiking back to civilization by rivers swollen with spring run-off, McCandless had starved to death.

John Krakauer, author of the book upon which the film is based, used his investigative reporting skills to track the path taken by the young man. Krakauer wanted to know why McCandless would leave behind the trappings of the American Dream, as have some individuals throughout history, and search for something elusive and, to his mind, more meaningful. In his book, Krakauer alludes to over a dozen authors, adventurers and philosophers in order to clarify the attributes of character that McCandless reveals in his relationships with the people he meets along the way as well as in his journals and postcards.

The film begins with reference to English poet George Lord Byron's poem, "Child Roland's Pilgrimage," written between 1812 and 1818. Both Krakauer and the film's director, Sean Penn, felt that Byron's personal ethos expressed in these lines from his famous poem helped to describe the character of McCandless. Byron was known for creating the "Byronic Hero," a melancholy, defiant and troubled young man haunted by some mysterious transgression from his past.

The five lines referenced in the film are from canto iv, verse 178, as follows:

There is a pleasure in the pathless woods,
There is a rapture on the lonely shore,
There is society, where none intrudes,
By the deep Sea, and music in its roar:
I love not Man the less, but Nature more

Assignment: After discussing this passage from the poem, ask students to write a brief reflection on the kind of person who may be characterized in this verse. Tell them to think of someone they know, or even of themselves. The individual will be inclined to love nature, enjoy being alone but also care about his or her fellows. Or do the students believe that there is something of this trait in most people, with some having it more and others having it less? At the end of the film, students will be able to see whether or not their reflection on the kind of character depicted in this poem is anything like McCandless.


The Chapters:
The film narrows the 18 chapters in the book to five: Described below is a description of a few chapters and some additional reading that will assist in understanding the character of Chris McCandless. Note to Teachers: Present one or all of the following sections.

Chapter One: The Alaska Interior

If possible, teachers should read Chapter One aloud to the students and point out Krakauer's allusion to the work of Jack London. An American writer from San Francisco who lived between 1876 and 1916, London wrote realistic portrayals of nature and the individuals who seek to survive under the harsh conditions they find in the wilderness.

Distribute copies of London's short story, "To Build a Fire", widely considered to be London's best short story. Have the students read the short story and then engage them in discussion about what personal attributes of the main character may have led to his death. Answers will vary, but often the students will decide the man was afflicted with overconfidence, founded in experience, that can easily lead to arrogance. Tell students to keep their minds open to the similarities and the differences between the death of the character in Jack London's story and the death of Chris McCandless. Assignment: Man against nature is a common conflict in literature and these "survival stories" have intrigued readers for centuries. Ask students to write about another adventure story in which the antagonist was nature or a force occurring in nature. The story could be an actual experience known to the student or an event that the student had read about, or it could be a work of fiction in a book or a movie. Tell students to include in their writing a description of the personality traits of the people or characters involved that led to the situation that they are describing. Chapter Five: Misfits

Krakauer introduces his readers to an odd lot of people that McCandless meets on his adventures, including those who live in what is called "Slab City." The film shows these people with a degree of affection that is unusual in mainstream society. Sites such as Slab City can be found all over the United States; the one portrayed in the film, in California, houses up to 5,000 people in winter, most of whom are retired, destitute or unemployed; all clearly unable or unwilling to keep up with the "middle class grind." It is clear in both the film and the book that McCandless harbors both respect and affection for these outsiders. Assignment: Write a paragraph describing what you think about the kinds of people seen in Slab City. Try to be direct and honest in expressing your feelings; are they based in fear, compassion or ignorance? Write about any relationship you may have had with these kinds of people. Chapter Nine: A Young Adventurer Lost and Found

Chapter nine begins with the last letter written by Everett Ruess, another of the many adventurers Krakauer studies in his effort to explain the nature of Chris McCandless. Ruess is compared to John Muir, a man who grew famous through his love for the outdoors and his efforts to preserve it for future generations. Read to the students the account of Everett Ruess given in the chapter and then deliver the following information: Under the headline, "Solved: The Mystery of Edmund Ruess," the story tells readers about how the disappearance of Ruess is finally explained by an aging Navajo who wanted to lay to rest the remains of a boy he witnessed murdered in Utah's Davis Gulch back in 1934. The old man said he watched from a ridge as three Ute teenagers killed Ruess. He claims to have helped hide the body and explained that he wanted to gather a lock of the boy's hair so he could perform a ceremony bring peace to the dead boy and to rid himself of the guilt associated with the crime.

