What do Sean Penn’s Into the Wild and M. Night Shyamalan’s The Sixth Sense have in common? Much more than you would probably think. Beyond the obvious differences in genre and subject matter the basic structure of each story is almost exactly the same…except for one major difference.
Story Structure and Surprises
Romeo and Juliet and West Side Story, Cyrano de Bergerac and Roxanne — the history of storytelling contains stories that, although different in subject matter and approach, are supported by the same basic story structure. The Main Characters in these stories work through the same kinds of personal issues while their plots tick along to the beat of the same drummer. It’s that feeling you get when you’re watching a movie and you say to yourself Wait a second! I’ve seen this before!! Strip away the storytelling from the structure of the story and you’ll find the same narrative bones.
So it was with this knowledge that I excitedly began working on this article — an exploration of how two completely different films actually shared the same basic structure. Unfortunately, things do not always work out the way you had hoped. Halfway through writing this I discovered that the two stories were not exactly the same. There was a significant difference in how these two films ended structurally.
Still, I had put in too much work into the article to simply let it go. Instead of hitting delete, I decided instead to incorporate the difference as best I could. So think of these two films as almost being exactly the same. Almost.
Similarities Between the Main Characters
Let’s first look at how the Main Characters in these two films share the same personal issues:
Both offer Main Characters who grow into change.
Some characters grow, while others grow into change. Through his experiences in the Alaskan tundra, Chris McCandless (Emile Hirsch) grows to a point where he can finally claim full ownership of his real name. By signing his real name to the base of his goodbye note, Chris gives proof that he has been changed by his experiences. Beyond the superficial physical differences, the Chris at the end of the film is fundamentally different from the Chris we meet at the beginning.
Likewise, Malcom Crowe (Bruce Willis) is changed by his experiences with the young Cole Sear (Haley Joel Osment), ultimately growing to a point where he can finally accept his own death. The Malcom who first met Cole would not react to the rolling wedding ring the same way the Malcom at the end did. The blinders had been graciously lifted.
Both feature Main Characters with major chips on their shoulders.
Unlike a character like Scrooge whose problems stem from something he is lacking (charity), Chris and Malcom suffer the weight of some pretty heavy baggage. Chris cannot escape from the poor example of family life that he was exposed to as a child. It informs and compels him to make the problematic choices he makes. In a similar vein, Malcom carries the burden of a failing marriage and his failure with his patient Vincent Grey (Donnie Wahlberg). Both characters share the feeling that if they could somehow get out from underneath it all, everything would be OK.
Both have Main Characters who prefer taking action to solve their problems rather than internalizing them.
Some characters prefer to do their work inside, others outside. Without a doubt Chris is a man of action. Beset by flood waters he burns his remaining supply of cash, removes and trashes the license plate off his car, and begins heading down the open highway.
Malcom is also man of action - preferring to research and investigate the circumstances surrounding Cole’s life instead of contemplating them within his head.
Both Main Characters prefer using holistic problem-solving techniques over logical.
Chris’s adventure was an effort to find the connection between things and hopefully figure out how it all fits together. He had no set plan, or step-by-step itinerary before he left. He left everything behind and just went - hoping that somehow just by being out there in that environment, he would find the balance that he felt his life was lacking.
Malcom used the same kind of technique to solve his problems:
He’s not using logic here to figure out what is wrong with Cole. Instead, he’s focusing on improving the relationship between them. There’s no real goal here except to create some equitable balance between the two of them. The magic trick is an attempt to make Malcom seem less like an adult, and more like a friend — someone perhaps Cole might open up to. This is the essence of the holistic problem solver: more interested in the connection between things than the things themselves.
Both stories center around Main Characters who find themselves trapped in a problematic situation.
When you examine the kinds of problems that can beset a character you find that they’re either internal or external, changing or static. These four combine to give you four different ways of looking at a problem: externally static, internally static, externally changing, or internally changing.
