Very sanctimonious and I did not care for it and that might piss people off since the movie will probably be referred to as “life-affirming” and “heart-warming” and God help anyone who harshes anyone else’s soft-hearted mellow (I’m close to the point now where those two phrases instantly sound sketchy to me, or at least a clue that I probably won’t like said movie). I got FURIOUS emails and Tweets for trashing another “heart-warming” piece of garbage, Me and Earl and the Dying Girl. Listen, I’m just telling you all what I think. If you read my language, I am NOT telling YOU what to think. That’s not what criticism is about. For you it’s a bouquet of roses, for me it’s a pile of garbage. C’est la vie. Write a counter-point piece putting your argument into words, leave a comment here telling me what YOU got, make your case. I guess that just takes too much work, huh.
Additionally, and this has been on my mind: “Life-affirming” seems to be shorthand for “feel-good,” “makes you happy,” “provides hope.” Fine, good. I guess. I don’t need art to “provide hope”, or I don’t need it to ONLY do that, but if that’s what you like, good for you, plenty of options. But that’s not the DEFINITION of good art. To me – ANY art “affirms life” because as long as human beings make art – even sad art – there is hope for us all. Shoah is life-affirming merely because it exists. You’re telling me Goya’s “Third of May 1808” is somehow “bad art” because it shows death, rather than “affirms life”? When did people get so WEAK and SOFT? The painting affirms life merely because Goya painted it. End-stop. That horrible moment will live forever, the painting bears witness. WAY WAY more important than being “life-affirming”. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (which I just saw, so it’s fresh in my mind) ends on a totally fatalistic note (at least Williams’ stage version does) and you really don’t have hope for anyone on that stage, except for maybe Maggie, who will not get what she wants but she will at least continue to LIVE. But Cat on a Hot Tin Roof is one of the great American plays. It doesn’t provide jack-squat in terms of being “life-affirming”, or it does but in a far more complex way than what that term connotes. L’Eclisse is life-affirming because it exists and it is a masterpiece and that movie is bleak as shit.
I am tagging this Supernatural because Samantha Isler is in it as one of the hippie daughters, she who made such a huge impression (on me, anyway) as one of the young Amaras … (the 14-year-old one who basically had a seduction scene with a 37-year-old man and she KILLED IT. For better or worse, she KILLED IT).
She’s even younger-looking than she was in Supernatural, highlighting just how good she was in the scene in Supernatural. She’s wonderful here too (all the kids are. Viggo is great. Frank Langella is great. But the movie is so misguided in what it thinks it’s about and the story it thinks it’s telling.)
All of that being said – and don’t let my rants distract you – here’s my review!
Man, shame because that pic of Viggo Mortenson in a crazy shirt is very enticing.
A guy brings up his kids like a cult and he … gets a free pass? Is an adorable eccentric? WTF?
//Bodevan has to apply to college behind his dad’s back,//
SERIOUSLY? (Did he apply to Stanford?)
The only reason he is seen as adorably eccentric is because he is not a hard-line weapons-piling Christian doomsday Republican. Like I said in the review: if anyone in Hollywood made a movie about a Ruby Ridge type family, you can BET that the father would be criticized. But no, since this guy reads Noam Chomsky and spouts liberal thinking, he’s given a pass. (It’s the worst of Lefty-ness, this kind of blindness.)
So children spouting off Marxist theory is supposed to show they are free-thinkers, or at LEAST that homeschooling is better than public school – as opposed to showing that they were ROBOTS who were just trying to please their father as opposed to SOCIAL WEIRDOS who seriously believe everyone in the outside world is less enlightened than they are.
And to be fair – this weirdness was addressed once – when the oldest son kisses a girl at a campsite – his first kiss – and his first impulse is to get on one knee and propose. (The scene did not work at ALL.)
But the film so sympathizes with this dad … and then I think of The Mosquito Coast and how fascinating it was to see a father so beyond the pale, so controlling, that you just know those kids are going to have a super messed-up life for all time. So with Viggo, I kept thinking – I couldn’t help but think – HOW are they going to DEAL with leaving their dad? Will they have any anger towards how they were raised? Or will it be all kumbaya milk and cookies? It’s like spending time with the smug “we’re all vegans” family who judge you for your choices.