Relatives of the old man, eager to dispel the burden of a family secret, eventually led the authorities to the gruesome find and forensic scientists using DNA evidence determined that the body was irrefutably that of Ruess. The body was found jammed into a crevice.

The National Geographic Society had relentlessly pressed for proper identification of the body after FBI agents originally asserted that the remains were those of a local Navajo. With the society's persistence, the mystery of the young Ruess, who wrote that he intended to spend his life exploring the beauty of nature, was thought to be solved. Now, new DNA analysis of the remains found in the crevice questions that conclusion. Assignment: Ruess was a young, innocent man when he decided to hike and climb and explore on his own. Write your opinion about whether or not you think it is too risky to take solo adventures. Argue your points for or against going off on one's own by pointing out what could be gained in a solo experience and the possible dangers that may be met. Decide whether the gains and potential losses balance or overpower one another. Chapter Twelve:

Krakauer digs deep into the family in which McCandless grew up. His book is honest in its depiction of the kinds of family conflicts that are not dramatic but nevertheless do considerable damage to children. The arguments and the dishonest relationship between McCandless' parents may have served as the catalyst for driving the young man from home and onto the road. McCandless develops close relationships with several people on his journey but always moves on, making it clear that he is not interested in settling down or becoming a part of a family in lieu of his own. Assignment: Leo Tolstoy, the great Russian novelist, said that happy families are all alike and unhappy families are all different. Family experience, whether happy or unhappy, however, is very personal. Write an informal paragraph about a family you know of that appears to be happy. It can be your own family, but it can also be the family of a friend or a relative. Be descriptive and clear about the attributes that make you judge the family to be happy. Give examples to illustrate any generalities you make. In a separate paragraph, write about a family you consider to be unhappy. As in the first paragraph, be clear about the reasons for your judgment. Chapter Sixteen: Epiphany

Once McCandless crosses the stream and finds the bus he intends to use for shelter, he goes about finding food to last through the winter. He kills a moose and thinks about Henry David Thoreau, underlining a passage in the American writer/philosopher's book, Walden. He is now thinking of all aspects of daily living, including our relationship with animals, plants and food.

In this chapter, McCandless writes that the way in which a person relates to a situation is more important than the situation itself. He writes that circumstance itself is of little importance and the only true value in a situation is in one's personal relationship to the experience. In other words, our response to any situation is what shapes our reality rather than the situation itself. McCandless seems to think that all meaning comes from inside the self. Assignment: Write your opinion about McCandless' idea. Think it over. Does it make any sense in the way you have lived your life? Could it empower you to believe such a thought? Write freely, as if you were simply free-associating with the things that McCandless has said. Do not concern yourself with evaluating your thoughts; just express them.

SHOWING THE MOVIE
Show the film in its entirety, uninterrupted, as time allows. TWM suggests that after the introductory work described above, students will not need a movie worksheet. However, if the Film Study Worksheet for a Work of Historical Fiction is used, delete question #7.

Use the following discussion questions to provoke thought and then assign the essays for assessment.

 
WORKSHEETS: TWM offers the following worksheets to keep students' minds on the movie and direct them to the lessons that can be learned from the film.

Film Study Worksheet for a Work of Historical Fiction, deleting question 7 because the film closely follows the book which is the only reasonably available source of information on McCandless' life;

Worksheet for Cinematic and Theatrical Elements and Their Effects.

Teachers can modify the worksheets to fit the needs of each class.


QUICK DISCUSSION QUESTION:  Chris McCandless believed that his parents had wronged him and he despised them for their hypocrisy and their mistakes. He had the white-hot anger that some idealistic young men feel that often blinds them to more important feelings such as forgiveness and love. Both McCandless and his family were "stakeholders," people whose interests are affected by a decision. Given the interests of all of the stakeholders, was Chris McCandless justified in leaving and severing his ties with his parents and sister and going off alone on an adventure in which he put his life at risk?