The heart of what really creates problems for these two Main Characters lies in the fixed external world, or if you prefer, a problematic situation. Chris comes from money - a situation that is intolerable for a young man of his sensibilities, especially with all the chaos and strife occurring in other countries. His solution is to run off to Alaska, to be completely alone, cut off from the outside world - stuck in a world of his own. Ultimately, it is that situation that becomes his undoing.
Similarly, Malcom finds himself trapped in his own problematic situation - stuck between the world of the living and the world of the dead. His body, and the source of his problems, lies in the fact that his body lies in stasis — unable to move on or move back. But unlike Chris, Malcom eventually finds the strength to emerge from this world into a new one.
Regardless of the differences in how their stories ended, the source of their personal problems stem from a fixed world.
Both Main Characters share concerns with the past, with what was happened.
Chris seems preoccupied with the awful home life he and his sister experienced. Forced to watch his parents bitter fights made Chris himself a bitter person - unworthy of love.
Malcom too suffers the concerns of a problematic past - his own murder comes as a result of his failed treatment of Vincent. That, and the aforementioned problems with his wife contribute to the blindness that keeps Malcom from realizing what is really going on around him.
Both Chris and Malcom find themselves struggling to overcome that which has happened.
Both take a very personal look at thematic issues of dark predictions.
Informed by these bitter pasts, Chris and Malcom find themselves faced with dire predictions of what may come.
Chris can see what is in store for his life and he hates it. Walking past a bustling nightclub in downtown L.A. he spies a young man, almost the same age and in a suit and tie, smiling and laughing it up with his buddies. Chris begins to imagine himself in that same suit and tie with that same smarmy smile. Disgusted with the thought of what his life could be he immediately leaves town.
Likewise, Malcom shares the same issues what he thinks is going to happen. His marriage is headed for a divorce (or at the very least, his wife is headed for an affair) and there doesn’t seem to be anything he can do about it to make amends. The future looks dark for both of these principal characters.
Both Main Characters suffer from matters of perception.
Both Chris and Malcom think they know what is going on - but they really don’t. Chris is boisterously confident in his belief that life is best lived alone — that only simpletons and confused people would want to engage in relationships. This perception of how things work is the source of all the problems in his personal life.
Malcom too suffers from his own problems of perception: he thinks he’s still alive. Cole, of course, knows the real answer but also knows that he can’t come right out and say it. Like Chris, the way Malcom thinks things seem to be causes him the greatest amount of personal pain.
Similarities Between the Two Plot Structures
Both stories move along as a result of actions that happen, not because of decisions.
While Chris makes some monumentally bad decisions, they all come as a result of being forced to by actions that occur. The flash flood, the discovery of the bus, the beating by the railroad guy, and the killing of the moose all propel the plot of this story forward. The rushing water blocking his return to civilization is what finally pushes this story towards its fateful climax.
The Sixth Sense also finds itself governed by actions. Vincent’s shooting of Malcom, Cole’s imprisonment by the bullies at the birthday party, and the discovery of the murderous mother all move the plot forward. Ultimately it’s only when Cole reveals to his mother that yes, she makes her mother proud “everyday” that the story finally comes to a close.
Which brings us to the major difference between the two stories.
As mentioned in the opening to this article, I started out thinking these two films were exactly the same structurally. In my original analysis I felt that, although it was tragic what happened to Chris, the story itself seemed to be a resounding success. Chris set out to understand the meaning of life and he found it. Not only that, he found the ability to overcome his own personal issues with his family name.
But something still didn’t feel right. I couldn’t resolve my analysis with the feeling that there was some tragedy to his story (beyond what obviously happened).
The Sixth Sense, on the other hand, failed to share any of these tragic properties. Malcom, Cole’s mother — they all finally figure out what was really going on with Cole - that he really could see dead people. And of course, Malcom resolved his own angst with his wife and his own death. Both personal and impersonal were resolved.
This is where my original analysis of Into The Wild began to break down.