I wanted SOME skeptical clear-eyed perspective about this dad. WHY did he need to control his kids. The film doesn’t seem to acknowledge just how authoritarian this guy really is.
But that’s not what the film THINKS it’s doing – its a very weird experience. I felt like: “WHEN are they gonna REBEL – for GOOD – against the control of their father?”
Crickets.
Bodevan applied everywhere – and got in everywhere!
and yes! Very John Winchester. But worse, somehow. hahaha
At least John Winchester didn’t wear a neon-red suit. (It was entertaining to see Viggo in that suit but the scene was so horrible and so … misguided .. that I couldn’t enjoy how ridiculous and fabulous he looked.)
“SERIOUSLY? (Did he apply to Stanford?)”
Haha I’m glad I wasn’t the only one thinking it!
The “Family as Bell Jar” motif, ahoy!
Big time bell jar!!
“In thinking about ‘depressing movies,’ many people don’t realize that all bad movies are depressing, and no good movies are.” – Roger Ebert
I am so with you on this issue.
Not that there is anything wrong with a movie making someone feel good. Apollo 13 and The Martian made me feel good by showing the power of teamwork and collaboration. Rudy made me feel amazing (can give myself goosebumps just thinking about that ending) by demonstrating that hard work and effort can sometimes, on rare occasions, make your dreams come true.
But those movies earned it. A movies’ premise actually matters in this regard. There is something inherently off-putting to me about the whole concept of Captain Fantastic. I thought maybe the title was ironic? Guess not.
This reeks of what I would call “Mrs. Doubtfire Syndrome”, where a movie takes an incredibly creepy or offensive idea (Man goes in drag to spend time with his kids – WTF?) and tries to soft-peddle it as something sweet or funny or wholesome.
I wonder if this is due sometimes to “studio-meddling”, where some exec insists on a happy tone or ending because he thinks that’s what the public wants. (Hint: What we want are good movies).
For some reason this is making me think of the awful American ending of the brilliant foreign film The Vanishing. I wonder if there were any “creative differences” on Captain Fantastic.
I love the Roger quote, Todd! I was bitching elsewhere just this morning about how the readers at Rogerebert.com (at least post his death) are super-annoying and seemed involved in sainting Roger, “he gave every movie a chance!” “he loved movies!” Excuse me, but the man wrote a book called I Hate Hate Hate Your Movie. It’s such a white-washing of a critical mind. Again: everyone wants their “life-affirming” attitudes … affirmed. And now that includes Roger being somehow a soft puppy-dog who always “tried to say something nice’ – huh? His “I Spit On Your Grave” review? What the hell.
One of my favorite things along these lines from Roger is his Weather Man review – the movie with Nicolas Cage. Do you remember that review? He said, “Surely ‘depressing’ isn’t a criticism in this case, is it? It’s a description.” Something like that. YES. It’s depressing. Because life is depressing for a lot of people. Ugh.
// (Man goes in drag to spend time with his kids – WTF?) //
hahaha
To be fair: it does try to address some of these issues. The oldest son realizes he needs to go off on his own. The younger son doesn’t WANT to celebrate Noam Chomsky Day and wonders why he can’t have a normal life. And I had some hope that the younger son was actually going to help the movie explore how maybe that lifestyle works for some but it doesnt work for ALL and this kid is clearly unhappy and shouldn’t be made to choose between his father and having a happy normal life. But the movie totally backed away from it.
The family is reunited. Cue sentimental music. Literally.
And from what I understand: no. Very little studio interference. It wasn’t a big enough movie for that. Also: The writer/ director actually grew up like this, or he and his mother lived like this for a while when he was a kid. Off the grid, etc. I’m pretty sure this is the movie he wanted to make. This is why he didn’t go “hard” on the father – he’s way too close to it, and I think he was trying to celebrate his childhood and (even worse) show how smart he is, and how much he knows about shit like Trotsky and …. Dostoevsky. It’s extremely smug.
Also: when the father acts like an asshole – at his wife’s funeral (unforgivable, in my opinion), at the sleepover with another family – the film seems to think it’s a “My captain My Captain” moment, or a celebration of eccentricity and not bowing down to “The Man” – and how “square” everybody else is (ugh) – when really what it just looks like is this guy is a bully, and a bore, who wasn’t raised right.