Suggested Response: There is no one correct answer to this question; there are only strong and weak responses depending upon the quality of the logic used and the evidence relied upon. Here are some thoughts: McCandless' anger blinded him to danger and to his love for Carine, his little sister. The Chris McCandless who walked into the wild would argue that due to the way they lived their lives and treated their children, his parents had forfeited their right to have any relationship with him. He would argue that they deserved to suffer. But whatever his parents had done, McCandless should not have sacrificed his sister's love. She was blameless, but by leaving, he deprived Carine of someone she loved. In risking his life, he put her love at risk. As a result of McCandless' actions, Carine suffered a major tragedy, and her entire life will be tinged with sorrow. The Chris McCandless who tried to leave the wild and who died in the bus, was a different man, as shown by his writings. A strong response would note that many people endure psychological, physical and sexual abuse much greater than the abuse suffered by Chris McCandless, yet they do not react to it by hurting innocent members of their family and putting their own lives at risk.

Excellent responses will explore the concept of the stakeholder. In order to make decisions that are caring and ethical and which will stand the test of time, we need to evaluate the interests of the stakeholders and how those interests are affected by the actions we take. The first and most important stakeholder in McCandless' decision to leave on the adventure and to reject his family was McCandless himself. It was his life, after all; he had a legitimate interest in living it in a way that satisfied him. McCandless had been hurt by his parents and had a strong interest in working it out. He also liked to go on adventures, to experience the wild, and to test himself against nature. The next most important stakeholder was Carine, Chris McCandless' sister. Then there were McCandless' parents, friends and society as a whole. An excellent response would take each in turn and evaluate their interests in McCandless' decision.



Common Core State (Curriculum) Standards:

Use of Multimedia: Anchor Standards #7 for Reading (for both ELA classes and other classes), and #2 for Speaking and Listening. See also their related specific curriculum standards. (The three Anchor Standards read: "Integrate and evaluate content presented in diverse media, including visually and quantitatively as well as in words.") See CCSS pp. 35, 48 & 60.

Writing: Anchor Standards #s 1, 2, 4, 5, 9 & 10 for Writing and related standards. See CCSS pg. 41.

AFTER SHOWING THE MOVIE - DISCUSSION QUESTIONS Note: Teachers may want to formulate written assignments based upon the discussions that ensue in response to the following questions. 1.   See the Quick Discussion Question.

2.   Compare Chris McCandless to the man who froze to death in "To Build A Fire". What flaw did they have in common? Suggested Response: Their common flaw could be described as overconfidence, hubris or arrogance, or any combination of the three. Both also had bad luck.

3.   Some contend that McCandless was arrogant or stupid in going into the Alaskan wilderness only to die in an abandoned bus. Do you agree or disagree? State your reasons and back them up with direct reference to the film or with logical reasoning. Suggested Response: Answers will vary. Several critical analyses of McCandless' failure to prepare and educate himself before he went into the Alaskan wilderness are referenced in the Links to the Internet section of this Guide.

4.   Krakauer asks in his last chapter whether McCandless walked away from misery when he walked Into the Wild or whether he walked into happiness? How would you answer this question? Suggested Response: Answers will vary. Students will need to cite evidence to support their decision about whether or not McCandless was miserable. They will need to look at how happy he seemed to be in some of his experiences on the way to Alaska.

5.   It seems that McCandless finally discovered the value of relationships and would have returned to become a part of society had he survived. What is your opinion of this idea? Your opinions must be backed up with support from the film and logical argument. Suggested Response: Answer will vary. Be sure students cite actions or comments in the film to prove their points.

6.   Irony can be found in the fact that once McCandless seemed to have discovered the value of family, he could not return to society because the stream he had crossed earlier at a place marked by his hat is no longer passable. He must wait out the rush of water from the spring run-off. He dies before he can make it back. Look at the stream as a metaphor. Compare the stream to something in McCandless' life. Suggested Response: Answers will vary. The stream could represent the past or the future or the nature of McCandless' struggle to find meaning in life. It could compare well to his lost opportunities to work out the problems with his family. It could be an impassible barrier created by his own neglect or his own immaturity. Or, the stream could simply be a fact, an obstacle that McCandless could not overcome or go around.

See also the discussion questions in the Social Emotional Learning and Ethical Emphasis sections below.

Select questions that are appropriate for your students.

Teachers who want parental permission to show this movie can use TWM's Movie Permission Slip.

Social-Emotional Learning Discussion Questions:

TAKING CARE OF YOURSELF
See Discussion Questions 2 and 3 above.