It all comes down to whether or not one interprets Chris’s quest to Alaska a success or a failure. Personally, or I guess you could say spiritually, Chris’s quest was a success — that can’t be denied. But there was still the matter of that “bittersweet” ending to the story — that feeling of joy mixed with tragedy. As I started to really think about it and after I ran some of my notes by story theorist Chris Huntley, I began to realize that the two stories weren’t exactly the same. The explanation?
One was a Triumph story while the other was merely a Personal Triumph story.
Triumph vs. Personal Triumph
Two very popular ways of ending a story, particularly a film, are the Triumph and Personal Triumph stories. Both stories feature Main Characters who come away resolved, triumphant in overcoming their own personal angst. The difference lies between whether the story at large ended successfully or ended up a dismal failure.
The Sixth Sense ends in a resounding Triumph — everyone comes to realize why Cole is acting so strange: he really can see dead people. Into the Wild, on the other hand, ends with only a Personal Triumph — Chris succumbs to starvation before he can make his way back to civilization.
Why was his return so important?
If you look at Chris’s role in the story as Protagonist — the prime mover — the kid with the wanderlust, you can see that his trip to Alaska was indeed an effort to understand what life was all about — but — it was also key that he bring that understanding back to the world. Everyone in the film was concerned with Chris’s journey of understanding. Even his family, who we rarely see, had a part in this larger story. His newfound understanding meant nothing without being able to share it.
After all - that was what he discovered wasn’t it? That true happiness only exists when it is shared.
This is what his mother Billie and father Walt had to say when interviewed by Outside Magazine:
BILLIE: Chris did not understand or agree with the way the world was going, and he wanted to change it. He wanted to change it since the beginning of high school.
WALT: He wanted to change it as a little boy.
BILLIE: He also understood that to change things you needed to understand them. And he wanted to learn about life from the ground up.
From this perspective it is easy to see that Chris, in his role as a Protagonist, failed in achieving the goal he set out for. Malcom, in his role as Protagonist, succeeded. He was able to share what he had found.
The interesting part here is that both Protagonists were searching for the same kind of goal: namely, some kind of understanding. Again — polar opposites in subject matter, kissing cousins in story structure.
Personally Chris overcame much (which we’ll get into in a second), but overall he failed in his attempt to bring that understanding back into the world. This is why Into The Wild feels so bittersweet. On the one hand we have Chris failing to make it back home with his newfound knowledge; on the other we have him ascending gleefully out of this world.
Which brings us to the last, and probably most emotionally fulfilling similarity between these two films.
Both Main Characters find resolution to their own personal angst by finally realizing what is actually going on.
As mentioned previously, both Chris and Malcom suffered from problems of perception. Malcom had the whole “he’s really dead” issue while Chris had the feeling that all relationships were toxic. Chris constantly fought with his father and refused to accept that he himself had any connection with what he considered a horrible man. He went so far as to completely change his identity, taking on the name “Alexander Supertramp” in an effort to erase any last semblance of his previous life. His perception of himself blinded him to the truth he was so desperately seeking.
In this way it is easy to see that these two Main Characters were suffering through the weight of the same kind of personal baggage. And in a continuance of that similarity, both found transformational relief in what was really going on.
Malcom, of course, discovered that he had been dead the whole time. And we, sharing that surprise with him, were able to experience one of the greatest twists in cinema history. With this new appreciation of reality, Malcom was finally able to move on.
Chris found the ability to move on as well. Signing his real name to the bottom of that letter signified that he was finally at peace with all that had happened to him. No longer would he be driven by this perception he wanted people to have of him; to be identified as “Alexander Supertramp.” His personal issues dissipated the moment he accepted the reality that he lived in - the reality of who he truly was - Chris McCandless.
Triumph of the Heart
So there you have it - an exhaustive look into the similarities between the structures of these two films. Again, it didn’t work out quite as wonderfully as I had originally hoped but I think there can be some great insight gained into how two completely different films were built upon very similar story structures. If Chris had somehow managed to find a way back across that river than my original intentions for this article would have ended in a resounding success.
As it were though, Chris did not. But in the tragedy of that failure came a personal triumph that was more meaningful than any comparative story analysis. Into the Wild failed to share the same commercial success that The Sixth Sense did, but scrimped not in the telling of an emotionally compelling and complete story.
