The last 15 min


Who else noticed the two sided ending? The campfire scene when Viggo was alone. The kids 'never' got off the bus. Viggo was just imagining the kids there with him to keep him happy all the way until the end of the movie.

reply

That hadn't occurred to me, but you might have something there.

*Danny's not here, Mrs. Torrance*

reply

Yeah, .... logistically I couldn't figure out how a) The kids got there and b) How they dealt with their grandparents. It is a "fantastic" ending, in a literal sense.

reply

I am certain that everything from the kids suddenly appearing from the bus compartment through the end of the movie is Viggo's imagination. It's a very beautiful, sad movie with a devastating ending.

reply

It reminded me a bit of Mulholland Drive of 2 movies spliced together. For Mulholland Drive, my interpretation is that the biginning of the movie is the fantasy, and the end is more like what happened in real life.

There was something surreal about all the kids coming from some secret compartment in the bus. But even more surreal, knowing how much Viggo's character despised normal society was him living in a little house and sending his kids off to school, where surely they new more than anyone els, probably more than tgbe teachers..

I have to see it again to figure it all out, but I don't intend to do that until it gets to ca ble.

reply

Actually, Mulholland Drive is more straightforward in that regard.

The first part is a dream Naomi Watts' character has. Right at the beginning it is shown how she gets into bed (camera has the POV of her). I think after the Club Silencio scene she wakes up.


But I also think the ending in Captain Fantastic was a fantasy. It was all just too neatly packaged and unrealistic. All of a sudden the kids emerge from the bus, that seemed totally fantasized to me and then everything just works out perfectly.....this just seemed way too different from the rest of the film. I have a very hard time believing this to have really happened within the context of the film.

reply

No, I thought it was all real. I think Ben realized going back to a normal life was better then losing all his children.

reply

I also think Ben realized he was wrong. I think a main theme in this movie is the dangers of extremism. Although, I do think the movie suggests that what we are living is the other extreme.

reply

That may be the best plot summary/theme summary I've heard about this movie.
It was so clumsily and off-puttingly done though. I really ended up not like this movie
very much.

reply

Me too. About half way through the movie, I was just fed up of watching because it just looked like their life was being glorified a lot, but towards the end it made a little bit of sense because we just saw how both the extremes are bad. Script/screenplay could have been a lot better.

Having said that, I have known a lot of home schooling families and I feel the movie's portrayal of homeschoolers is pretty much spot on.

reply

I like your final point: that "normal" life is also an extreme, even if the majority are living that way.

reply

Agreed - to me they portrayed both life styles as extreme and "wrong" that uber survivalist style was too much, the mac mansion urber capitalist 'murica style was too much tpp. Basically they were both wrong and that finding the right balance of both sides was needed, hence the ending.I would've liked to have a resolution with the grand parents as they were so vehement about custody but I think the movie made its points very well.

reply

In that scene where the father had gone off alone and the kids suddenly appeared with the bus, yeah I too had a sensation of it being somewhat ethereal, like he was only fantasizing they'd come around and decided to join him. It seemed a little unlikely that the young kid who had rebelled so hard had had such a change of heart, and that the injured girl was so forgiving. (Sorry, I don't keep all the character names straight.)

But after a little while, I got over it. After seeing the whole thing through, it seems to me like a stretch to say that the entire last 15 minutes wasn't really part of the event thread of the film.

reply

The last part of the movie doesn't exactly represent a return to "normal" society. To keep his kids, the Captain has moved one stage onward in anthropological history. The family has gone from hunter/gatherer society to agricultural society, but definitely not our postindustrial society.

reply

I agree with that. It was a slight compromise, not a complete repudiation of all his principles. He recognized he'd been a little extreme, and took one step back, to everyone's advantage.

reply

I agree too, pjpoconnell. There are some interesting ideas in this thread, all of which are valid to some extent, but you've summarised my own interpretations very clearly there. Cheers!

Please click on 'reply' at the post you're responding to. Thanks.

reply

I agree with you fentress. At first I thought it was his hallucinating since he'd been doing that with his wife. But with the wife, her image would disappear after a few seconds. The kids never did "disappear" and too much happened for it to be imaginary: the digging up of the grave, the cremation, the airport flushing of the toilet. At some point he would have come back to reality. But how cool would it have been for the VERY end to have been the camera panning back to see him sitting at an EMPTY TABLE??? Wow. THAT would have been "fantastic."

reply

It seemed a little unlikely that the young kid who had rebelled so hard had had such a change of heart, and that the injured girl was so forgiving.

