<p>John Krakuer’s book Into the Wild (<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_the_Wild[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_the_Wild</a>) has been made into a film which will be released later this year. For those of you who don’t know or haven’t read it, the book tells the true story of Christopher McCandless an Emory graduate. My question to the people on this forum is do you think it will be positive or negative for Emory’s reputation? Emory seems somewhat starved for recognition among the common population and a major motion picture beginning with a person’s graduation from Emory would appear to help out alot. However, will audiences view Emory as a major force of which McCandless was rebelling against?</p>
<p>I guess it will depend on specifically what it said about Emory, but from reading the reference you sited, he sounds like a person who had personal issues (perhaps even some psychiatic issues) and that doesn’t reflect at all on the the school (or any school for that matter).</p>
<p>I think it will only be positive. I had seen the Trailer but never knew it was an Emory grad. Where any shots filmed at Emory?</p>
<p>I’ve done a bit of research and it appears that they are portraying McCandless as a very intelligent and very thoughtful individual. I’ve seen screenshots that show him at graduation from Emory. This leads me to conclude that they will portray Emory as the presitigious/wealthy institution that such a boy came from. By framing the story like this it makes it much more interesting that a man from such an environment would do what Chris did and become such a different person than his upbringing would suggest. </p>
<p>On a personal note, Chris was from a wealthy Washington suburb, was captain of a high school team, had a Shetland Sheepdog, and attended Emory. I am from a wealthy Washington suburb, I was captain of a high school team, I have a Shetland Sheepdog, and I attend Emory. I also love Alaska. We’re both psuedo countercultural despite our upbringing. When I read the book I was actually creeped out by our similarities. </p>
<p>I think this movie will be much better than the movie version of Krakuer’s other best seller “Into Thin Air.”</p>
<p>pugachev,</p>
<p>I can think of one main difference between you and Chris. That is, have you been the topic of a major motion picture? ;-)</p>
<p>
You can only think of one? </p>
<p>What about the fact that I’m not dead; and I’ve never flipped out, left society, and wandered around in the wilderness.</p>
<p>I’ve read the book, and while it’s interesting (as I’m sure the film will be as well), it’s merely a portrayal of Chris McCandless as an individual.</p>
<p>To suggest that this film might reflect either positively or negatively on Emory is nothing more than fodder for fluff. Of course it wouldn’t be the first time people speculate without substantial corroboration and attempt to find conclusions from nothing more than an attribute, not even a correlation.</p>
<p>First, Emory was a different school two decades ago when McCandless attended, and you’d be hard-pressed to find an administrator or professor at Emory today who actually taught him in a class. Should we also now consider suburban No. Virginia in a more positive or negative light because that is where he grew up?</p>
<p>Also, consider Ted Kaczynski (aka The Unabomber, the convicted bomber/murderer and domestic terrorist)… should we think any better or worse of Harvard, since that was where he received his undergraduate education? Or University of Michigan, because that’s where he did his graduate work? Or UC Berkeley, because that’s where he taught (and bombed some of his victims)? </p>
<p>An attribute alone is meaningless without further context. Even correlation in itself is not proven causation.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, it’ll have interest for any of us having any connection or affinity to Emory. I’ll see the film when it comes out, but I won’t think any more or less of Emory afterwards, I’m sure.</p>