Hmm, that’s interesting. Maybe he was indeed “too close” to the material to be objective or harsh. I don’t want to kill the movie without seeing it (I hate when people do that). Maybe this was a case where the producers needed to meddle? Movie making is strange magic sometimes.
Oh my God, The Weatherman!!
We have discussed it before. You just made me re-read Roger’s review, here is that quote:
“One of the trade papers calls it “one of the biggest downers to emerge from a major studio in recent memory — an overbearingly glum look at a Chicago celebrity combing through the emotional wreckage of his life.” But surely that is a description of the movie, not a criticism of it. Must movies not be depressing? Must major studios not release them if they are?”
Roger Ebert, The Weatherman review
The thing about that movie, though, is it’s actually funny as crap. (Tartar Sauce, Tartar Sauce). Or the camel-toe bit. It’s also sad. Cage’s Dave Spritz is one of the most “real” movie characters I have ever met. He is an actual human being. He has all the self-doubt in the world, despite the fact that, at least financially, he is a “success” by most measures.
The scene that sticks out to me always was when Michael Caine, playing his father, is impressed with his son’s salary. “It’s certainly more than I ever made- a true American success story” or something along those lines. But it’s still not enough affirmation for Cage. Nothing is or ever will be. He is destined to be miserable, it seems, and the real lasting mystery of the movie is Why?
One of the true underrated gems in recent cinema.
I so agree about The Weatherman!! I saw it in the theatre and people were howling throughout (so was I), but boy, yeah, was it BLEAK. That poor man!! Michael Caine was hilarious … and awful. – and honestly, at this point, I find bleak outlooks refreshing. Love that Roger quote -I pull it out all the time just to remind myself that “depressing’ is not a negative, it’s just accurate description. Nothing to apologize for either, if the story warrants it!
Like The Lobster. Know so many people who despised it. I loved it and loved that it didn’t cop out with a happy ending.
// Maybe this was a case where the producers needed to meddle? //
I honestly don’t think so. I feel no meddling at all. This is the story this guy wanted to tell. It’s his childhood, his life, his hippie-hipster outlook – so yeah, I think he was too close to it and too in love with this dad to understand how he came across. There’s one moment where Dad is shown sitting by a campfire, and he’s tearing up about something – and I was like, “But THE KIDS. How are THEY doing?” He’s a grownup – fine, be Grizzly Adams if you want – but they’re 7, 8, years old – they have no choice.
Total disconnect and just not aware of what that character seemed like. (Viggo is awesome by the way. None of this is his fault.)
Actually, as I think about it I know why he was so miserable, he took no pride in his work. “What do you do” is possibly the most terrifying question you could ask him. We often take so much of our identity from our work, it becomes hard to separate a person from their job. “He’s a firefighter. She is a school teacher. He works on Wall Street.” Just saying those things creates an image of who these people are, a built in identity. Dave Spritz could not handle being a Weatherman. Poor guy.
Seriously. Poor guy. I need to see it again. I thought it was amazing – you’re right: no identity, no pride – AND the critique (as you point out) with the “what do you do” convention of conversation.
Isn’t there a funny line in Bar Fly about that?
Looked up Bar Fly and found it:
“This is a world where everybody’s gotta do something. Y’know, somebody laid down this rule that everybody’s gotta do something, they gotta be something. You know, a dentist, a glider pilot, a narc, a janitor, a preacher, all that.”
// For some reason this is making me think of the awful American ending of the brilliant foreign film The Vanishing. //
Oh man don’t get me STARTED.
We’ve talked about this before, yes??
I remember exactly where I saw the first one – at a tiny movie theatre in Philadelphia with my boyfriend at the time – and was so fucking freaked out by the movie that I literally shivered in my boyfriend’s arms in the lobby afterwards. hahaha But seriously!! I still think about that ending on occasion and break out into a cold sweat of horror.
Unforgivable what they did to that movie. Because then those who just saw the American version would assume (wrongly) that the foreign version was just as ham-hocked and melodramatic … and so they would never check it out.
Ugh. Never been able to bring myself to watch the original Vanishing again. It’s just too horrifying.