FAMILIES IN CRISIS
1. Carine used crystal shattering as a metaphor in regards to her brother's reaction to their parents. Is this metaphor a good description of McCandless' personality? Can you think of a better one? Suggested Response: The crystal shattering metaphor is strong in that crystal is valuable and liable to shatter. It gives a good description of McCandless' personality before he had his epiphany in the woods, just before he died. It is also a good metaphor in that one does have to take care in handling crystal, just as one has to take care in raising a child. The deficiency in the metaphor can be described in several ways. Crystal is inert and Chris McCandless was a living being. Objects made of crystal are not actors in the world, but human beings, Chris McCandless included, are actors in the world. Crystal is never responsible for it being dropped and shattering. Chris McCandless overreacted to his parents' deficiencies and in that overreaction became partially responsible for what happened to him, to Carine, and to his parents when his risky behavior led to his death.

2. How does McCandless finally come to understand the value of family? Suggested Response: There is no one correct answer to this question; there are only strong and weak answers depending upon the logic used and the evidence marshaled to support the response. Here are a few ideas. One strong response is that McCandless matured in his several months in the wild. This is supported by the notes and underlines that he left behind and by his final picture. Another is that being alone for so long helped McCandless realize the importance of people. A third is that the cumulative effect of the suggestions of the people McCandless met on the way, many of whom challenged his decision to cut off his family, finally had an effect on him and he understood the pain he was causing his parents and his sister. A fourth idea is that McCandless learned from the books he read. And, of course, it was probably all or several of these factors combined.

3. Do you agree with the statement that McCandless' family situation was a minor influence in McCandless' decision to go into the wild? Justify your answer. Suggested Response: There is no one correct answer to this question; there are only strong and weak answers depending upon the logic used and the evidence marshaled to support the response. A strong argument is that McCandless' family situation was a major factor in his decision to undertake the risk of going into the wild in the way that he did. Many people love the wild and they love the challenges that it presents. However, they don't put themselves in the risky positions that McCandless did. Not only was the trip to Alaska risky, but McCandless' trip down the Colorado River was risky. He just had better luck that time. A strong counter-argument can also be made: many people do foolhardy things and still survive.

4. Do you agree with the statement that in remaining incommunicado, McCandless was unnecessarily cruel to his family? Justify your answer. Suggested Response: Clearly, McCandless was unnecessarily cruel to his sister. As to his parents, there is no one correct answer to this question; there are only strong and weak answers depending upon the logic used and the evidence marshaled to support the response. For example, McCandless quotes a poem in which the author mentions banging people together like paper dolls. A strong response will mention this simile and explain it in the context of McCandless' life.

5. Should McCandless have forgiven his parents? Suggested Response: There is no one correct answer to this question; there are only strong and weak answers depending upon the logic used and the evidence marshaled to support the response. The strongest response is that he should have, but he needed time and maturity for this. Unfortunately, his efforts to find that in the wild caused his death and we'll never know if he would have taken this additional step.

FRIENDSHIP
6. Many of the people that McCandless met along the way wanted to take care of him almost as if he were a member of their family. Jan wanted to mother him, Westerman wanted to father him, Franz wanted to grandfather him, and the man who gave him the boots was concerned about his safety. What about McCandless' personality made them respond to him in this way? Suggested Response: The answer is that in many ways McCandless was obviously a hurt child. Many people respond to hurt children by trying to take care of them.

RESPONSIBILITY
(Do what you are supposed to do; Persevere: keep on trying!; Always do your best; Use self-control; Be self-disciplined; Think before you act -- consider the consequences; Be accountable for your choices)

1. It has been said that when risky behavior results in death or permanent injury, the real victims are the people who loved the person who died or who is injured. Is there any truth to this statement? Explain and apply your explanation to the situation of Chris McCandless.

2. Write a critical review of the film in terms of its aesthetic appeal, its presentation of idea, and its impact on the viewer. Be sure to address the music, written and performed by Eddie Vedder, as well as some of the sweeping shots of nature. Determine whether or not the visuals, including the people as well as the places, create the tone that may or may not show McCandless' effort to seek meaning in life.


3. Many of the people that McCandless met along the way wanted to take care of him almost as if he were a member of their family. Jan wanted to mother him, Westerman wanted to father him, Franz wanted to grandfather him, and the man who gave him the boots was concerned about his safety. What about McCandless' personality made them respond to him in this way?

