A Transcendentalist’s point of view

I write this in response to the seeming lack of intelligent thought regarding this movie.  True, my search was limited to a simple web-browsing, yet I find it saddening that no one was able to see beyond the obvious war allegories (i.e. Russian Roulette = war; senseless killing)

Mike learns that life isn’t a contest; he doesn’t need to shoot the deer to win.  He has learned that the beauty of life is in the experience (as represented in the beautiful hunt scenes); Money is a burden, a distraction, a White Elephant (remember what Nick sends home).  Death is serious, absolute and random; there is no benevolent force meting life and death based on behavior.  With the realization of and acceptance of this fact comes a sense of helplessness.  Nick strives to gain control of a random existence; he can not handle the realization.  By taking the gun into his own hand he has control of his death, and so his life. 
With the situation of the boots, Mike stresses individual responsibility; the journey of discovery, of realizing and accepting the that true nature of existence, is as Emerson states, a solitary undertaking.  Mike is indicating his preparedness to make that journey.  He has already stepped to the threshold; the hunting trips already mean more to him than the others -“assholes” as he calls them when he and Nick discuss their motivations for the hunt.
Further evidence of a Transcendentalist’s agenda is ample, from Mike’s stripping off his clothes to strip free from the constraints of society to the scene where he stands up against fear, represented by the cowardly Stan’s handgun, which he vanquishes into the abyss.

Granted I know little about Transcendentalism or director Michael Cimino but I support the validity of my interpretation by the simple fact that it makes good use of all of the evidence presented in the movie, rather than shying away from difficult or ambiguous scenes.