That seemed the least unlikely to me. The family had been established as close, the children as loving their parents very much. The girl, the family's keenest athlete, was enthusiastic about climbing the roof to "rescue" her brother; she would probably not blame her dad for the injuries. The little boy was clearly angry about his mother, and had blamed Ben - who had also blamed himself, as we come to see. I could see his rejection of Ben dissolving in time whether or not they'd been separated; and no doubt his brothers and sisters had talked it over with him and brought him around.
It was the scene involving their late mother that seemed the most unlikely to me; but that was clearly meant to be real as well.
As for the kids popping out of the secret compartment in the bus - yes, that was odd, but considering how the children had been trained to accomplish "missions," it was consistent.

reply

Ugh. Why is it that every movie more complex than AVENGERS MEET GODZILLA PART III seems to have one entry on the forum that theorized that either:

A. One of the characters is dead all along
B. One of the characters never existed
C. The ending is just a dream

Or, ALL of the above?

CAPTAIN FANTASTIC isn't INCEPTION or MEMENTO. It isn't a puzzle movie.

Sometimes, a far-fetched ending is just a far-fetched ending.

Further, such an ending would ruin the whole theme of the movie of Viggo's character's evolution. Viggo has been out promoting the movie as a think piece about accepting alternative ways of living. He wouldn't do so if he thought the ending of the movie portrayed him as a delusional loon loner.

reply

I agree. The entire point of the movie would be sabotaged if the last part had been meant as a delusion.

The final scenes had some inconsistencies and plot holes, which may cause the speculation about it being a fantasy, but by the end it's clear that the conclusion was meant to be real, although I agree it was far-fetched.

The body-stealing and cremation, while not only unlikely but openly provocative and extreme, was also filmed as a beautiful, bonding experience for the family which allowed them to work through their grief at last. It was meant to resolve matters and bring them together, so that Ben could get over his guilt and do what was needed to keep his children. The next (final) scene is the result: he's made compromises, but not unbearable ones, to keep his family together. You wouldn't have that ending if it had all been a fantasy.

reply

Ugh. Why is it that every movie more complex than AVENGERS MEET GODZILLA PART III seems to have one entry on the forum that theorized that either:

A. One of the characters is dead all along
B. One of the characters never existed
C. The ending is just a dream

Or, ALL of the above?


Amen. I'm go glad you posted that, gortx. Yeah, it seems that people love to argue that some part of a movie wasn't "really" happening. Or they come up with big fantasy backstory. I've even seen posts that argue that some supporting character was actually a shill whose actions were secretly arranged by some other character for some ulterior purpose. Usually it comes after the inevitable "worst movie ever" post and the "this movie is so racist" post.

It's silly. One could always come up with something like that if one is creative enough, but what relevance does it have? None, because you can never say with certainty that that's what the writer or director intended. (Unless of course, the writer or director says so in an interview.)

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for discussing a movie in depth and exploring characters and so on. But once you exit what any reasonable person would recognize as the purported main action of the movie, then that's getting a little ridiculous.

reply

I agree that the notion that the whole last sequence was imaginary is pretty unsupportable.

The fact people are suggesting that is a commentary on the movie, though: it indicates that the last part was so unlikely and (to pick a random word) "fantastic" that it strained credibility and consistency.

It's also worth noting, I think, that it seems most people at least briefly considered the possibility that the kids sudden appearance from the bus could have been imaginary (though what followed made it clear that it wasn't, at least to me).

reply

Yes, even I briefly considered it, even as I've posted strong opposition to the idea. Admittedly it was a bit of a jump in the continuity of the film. You're left to wonder some things. For example, I had the idea the father had been on the road for at least a few hours if not a couple of days. Were the kids hiding that long? Also, what actions would the grandfather have taken consequent to the kids deserting him? He had seen a lawyer and was talking about legal custody. But it's clear that did not succeed, when you see the end of the movie. Or did the grandfather give up on the idea altogether?

