Jon Krakauer's novel as well as Sean Penn's film both immortalize Christopher McCandless's journey from a troubled home in Virginia to the unforgiving Alaskan Wilderness. Soon after graduating from Emory University, McCandless cuts up his credit cards and burns all of his money, leaving everything behind in favor of an epic adventure across the country. Throughout his journey, McCandless created bonds with various people, eventually having to sever them all in order to fulfill his ultimate goal of living off the land in the Alaskan Wilderness. However, after surviving alone in the wild for over a hundred days, McCandless dies. All that is known of McCandless's journey is based on his notes, belongings, and interactions with others. Krakauer does a lot of research in trying to piece together McCandless's story as accurately as possible, presenting readers with a multitude of views in attempt to prove that not all who wonder into the wilderness are delusional or immature; while Sean Penn embraces the romantic nature of his journey through the use of camera angle, lighting, shot selection, and exaggeration of his everyday encounters. 

In defense of McCandless's determination, Krakauer offers his readers several different perspectives, some supporting McCandless and other criticizing him. He takes the risk of pointing to viewpoints that don't agree with his own in order to create a counter-argument. He does this when he includes letters that were written to him in response to his article on McCandless in Outside Magazine. One reader questioned McCandless's judgment, writing "Entering the wilderness purposefully ill-prepared, and surviving a near-death experience does not make you a better human, it makes you damn lucky" (Krakauer 72). Another reader asked "Why would anyone intending to 'live off the land for a few months' forget Boy Scout rule number one: Be Prepared?" (Krakauer 72). Soon after Krakauer presents these opposing points of view, he offers the readers examples of other people besides McCandless who have traveled to Alaska in an attempt to live off the land. He describes the stories of Gene Rosselini, John Waterman, and Carl McCunn, who traveled to Alaska to live off the land and failed. The difference between McCandless and the others was that he wasn't crazy and he wasn't stupid. "Although he was rash," Krakauer summarizes, McCandless "wasn't incompetent  --  he wouldn't have lasted 113 days if he were. And he wasn't a nutcase, he wasn't a sociopath, he wasn't an outcast. McCandless was something else.... A pilgrim perhaps" (Krakauer 85). Although he does not agree with it, Krakauer directly addresses the possibility that McCandless was in over his head, instead of ignoring it altogether as Sean Penn did in his movie adaptation.

In addition to the criticisms of McCandless and what he set out to accomplish, Krakauer also presents the perspectives of many of McCandless's supporters, in particular, those he developed relationships with throughout his journey. In an interview with Krakauer, Wayne Westerburg, a close friend of McCandless's said, 

"There was something fascinating about him . . . He was hungry to learn about things. Unlike most of us, he was the sort of person who insisted on living out his beliefs." (Krakauer 65). Another person that McCandless developed a relationship with along the way, Ronald Franz, was deeply impacted by the time he spent with him. Franz care for McCandless was so strong that he wanted to adopt him, and when he heard the news of McCandless death, he even denounced God. Krakauer summarizes Franz's admiration for McCandless when he writes "the affection he felt was genuine, intense, and unalloyed.... the boy undermined the old man's meticulously constructed defenses" (Krakauer 55). Krakauer presents the viewpoints of those closest to McCandless in order to show how much of an impact he made on those he encountered, and to ultimately show that he was not just a fool wandering into the wild. 

In the film adaptation, Sean Penn uses lighting, shot selection, and camera angle to romanticize Chris McCandless's journey, and in particular his daily encounters. In the scene showing his first day living out of the bus, it starts with the camera angled so you see McCandless peek his head out of the side of the bus and yell "IS ANYBODY HERE?". The camera then quickly flips to show the mountains in the distance and the bright morning sky, before showing McCandless standing on top of the bus as though he had conquered something. The lighting and camera angle makes it seem like McCandless is exactly where he belongs in the wild. As the scene continues you see McCandless doing things like scooping up snow, putting logs in the fire, writing in his journal, etc. However, as McCandless is performing these simple tasks, there is music playing in the background. Penn uses the music in order to sway emotional responses within the viewers, as it is naturalistic and reflects on McCandless's solitude. The rest of the scene shows McCandless carving a quote into some wood, with the camera switching between showing a close-up of his hands as he is carving, or his face as he utters the words of the quote being carved. The combination of these different camera angles has a strong effect on the viewer, giving them more of a connection with McCandless. Throughout the film, the audience becomes close to McCandless because of the choices in music, camera angle, and lighting. 

Another film element used by Sean Penn to romanticize McCandless's journey is camera distance. Throughout the the film, close-ups of McCandless are often coupled with shots of vast landscape. For example, when McCandless first leaves the truck and begins his journey into the Alaskan wasteland, the camera starts as a close-up on his boots and slowly zooms out to show the vastness of the terrain he is walking into. Immediately following this shot is another one that is shot at an even greater distance, showing the Alaskan Mountains. The purpose of these shots was not only to flaunt the power of the Alaskan wilderness, but also to show the insignificance of McCandless himself.  These shots are followed by shots that show McCandless trekking through the Alaskan wilderness at a closer angle, making him appeal to viewers even more. Camera distance also plays a crucial role in the scene where McCandless dies. The scene starts with a close-up of McCandless lying on his back. The camera begins to flip between McCandless and the sky, showing his demise while at the same time showing the audience what he witnessed himself. Then the camera starts switching between the sky and McCandless running into his parents' arms. Finally, the camera goes back to McCandless laying down, showing a tear fall from each of his eyes, the sunshine disappears from the window and the bus becomes dark at the moment of his death. The sudden change in lighting shows the very moment McCandless dies. The last shot focuses on his face before it begins to slowly zoom out, again showcasing the vastness of the Alaskan terrain. Each shot either showcases the vastness of the Alaskan terrain or gives the audience a better connection to McCandless.

In their individual adaptations of Into The Wild, both Jon Krakauer and Sean Penn demonstrate what they consider to be the most important aspect of Chris McCandless's story. Krakauer offers his readers several different perspectives in order to argue McCandless being a knowledgeable explorer, focusing more on his mindset and purposes rather than the journey itself. Penn, on the other hand, emphasizes the romantic nature of McCandless's journey, using lighting, music, and various different camera angles and distances to highlight the romantic aspects of his excursion. Krakauer was personally invested in McCandless's story, he himself could relate to McCandless at an individual level. In attempting to justify the actions of McCandless, Krakauer was justifying his own actions. On the other hand, Penn had no personal stake in what people thought about McCandless, and instead set out to make a film that successfully captured the romanticism of his journey. Using different strategies, both Krakauer and Penn told the tale of Christopher McCandless, but each of their interpretations were created for their own specific purpose. 

