This film left me a bit perplexed. The premise of six wilderness dwelling, society-shunning children and their unusually strict, blunt, and academically-inclined father being forced to confront modern society is genuinely very compelling. Viggo Mortensen's performance as the father is great (dare I say 'Fantastic'?), and the family's chemistry feels energetic and natural, albeit highly unusual. The film's cinematography and general aesthetic is also quite striking. The film's writing, however, is truly baffling at times. Most of this stems from the family's interactions with the modern world once they leave their home in the wilderness.
Before I get into that, though, I really want to stress that Captain Fantastic is, on most levels, a fine film. Despite my reservations about many of the choices that were made, I'd still probably be inclined to recommend it to most people who are interested in exploring the dynamics and problems of a strangely unique family if they can tolerate the occasional dose of insufferable hypocrisy or arrogance. I honestly went into the film expecting to like it a lot, so I take no delight in picking it apart to explain what I believe is wrong with it, but I think it is worth doing. Also keep in mind that because this is probably going to be a love/hate movie for many people, these things I list might not bother you at all. That being said, let's get into some of the strange choices with the writing, of which there are many.
We as the audience naturally expect the family to behave in an unusual manner given their rather extreme lifestyle, but what we don't expect is the rather distasteful undercurrent of arrogance and contempt for other people that seems to consistently guide their behavior. They are not merely fish out of water innocently bumbling through their interactions. Instead, they are constantly reassuring themselves of the inferiority and hopeless degeneracy of those around them, while reinforcing in their minds their own superiority.
The family's inwardness allows them to justify various narcissistic antisocial behaviors. This includes the family stealing large quantities of merchandise from a store using a deceptive scheme, insulting and/or mocking nearly everyone they encounter including members of their own extended family (even when treated with hospitality), the father instructing his children to perform dangerous activities resulting in injuries, and openly despising Christians (but no other religions or beliefs). The family also has rather extreme communist leanings, even going as far as to identify favorably with despicable totalitarian communist dictators (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.). The oldest son goes as far as to seriously refer to himself as "not a Trotskyist anymore, but a Maoist", which is just an embarrassingly asinine thing to say.
There are numerous other bizarre behaviors, such as the young children's fetishization of knives and other weaponry, clinically utilitarian honesty about sex, drugs, violence, death, rape, and suicide with young children, not only allowing and justifying young children drinking alcohol, but pouring them glasses of wine under the assumption they will drink it even if they didn't ask for it (with an ironically absent diatribe about the real dangers of alcohol particularly for children, despite going into morbidly and tediously explicit academic detail about almost every other subject imaginable), and who could forget the family's inexplicable worship of Noam Chomsky. I can't quite figure out if these are inserts by the writer/director that in some way reflect his own viewpoints, or if he is attempting to poke fun at people who think and behave this way. Either way, it doesn't come across as funny or satirical despite the film being labeled a "comedy". But it sure is obnoxious.
Why do these details matter? Because this mixture of unpleasant traits make them come across as not just weird, but delusional, antisocial, arrogant, hypocritical, mean-spirited, and even dangerous. These traits can absolutely work in the right story, but they don't work well in a narrative about a father raising his impressionable young children. It's not a good sign when it's easy to see how if the father wanted his children to kill someone, it wouldn't take him long to convince them how, when, where, and why to do it with some lengthy pseudo-intellectual lecture about the evils of capitalism, his kids then rushing off with their knives to do the deed, all while smiling and singing. To put it simply, the family dynamic is that of a cult. Yet the film never ceases to treat the cult's leader (and chief brainwasher of children) as completely sympathetic.
But all of this could be forgiven if the right ending properly redeemed these character traits. Could the children ever live within society, or would they forever be outcasts? Is there some disastrous consequence of the way they have chosen to live? Instead, the father is more or less bailed out of his problematic situation by a relative, despite being extremely disrespectful towards this person constantly. This is essentially a deus ex machina moment that makes no sense and provides no satisfying resolution. After the father has his realization that maybe his kids need to be prepared to deal with the real world, he leaves on his own, only to have his entire brood of kids inexplicably emerge from a compartment in their bus hours later to console him at the exact moment he needed it, another deus ex machina moment. The film then ends with, again, no resolution to the characters' actual underlying problems integrating into society.