Yeah the ending of the original Vanishing is about as horrifying as it gets. Reading about the way that movie made you feel, man, that’s what good art is all about in my opinion, making you FEEL something.
Did you see the ending of The Vanishing coming? Meaning: did you guess? I didn’t guess where it was going at all. There were audible gasps and moans around me in the theatre, too, that night, when the ending came.
(I’m pretty sure there was a Twilight Zone episode that had the same ending.)
No, did not expect that ending at all. I had rented the movie after hearing great things. I expected the hero of the movie to be killed. But what happened was actually much, much worse.
The villain in that movie is so memorable for being so unmemorable. His discourses on himself are absolutely fascinanting and terrifying. A real, true, cold hard look at a sociopath from the inside out.
Raymond Lemorne “My daughter was bursting with pride. But I thought that her admiration wasn’t worth anything unless I could prove myself absolutely incapable of doing anything evil. And as black cannot exist without white, I logically conceived the most horrible deed that I could envision right at that moment. But I want you to know, for me killing is not the worst thing. ”
For me neither. Just brutal.
But not depressing!
… shivers ….
I kind of need to see it again now. Why do I want to put myself through this??
Sometimes the movies that “freak me out” the most are the most interesting to re-watch. Once you know where they are going you can start to sit back and analyze how the movie is working. Jacob’s Ladder, Videodrome, and The Shining come to mind.
I think these are different from the “hard to watch” great movies like say Requiem for a Dream or Candy (if you haven’t seen Heath Ledger in that one, oh boy is it something, but you almost may not want to go there). I don’t revisit those as much.
But this movie (The Vanishing) is harder to classify or compare to anything else I have seen. Movies with a gut-punch end like Open Water maybe.
But I have re-watched this one a few times, and while the story is really about obsession leading to downfall, it’s the villain who is incredibly fascinating, as my quote perhaps showed. Makes me look at every single co-worker a little suspiciously. Serial killers can lurk in the most unlikely, banal places, and be really nice and likable, and that is what is truly terrifying.
Open Water. …. shivers … that ending. How she swims down to meet them …
I really liked that movie.
Have you seen The Shallows yet?
Yes, as I recall (and I haven’t seen The Vanishing since it first came out) – the killer is totally nondescript. You’d be hard pressed to even describe him or pick him out of a lineup. Almost like he’s just a blank.
An interesting side note:
Ever since that movie I’m always on high-alert at rest stops. (The statistics of women being attacked/abducted at rest stops is pretty high, anyway – so it’s good to not be complacent about it anyway).
Once I was at a rest-stop getting gas – it was night – not broad daylight – and I stood at the gas pump and I turned around and a man was standing RIGHT behind me. He scared the SHIT out of me and before he could say a word I screamed “GET AWAY FROM ME.” (I scared the shit out of him, too). He said, “I just need directions” and I was like, “DON’T SNEAK UP ON PEOPLE.” Listen, my self-defense courses weren’t for nothing. What, I’m supposed to wait until he STARTS raping me or killing me to “figure out” if that guy is a rapist or murderer? No thank you.
(Poor guy, though. But maybe next time he’ll think twice before approaching a strange woman – from behind – AT A REST STOP – and not announcing his approach.)
The Vanishing is my worst nightmare. And I know that The Vanishing had something to do with my visceral reaction to him just appearing behind me like that.
You presume that your forum as a movie reviewer entitles you to foist your opinion of Ben’s worldview and philosophy of child raising upon us. You have no qualifications for doing so and, even if you did, they would be impertinent to the question of whether or not this is a good film.
Next time, review the movie. If you feel compelled to tell us whether or not you share a character’s philosophy, tack that on at the end. Not that we care.
Howard – thanks for reading and commenting!
// they would be impertinent to the question of whether or not this is a good film. //
I really disagree with this! We all come to every movie with our life experiences, opinions, histories – what has formed us, what matters to us, how we interpret things – whatever – and that’ll be different for each particular person because no two lives are exactly alike – but all of it informs HOW we see things.
It’s not so much the philosophy I disagree with – as I said in the review, it’s the attitude towards his authoritarianism that I thought didn’t work.