Suggested Response: The answer is that in many ways McCandless was obviously a hurt child. Many people respond to hurt children by trying to take care of them.


4. Should McCandless have forgiven his parents?

Suggested Response: There is no one correct answer to this question; there are only strong and weak answers depending upon the logic used and the evidence marshaled to support the response. The strongest response is that he should have, but he needed time and maturity for this. Unfortunately, his efforts to find that in the wild caused his death and we'll never know if he would have taken this additional step.


5. Do you agree with the statement that McCandless' family situation was a minor influence in McCandless' decision to go into the wild? Justify your answer.
Suggested Response: There is no one correct answer to this question; there are only strong and weak answers depending upon the logic used and the evidence marshaled to support the response. A strong argument is that McCandless' family situation was a major factor in his decision to undertake the risk of going into the wild in the way that he did. Many people love the wild and they love the challenges that it presents. However, they don't put themselves in the risky positions that McCandless did. Not only was the trip to Alaska risky, but McCandless' trip down the Colorado River was risky. He just had better luck that time. A strong counter-argument can also be made: many people do foolhardy things and still survive.


6. Carine used crystal shattering as a metaphor in regards to her brother's reaction to their parents. Is this metaphor a good description of McCandless' personality? Can you think of a better one?

Suggested Response: The crystal shattering metaphor is strong in that crystal is valuable and liable to shatter. It gives a good description of McCandless' personality before he had his epiphany in the woods, just before he died. It is also a good metaphor in that one does have to take care in handling crystal, just as one has to take care in raising a child. The deficiency in the metaphor can be described in several ways. Crystal is inert and Chris McCandless was a living being. Objects made of crystal are not actors in the world, but human beings, Chris McCandless included, are actors in the world. Crystal is never responsible for it being dropped and shattering. Chris McCandless overreacted to his parents' deficiencies and in that overreaction became partially responsible for what happened to him, to Carine, and to his parents when his risky behavior led to his death.

7. How does McCandless finally come to understand the value of family?

Suggested Response: There is no one correct answer to this question; there are only strong and weak answers depending upon the logic used and the evidence marshaled to support the response. Here are a few ideas. One strong response is that McCandless matured in his several months in the wild. This is supported by the notes and underlines that he left behind and by his final picture. Another is that being alone for so long helped McCandless realize the importance of people. A third is that the cumulative effect of the suggestions of the people McCandless met on the way, many of whom challenged his decision to cut off his family, finally had an effect on him and he understood the pain he was causing his parents and his sister. A fourth idea is that McCandless learned from the books he read. And, of course, it was probably all or several of these factors combined.




Consider these characters in your responses:

Selected Awards, Cast and Director:

Selected Awards: 2008 Academy Awards Nominations: Best Achievement in Editing Jay Cassidy; Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role Hal Holbrook

Featured Actors:   Emile Hirsch as Chris McCandless, Marcia Gay Harden as Billie McCandless, William Hurt as Walt McCandless, Jena Malone as Carine McCandless/Additional Narrator, Brian H. Dierker as Rainey, Catherine Keener as Jan Burres, Vince Vaughn as Wayne Westerberg, Kristen Stewart as Tracy Tatro, and Hal Holbrook as Ron Franz.

Director:   Sean Penn

MAKING EFFECTIVE AND PRINCIPLED DECISIONS and DISCUSSION QUESTIONS WHICH EXPLORE
ETHICAL ISSUES RAISED BY ANY FILM PRINCIPLED DECISION MAKING -- HOW TO GET THE RESULTS WE REALLY WANT,
MAXIMIZE OUR STRENGTH AND POWER, AND BE PROUD OF OUR ACTIONS

[Some of this analysis has been adapted from Making Ethical Decisions by Character Counts.
TeachWithMovies.com is a Character Counts "Six Pillars Partner"] INTRODUCTION

If we analyze the process of making principled decisions, we'll improve the chances of making effective decisions that will satisfy our needs and stand the test of time. The following answers to the questions below will help one to make a well thought out decision. I think the following questions overlap and reinforce each other. People will usually intuitively answer these questions.