It really is unfortunate that such a great premise is burdened with so many elements that are obnoxious, hypocritical, or just don't go anywhere. The family of characters, especially the father, are just grating enough to frequently be annoying or alienating to the general audience member. I really feel that if the aggressively smug and cult-like family dynamic was toned down and the ending was better executed, this would be a genuinely great film. But the devil is in the details.
Before I get into that, though, I really want to stress that Captain Fantastic is, on most levels, a fine film. Despite my reservations about many of the choices that were made, I'd still probably be inclined to recommend it to most people who are interested in exploring the dynamics and problems of a strangely unique family if they can tolerate the occasional dose of insufferable hypocrisy or arrogance. I honestly went into the film expecting to like it a lot, so I take no delight in picking it apart to explain what I believe is wrong with it, but I think it is worth doing. Also keep in mind that because this is probably going to be a love/hate movie for many people, these things I list might not bother you at all. That being said, let's get into some of the strange choices with the writing, of which there are many.
We as the audience naturally expect the family to behave in an unusual manner given their rather extreme lifestyle, but what we don't expect is the rather distasteful undercurrent of arrogance and contempt for other people that seems to consistently guide their behavior. They are not merely fish out of water innocently bumbling through their interactions. Instead, they are constantly reassuring themselves of the inferiority and hopeless degeneracy of those around them, while reinforcing in their minds their own superiority.
The family's inwardness allows them to justify various narcissistic antisocial behaviors. This includes the family stealing large quantities of merchandise from a store using a deceptive scheme, insulting and/or mocking nearly everyone they encounter including members of their own extended family (even when treated with hospitality), the father instructing his children to perform dangerous activities resulting in injuries, and openly despising Christians (but no other religions or beliefs). The family also has rather extreme communist leanings, even going as far as to identify favorably with despicable totalitarian communist dictators (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.). The oldest son goes as far as to seriously refer to himself as "not a Trotskyist anymore, but a Maoist", which is just an embarrassingly asinine thing to say.
There are numerous other bizarre behaviors, such as the young children's fetishization of knives and other weaponry, clinically utilitarian honesty about sex, drugs, violence, death, rape, and suicide with young children, not only allowing and justifying young children drinking alcohol, but pouring them glasses of wine under the assumption they will drink it even if they didn't ask for it (with an ironically absent diatribe about the real dangers of alcohol particularly for children, despite going into morbidly and tediously explicit academic detail about almost every other subject imaginable), and who could forget the family's inexplicable worship of Noam Chomsky. I can't quite figure out if these are inserts by the writer/director that in some way reflect his own viewpoints, or if he is attempting to poke fun at people who think and behave this way. Either way, it doesn't come across as funny or satirical despite the film being labeled a "comedy". But it sure is obnoxious.
Why do these details matter? Because this mixture of unpleasant traits make them come across as not just weird, but delusional, antisocial, arrogant, hypocritical, mean-spirited, and even dangerous. These traits can absolutely work in the right story, but they don't work well in a narrative about a father raising his impressionable young children. It's not a good sign when it's easy to see how if the father wanted his children to kill someone, it wouldn't take him long to convince them how, when, where, and why to do it with some lengthy pseudo-intellectual lecture about the evils of capitalism, his kids then rushing off with their knives to do the deed, all while smiling and singing. To put it simply, the family dynamic is that of a cult. Yet the film never ceases to treat the cult's leader (and chief brainwasher of children) as completely sympathetic.
But all of this could be forgiven if the right ending properly redeemed these character traits. Could the children ever live within society, or would they forever be outcasts? Is there some disastrous consequence of the way they have chosen to live? Instead, the father is more or less bailed out of his problematic situation by a relative, despite being extremely disrespectful towards this person constantly. This is essentially a deus ex machina moment that makes no sense and provides no satisfying resolution. After the father has his realization that maybe his kids need to be prepared to deal with the real world, he leaves on his own, only to have his entire brood of kids inexplicably emerge from a compartment in their bus hours later to console him at the exact moment he needed it, another deus ex machina moment. The film then ends with, again, no resolution to the characters' actual underlying problems integrating into society.
It really is unfortunate that such a great premise is burdened with so many elements that are obnoxious, hypocritical, or just don't go anywhere. The family of characters, especially the father, are just grating enough to frequently be annoying or alienating to the general audience member. I really feel that if the aggressively smug and cult-like family dynamic was toned down and the ending was better executed, this would be a genuinely great film. But the devil is in the details.