Regardless, thanks so much for reading and commenting!
Thanks for the cordial welcome, Sheila.
Gotta take issue with you here, though. Of course each of us is shaped by our experience which, in turn, shapes how we view this world. But, while your personal political philosophy necessarily influences your reaction to the movie, it’s impertinent to the question of whether or not the film has merit.
For example, my personal philosophy could hardly be more different from Clint Eastwood’s. I would not be out of line in disclosing to readers that that is the case. But it would be impertinent for me to bang on about it for three quarters of a review about Dirty Harry when my responsibility is to make a case for why it is or is not a quality film.
If you think Captain Fantastic doesn’t work as a movie, that’s fair enough, but you gave your reasons for that judgment short shrift while importuning us at length with your views on his philosophy of parenting.
Howard – Well, I try to be cordial to everyone – even someone who shows up here for the first time using the tone you used. Decided to give you a chance to course-correct and you (sort of) did. So thanks for that. We’re polite to each other here.
This is a long-time community here – that I started in 2002 – and we have tons of debates and disagreements and it’s an awesome group of people – where the conversation continues and all points of view are considered, disagreed with, whatever. But we aren’t rude to one another. It’s a community/comments-section I’m really proud of and if you’d like to stick around that would be awesome – but just so you know the rules of the game.
You seem to have a problem with me stating my opinion on some of the themes of the movie. I was not “foisting’ or “Importuning” anything on you. That’s just your perception and the words you chose are very revealing of where you are coming from. I was expressing my take on the attitude of the film towards this clearly authoritarian figure. My issue was not so much with his philosophies but that the film was soft on him – in spite of the fact that he was practically a cult-leader, and indoctrination is indoctrination – whether it comes from the Right or the Left. I felt the film did not realize the implications of its own story – or the story that it THOUGHT it was telling was not the story that was actually onscreen. So there was a disconnect there in the narrative.
Everyone approaches criticism a different way, and looks at their role as a critic differently. Clearly you disagree with my approach, and that’s fine – there are plenty of people writing reviews out there that don’t line up at all with what I want to be doing in my own work. But that’s cool.
and if you think I was unfair – seek out Scout Tafoya’s review! Or don’t! His makes my review look kind and cuddly.
If nothing else, the movie appears to be generating some pretty strong responses!
Two of my favorite critics – Manhola Dargis and Stephanie Zacharek – liked the movie a lot – and it was great to hear their takes (and, of course, read their beautiful prose), but you gotta go your own way in things.
Again, I thank you for your responses. It’s essential that we all try to create spaces where the conversation continues as oppose to ends.
This is a little off course, but you mentioned “The Lobster”, just saw it, didn’t like it, thought I’d throw my two cents in on it and see if you feel like responding or not. Surrealistic, or allegorical, or both I suppose, I can take that, I actually like that sort of thing, if done a certain way. My problem was that none of the characters seemed like anyone I’d ever seen in real life. No one had a sense of irony or the ridiculous, no self awareness, seemed like a movie populated with people with asperger’s syndrome (well, I think so, I don’t know any aspergy people). If someone wants to make a point, I want to see it done with recognizable human beings, not twisting things to something unrecognizable to make that point, then it’s not really valid. The bit about finding someone who is a match for you by having the same physical symptoms – a bloody nose was one – is kind of a funny/interesting touch anyway, but overall, the movie didn’t work for me.
Not trying to convince you of anything (possibly a little bit), you won’t change my mind on it either, sometimes people just view things differently, but I’m always interested in your takes, if you feel like it…..
Hmm, last thought – maybe your mind works on a more abstract level, my mind maybe, well, almost certainly, works on a more literal level, so you viewed it more metaphorically.
Patrick – Ha. Yeah, the response to this movie has been so divided it’s so funny. Love/Hate. I had a hilarious conversation with an aunt of mine over the last week about the movie. I was on the Love side. She was on the Hate side. Our conversation went on like this: “I hated this part.” “Oh my God that was the part I loved the most!” “I absolutely loved this moment.” “I almost walked out at that very same moment!” We were crying!
// No one had a sense of irony or the ridiculous, no self awareness, //
Right!! These are people with no concept of “inner life”. Inner life does not play a part in their decision-making process or in their emotional choices at all. They can barely conceive of what it means. That’s why I thought it was funny – in a really depressing way.