Filmmakers and writers everywhere would agree, that is all the triumph one needs.
4 responses so far ↓
1 dojo // Aug 7, 2008 at 2:29 pm
You say that his journey ended in only “personal triumph”. I wonder though, if the note that Chris leaves at the end of the story isn’t the same basic thing as taking the knowledge back into the world he came from.
There may be an element of tragedy to his success, but the tragedy may have been necessary. It seems that the change he experienced was a result of his impending death. If that is the case, the success could not have occurred had he not died, or nearly died. He may not have been able to physically return with the newfound information, but if he could’ve, maybe he wouldn’t have changed after all.
I have been struggling with the notion of whether a story with a main character who dies at the end could ever be deemed a “story outcome ’success’ story”, and/or a “story judgement ‘good’ story”. Your article here is opening up my eyes in that matter. Chris may have died, and yes, to me it was terribly sad to watch, but ultimately I guess it was a success story.
Thanks for an interesting and inspiring analysis!
–dojo
2 Jim // Aug 7, 2008 at 2:48 pm
This is what I was struggling with when I originally wrote the article.
The thing with his note and the appreciation of what it is that he personally learned is that it happens outside of the story. Those who discovered his body and pieced together exactly what happened is the topic of perhaps another story; those events happen after this one ends. We as an audience appreciate the meaning of what he discovered, but as far as him bringing that to the world he failed within the context of this story.
It’s confusing because it’s based on real life and therefore the line between story and reality becomes a bit blurred.
But if you take a step back and think of the story as a whole, you can probably see that it feels more like a bittersweet ending. Sixth Sense ended on a very up note - sure he died, but the problems in the main story were resolved and Bruce Willis’ character was finally able to let go and move on.
I’m going to have to watch it again, but what was the scene that happened right before he discovered the river was blocking his path? What was it that made him finally decide it was time to head back? Wasn’t it when he wrote in the book that true happiness only exists when it is shared?
I think you’re right that his final movement towards change came as a result of death knocking on his door, but I think that moment speaks more towards the acceptance of his family name — his personal issue.
Braveheart is the first example that comes to mind of another story that ends triumphantly yet has a Main Character that dies.
3 dojo // Aug 7, 2008 at 11:32 pm
It’s been a while since I saw the film as well, and I feel like you’re right about the timing of the “happiness when it’s shared” notation in his journal.
The analysis of this film is tricky, in that as part of its convention, if memory serves, we know that it is based on a true story. I mean, as observers of pop culture, most of us know that it is, but I think the story itself asserts that it is. That being the case, there is an almost implied sense of “…and here’s what we have learned from his experience”. Or at least we know for a fact that he died in a derelict bus in Alaska. We can, as an audience, extrapolate from this that we are meant to assume his death has something to tell us. The words “based on a true story”, or something like “Chris’s body was found two weeks later by a hiking boy scout troupe ” are part of the story, and we take that into our account as observers, and the awareness is, I think, part of the story. To us, we are the recipients–or the readers–of the notes he kept in the journal. We found them. His knowledge, then, and his success in the story, is our as well. Or at least ours to share. It’s a bit of a messge in a bottle.
It feels a like a bit of a stretch to say that, but it also feels intuitively right–or nearly so–to me.
But it is true that we don’t see his return from the wild with a changed way of seeing life. But the message then would probably be (even though we would have nothing to compare it to) watered down; he died because he insisted upon separation, utter and complete. It almost seems like we selfishly reap the rewards of his change of heart, and he is without the life to spend the coin of his newly-earned wisdom.
I could almost convince myself that his triumph is more universal than personal. But that triumph, of course, relied upon the story being told, I suppose, not upon the story itself.
You’re right–the true story thing does kind of make things blurry.
4 Jim // Aug 8, 2008 at 10:44 am
I like that - the difference between relying on the story being told and the story itself. I’m stealing that for a future article - thanks!
Leave a Comment