1. What Do We Value in Life?     People value many different things. Values can include: acting in an ethical manner, getting rich, having a happy family life, buying a new car, being popular, wearing the right clothing, fitting in, having an enjoyable sexual experience, having children; building a satisfying career; having a good marriage; eating well; traveling; having a good reputation; being healthy, etc. These "values" are not listed in any particular order
   
   Values involve how we deal with others. Some people value nurturing (for example teachers, social workers, ministers). Some value being a leader while others want to intimidate people. Still others want to be respected. To one extent or another, everyone values acting ethically towards people, animals and the environment (for example, The Six Pillars of Character). Often, the values that we ignore in our haste to satisfy some short term need are ethical values.
   
   Values are often in conflict and everyone has a way in which they rank what they value. The rankings are often intuitive and not necessarily logical or well thought out. They are personal and unpredictable. For some values we don't even know that we have them until something happens that brings the value to our attention. For example, without thinking much about it, a professional thief may risk his life by diving into a river to save another person from drowning. An honest man may not be able to make himself take the risk of jumping into the water.
   
   It's not always easy to know what we really value. We must be honest with ourselves and perceptive about how we will feel about the consequences of our actions, now and in the future.
   
   
2. Why is Acting Ethically an Important Value?     People live together on one planet with other people and animals. Our most important focus in life is the people we associate with, our families, friends, fellow students or workers, and our larger community. Any action we take, like a stone thrown into a pool of water, has effects which ripple out in many directions, affecting others and sometimes the Earth itself. Every person or animal affected by a decision that we make, including ourselves, is called a "stakeholder". To be able to determine if we really want to do something, we need to think about how it will affect the stakeholders and what they value in their lives.
   
   It can be said that people act ethically because they feel good about themselves when they do and bad about themselves when they don't. However, it's much more than that. Acting ethically involves how we view our fundamental relationship with the Universe. Many people believe that a Supreme Being has prescribed ethical rules of conduct. Others believe that the Supreme Being has supplied some general principles and left the rest for us to work out. Some, both religious and non-religious, have come to believe that personal relationships, work and professional relationships, and society as a whole, all work better when people act ethically. (We have come to believe that true morality always has a spiritual component. This spiritual component does not have to be religious in the sense of belief in a Supreme Being, but it must contain a sense of the relation of the person to others and to the Universe.) Interestingly enough, the ethical principles in most cultures have many similarities. These "consensus" values have several formulations. TeachWithMovies.com uses the Six Pillars of Character.
   
   Associating ourselves with people who act ethically will lead to a better and more fulfilling life. Who wants to live with people who are dishonest and think only about themselves? Can selfish people who have no principles establish strong and loving relationships with others? Experience shows that they cannot. In the long run, people who are nurturing and who act in loving, responsible and trustworthy ways, will sever or restrict their associations with people who are deceptive or selfish.
   
   The strength of individuals and their ability to attain their goals in any endeavor are enhanced when they act in a way that is consistent with their relationship to the Universe. Consistent actions are joyful and we can focus our full energies on what we are doing. Acting ethically, also affirms our relationships with our loved ones, coworkers, and friends. Consistent actions liberate energy within us whose source is beyond us because it furthers everything we deeply and truly believe in. Acting ethically is therefore a liberating and empowering experience.
   
   Conversely, there are severe negative consequences for people who act in ways that violate their relationship with the Universe. Not only will they spend their mental and emotional energy contending with pangs of guilt and in an effort to justify their conduct; not only will they alienate themselves from their loved ones, co-workers and friends (losing that source of strength); people who don't act in conformity with their view of their own relationship with the Universe lose the source of their own strength and deny themselves the source of strength that comes from outside of themselves.
   
   It has been said that a person's primary duty is to live a fulfilled life. A truly fulfilled life is a life in which a person has satisfying personal relationships and acts consistently with his relationship to the Universe. As we have seen above, this means that they must act in an ethical manner.
   
   Acting ethically also involves preserving the environment. It is, after all, part of the Universe. Where are we going to go if we spoil the Earth? If pollution continues to increase, at some point it will have a momentum and force all its own and it will overwhelm us. Whether living beings have a mystical relationship with the Earth or whether we simply need the Earth as a place to live, ruining it doesn't work in the long run.
   