// If someone wants to make a point, I want to see it done with recognizable human beings, not twisting things to something unrecognizable to make that point, then it’s not really valid. //
I disagree about it not being “valid.” Anything can be valid in story-telling. The end-result may not work for everyone but not everything is meant to appeal to everyone. But an author can do whatever he/she wants to do, choose whatever form they want to tell the story. This is a world where the inner life has been driven out of existence (maybe it never existed?). How do you make choices if you don’t even have a concept of an inner life?? I thought it was fascinating!
I already reviewed it, by the way, for Ebert, so I already went into why I liked it there. I’ll find the link.
Here’s the link. That’s where I said what I wanted to say.
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-lobster-2016
Clarification, I think – when I say literal, of course I mean how I react to the characters themselves, not the story, which is obviously not meant to be taken literally.
I know, the characters were emotionally truncated flat-affect weirdos. I liked the effect though. I mean, I don’t want to hang out with ANY of them, and it took me a while to get used to it – but I found it funny.
I remember the trailer for this before The Nice Guys (which deserved so much better) and having to bite my tongue to keep from yelling “Oh for fuck’s sake!” out loud in the theater.
Loved The Nice Guys!! One of my favorite movies of the year thus far.
And the thing is movies are often poorly sold by their trailers. Rikki and The Flash’s trailer made it look twee “free spirit rocker mom shakes up family of uptight squares” when the actual movie was much more interesting. But from every review I’ve read of Captain Fanastic it appears to be the movie you would dread from that trailer.
I try to pay as little attention to trailers as possible so I don’t know about the Captain Fantastic trailer.
I was particularly bummed because the story has so elements that are personal fascinations of mine. Survivalist stories, authoritarian figures, cults in the wilderness, feral children … stories involving any or one of these things have fascinated me since I was a kid. I mean, Dickens was the guy who got me into real literature and his books are filled with these elements.
So I went into it expecting to really like it. Plus Viggo.
Alas, twas not meant to be.
I’m glad I asked, and thanks for the reply. I can see between your remarks here and at your review that we had the same view of the characters, but you made some connections and associations with some present day things that wasn’t going to happen in my mind, so got something out of the movie that just wasn’t going to be there for me. You also took a somewhat whimsical view of the characters, another thing I didn’t do. Hell of a review by the way, missed it on the initial publication. Curiously enough, I was trying to figure out how to characterize the narration by Rachel Weisz, I mostly just came up with it was off somehow, I think you nailed it, couple of lines here – “It is as though Weisz is reading a love poem in botched translation by a third grader. She sounds like a child trying to talk the way she thinks adults talk.”
Hey, I liked “The Nice Guys” too. (I just wanted to throw that out there to get back in agreement on something here:) of course, there is your aunt….) The only two movies I’ve seen in a theater in the last few months are that one and “The Lobster”, nothing else has appealed to me enough this summer to get me into a theater. Although – this movie, “Captain Fantastic”, seems to be getting quite a positive critical reception, 78 percent when I looked at Rotten Tomatoes, perhaps that is the one to see…..
No, of course, I’m kidding with that last one. I don’t think I’ve seen you criticize a movie to that extent before, must have really struck a nerve.
// . I don’t think I’ve seen you criticize a movie to that extent before, must have really struck a nerve. //
No, it didn’t strike a nerve at all.
I’ve been much harder on many more films, actually – way harder than I was on this one – films that I felt were actively dishonest, or just plain incompetent. Or evil.
Exhibit A:
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/me-and-earl-and-the-dying-girl-2015
Captain Fantastic didn’t make me angry. It’s too innocuous. I was aware the whole time of the disconnect I sensed between what was onscreen and the story they thought they were telling. Kind of a common issue with some films and is often the reason why things go south.
Me and Earl made me ANGRY.
Very insightful remarks — this movie should have choked on its own sanctimony!
Perhaps less importantly, it also made no sense — the grandparents who would have had a very strong legal case for custody just magically disappear and everyone ends up in a charming farm house tending to chickens before school!
But basically the smug quotient of this movie is deadly, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CasJbu2MJp8