   Mahatma Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." Human beings are animals. In that sense, the other animals on the planet are our fellow creatures. Most of the higher level animals, dogs, cats, pigs, cows, chickens, and fish, feel pain and pleasure. Many of the mammals feel affection, rejection, and love for their offspring. Many of these animals mourn if their young are taken away from them or lost. What they value, to the extent that we can understand it, is worthy of our consideration when we decide what we are going to do. Caring for animals has a place in any ethical framework.
   
   Actions which align ourselves to our source of strength in the Universe and unite us with the people in our lives will be actions which honor what we value. For that reason, when we assess the values involved in any decision that we make, the ethical component is very important.
   
   
3. What will be the Effect of our Actions on What We Value?    In order to know how our actions will affect what we value, we need to make a prediction about what will happen as a result of our conduct. We need to learn the facts as best we can, check assumptions, and forecast consequences. Experience, logic and imagination are needed for this task. We call this the "test of effectiveness."



4. Ethical Testing: How will Our Decisions Affect Other People, Animals and the Environment?    Experience has shown that if we apply the following ethical tests to our actions we'll know how a proposed action will affect our relations with others, animals and the Earth. For the vast majority of us whose view of the Universe requires that people act in ways which nurture, protect and refrain from harming others, these tests will help us determine how satisfying a decision will be in the long run.
   
   
   
   1. The Golden Rule ("How would I like it if someone did it to me?" or "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you");
      
   
   
   2. Accepted principles of ethical conduct, for example, the Ten Commandments or the Six Pillars of Character;
      
   
   
   3. The Rule of Universality ("How would it be if everyone did it?");
      
   
   
   4. The Rule of Disclosure ("How would I feel if the whole world knew what I was doing or going to do, especially my family and school or business associates?")
      
   
   
   5. The Rule of the Most Honoring Choice. When there is a conflict between our own values or between our values and those of others affected by the decision, we should then choose the alternative which honors the most important long term values for the most stakeholders (people, animals, the environment), giving reasonable priority to the stakeholders to whom we owe duties of obligation or loyalty. This is the heart of the ethical analysis. It involves accurately forecasting what will occur, a clear understanding of what we and others value, the ranking of those values, and balancing the possible good against the possible harm.
   
   
   
5. Am I falling into one of the common rationalizations used to justify ignoring ethical values? (If there is no positive ethical rule like the Golden Rule or one of the Six Pillars of Character that calls for the action and I'm thinking any of the thoughts described below, I'm probably not making a principled decision.)
   1. if it's necessary its ethical (the ends justify the means);
   2. if it's legal and permissible, it's proper;
   3. it's just part of the job ("it's business, nothing personal");
   4. it's all for a good cause;
   5. I was just doing it for you;
   6. I'm just fighting fire with fire;
   7. It doesn't hurt anyone;
   8. Everyone's doing it;
   9. It's OK if I don't gain personally;
   10. I deserve it;
   11. He (or she)'s got it coming.
   
   
   There are many easy ethical questions but also some hard ones. Below are five examples. A - C are fairly clear. D and E are difficult and reasonable minds may differ about what should be done.
   
   
   1. Stealing: Unless it's necessary to live, stealing violates the personal value of trustworthiness and it's not consistent with the Golden Rule. It's not something that everyone should do (violating the principle of universality) nor does it pass the test of disclosure. It's detrimental to the values of all stakeholders except perhaps the thief. The owner values his property. The public values a secure society. From this it is pretty clear that stealing is not an ethical thing to do.
   
   
   
   2. Cheating on a Test: Cheating on tests is frequently not effective because education is usually cumulative and a student who cheats will often have trouble when he or she advances to the next level of difficulty. In addition, cheating dishonors the personal values of trustworthiness (don't cheat; don't lie) and responsibility (do what you're supposed to do; do your best). It fails the tests of the Golden Rule, universality (society wouldn't work if everyone did it) and disclosure (cheating by its nature is secretive). It adversely impacts the stakeholders, e.g., the teacher who wants to use the test as an assessment of how well the class is doing and the other students who want an even field on which to compete.
   
   
   
   3. A decision to kill someone, unless it is in self-defense, is not a principled decision. It violates the personal values of caring and respect. It violates the Golden Rule and the rule of universality. No one wants to die and it would not be a good idea if everyone with a grudge is permitted to kill someone. Whatever value the killer might be satisfying, self-defense is the only excuse for killing. (War and executions by the state are other exceptions to this analysis, although those of us who oppose the death penalty or who are pacifists would disagree.)
   
   
   
   4. A person who is a vegetarian for ethical reasons applies the personal values of respect and caring to animals. Most modern consumers eat animals that live a life of misery on a factory farm and are then brutally killed. Consuming an animal violates the personal values of caring and respect toward the animals. The concerned vegetarian believes that any benefit derived from having animals available as a food source is not sufficient to justify the sacrifice of these personal values. Most non-vegetarians rely on mankind's tradition of eating meat and decide that the life and death of an animal are of such little importance that they do not trigger an ethical issue at all. (Increasingly, a middle course is available. People can purchase meat taken from animals that are humanely raised and killed. Usually this is available at health food stores and costs more than the meat raised on a factory farm.)
   
   
   
   5. A logger proposing to clear cut a forest values the ability to earn a living. The stakeholders in his decision include the logger and his family who will benefit from the employment and the money he earns, the people who will have homes or furniture made from the wood; and the people who will be employed to make the homes or furniture. On the other hand, the environment will suffer by losing the forest (to that extent all mankind and other living creatures suffer a loss) and the animals who live in the forest whose habitat will be destroyed and who may die, value their homes and lives. A logger focusing on the economic issues decides to go ahead and cut, an environmentalist focusing on the injury to the animals and the injury to the forest, applies the personal values of respect and caring to the situation and comes to a different conclusion.
   
   
   
6. Monitor and Revise: Keep tabs on what is occurring and modify our conduct when appropriate in light of how the conduct will affect our values.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS WHICH EXPLORE
ETHICAL ISSUES RAISED BY ANY FILM
One or two of these questions will raise the ethical issues in any film. Evaluate the questions carefully to make sure that they apply to the film being studied. We suggest rotating the questions, using a different one or two for discussions of each film. Questions 1 - 4 should be used first (e.g., at the beginning of the school year). The questions requiring a more sophisticated analysis, 5 - 10, should be introduced after children have experience responding to the earlier questions.

1. Who were the stakeholders for each major ethical choice made in the film? [A stakeholder is a person or an animal who is affected, directly or indirectly, by a decision made by another person.]
2. There were many people whose ethical choices contributed to the outcome shown in the film. For each major character describe how they complied with or violated the ethical principles of the The Six Pillars of Character and describe how the outcome would have changed had they acted differently.
3. Analyze the actions of any major character in the movie applying two tests which any ethical action must pass: (1) The Golden Rule and (2) universality (Would the person taking the action want all persons to act the same way in a similar situation?).
4. The plots of most films turn on one or more ethical choices which must be made by the characters in the movie. Which of The Six Pillars of Character, if any, are involved in the plot of this film? Tell us whether the ethical decisions on which the plot turned complied with the standards set out in the Six Pillars. Justify your opinion.
5. Which characters in the movie showed ethical/moral growth? What were the causes of this change? Which character showed the most growth? Defend your position.
6. Which characters in the movie showed a deterioration in their ethical or moral standards? What were the causes of this change? Which character suffered the greatest decline in their moral/ethical standards? Defend your position.
7. Analyze the moral failures of the characters in this film to determine whether or not they fell into the most common rationalizations for not acting ethically.
   • If It's Necessary, It's Ethical
   • The False Necessity Trap
   • If It's Legal and Permissible, It's Proper
   • I Was Doing It for You
   • I'm Just Fighting Fire With Fire
   • It Doesn't Hurt Anyone
   • Everyone's Doing It
   • It's OK as Long as I Don't Gain Personally
   • I've Got It Coming
   • I Can Still Be Objective
   
   
   
   Describe the moral failures of the characters and the rationalizations that they used to justify their actions.
8. Analyze the ethical decisions made by the characters in this film to determine whether or not you would come to the same conclusion using the analysis of principled decision-making described above or in the Ethical Decision-Making Model suggested by the Josephson Institute of Ethics. See Making Ethical Decisions*.
9. Did characters in this movie make decisions that involved a choice between conflicting values, including conflicts between ethical values and non-ethical values? If so, how did the characters make their decisions and did they follow the analysis of principled decision-making described above or in the Josephson Institute Decision-Making Model? See Making Ethical Decisions*.
10. Analyze the process by which ethical choices were made by the characters in this film to determine whether or not they complied with the analysis of principled decision-making described above or in described in Making Ethical Decisions*? Defend your answer.