But I can still believe it could all have come together as presented. We don't need to see how every mundane detail is worked out.

reply

The last part of the movie does have a lot of holes in the story, but I think it more or less holds together. There was a leap in time during which a demoralized Ben had apparently agreed to leave his children with their grandfather; we see him leaving the house after relinquishing custody. It seems to me he left, drove away, and stopped after only a short drive, to sit at the roadside and mull things over. The kids wouldn't have been hiding in the bus for long, as I read it.
The children pop up in the bus and insist on a "rescue mission," and Ben's confidence is restored. Then there is another, longer leap in time after the family's "mission" is completed, during which it must be assumed that Ben negotiated with his father in law and/or the family courts (if the courts had been involved), made some compromises, and won back his children by agreeing to new circumstances.
Going through all these details would have been tedious and unnecessary; we get a general idea of what must have happened, and see the result.

reply

It's clear from all your posts that you have a very good understanding of both the freedoms & limitations of film-making, as well as the visual presentation of a larger narrative, Mamabadger. There is the unfortunate tendency amongst many movie fans to spot "plot holes" where none exist - and many more who have their own (wrong) ideas of what a plot hole is really defined as. Anyway, if this was facebook I'd have simply 'liked' your comments, but the only way I can give a thumbs up is to post a reply! Nice to see intelligent and sober analyses on these boards.

Please click on 'reply' at the post you're responding to. Thanks.

reply

Partly correct. He willingly left the kids with grandparents. No court would have granted legal custody of the kids to the grandparents given the kids were old enough to decide for themselves. As for the digging up the grave...Hollywood! He had a signed legal 'Will and last Testament' and that is all he would have needed to see to his wife's final wishes.

Anyone notice that at the beginning of the cremation scene the daughter that was injured had her cast and other items on but as the scene progressed she didn't?

reply

Partly correct. He willingly left the kids with grandparents. No court would have granted legal custody of the kids to the grandparents given the kids were old enough to decide for themselves. As for the digging up the grave...Hollywood! He had a signed legal 'Will and last Testament' and that is all he would have needed to see to his wife's final wishes.

Anyone notice that at the beginning of the cremation scene the daughter that was injured had her cast and other items on but as the scene progressed she didn't?

reply

The children's mother committed suicide after many years of mental illness, so her last wishes could be considered invalid. The children's father admittedly put them in harms way, and in a court of law could have been declared unfit. Obviously after a long process with guardian ad litem etc. He was realistic though and may have realized this.
Personally I think the last 15 minutes were Bens last thoughts as he took his own life.

reply

A few other details that perhaps relate to the timeline:

In the period between driving away and the kids emerging, Ben stopped and shaved his beard off. The kids, for whatever reason, did not choose to emerge while he was doing so, which is odd. It's not clear how long he spent shaving. There was no particular reason for him to rush, so presumably at least 15 minutes or so.

They obviously had to return to the graveyard to dig up the body. Its location isn't entirely clear, but presumably it wasn't very far from the grandparents' house in Arizona. Digging up a body, even in a fresh grave, would take hours. This took place at night.

They then drove, with the body, to the location where they cremated it. Where that is isn't specified, but it looked like the San Juan Islands, or a similar place near Puget Sound. The location where they dumped the ashes was most definitely SeaTac airport, just south of Seattle. Of course they lived (at that time) in the Cascade mountains, a few hours east of Seattle. Also - to my imperfect memory - there was a shot of them driving the bus, at night, north on I-405 in Bellevue, a Seattle suburb. So it seems pretty clear that they drove with the casket from Arizona to Washington, which would likely take at least two days. A possible timeline is that they left Arizona before dawn one day, drove all day, passed through Bellevue the next night, and cremated the body the next day. That's a push in an old bus with only one driver (did Bo drive? I don't think we ever saw him do so.) Perhaps it's more likely that they passed through Bellevue the second night after digging up the body. That's consistent with their pace on the drive down to Arizona, when they stayed overnight with Zahn and Hahn.

My reading is that, to start with, Ben drove for a relatively short time - perhaps an hour, maybe less - stopped and shaved, drove some more (I think? Not remembering the details of what was on screen), stopped, then the kids emerged. So they presumably hid for at least an hour and possibly several. They then drove back to the cemetery, spent a good part of the night digging up the body, loaded it in the bus, drove a few days to Washington State, cremated the body, went to the airport (odd choice, but whatever) and dumped the ashes. This all had to have taken place fairly continuously, though - given the distance from Arizona to Washington - over a longer time than seemed to have passed in the movie.

Then there's obviously a significant chronological jump to the epilog in the new home. At a minimum, it was about two months: the mother died on July 15 according to her gravestone, so the other events all took place in July. If the girls were in school, it was at least September. For all we know, it could've been a year and two months, though that leaves one to wonder what Bo was doing all that time.

During that break, presumably some sort of settlement or resolution was reached regarding the kids. The likelihood that that would happen, after the whole body-theft incident, is an issue (among others).

reply

Ugh. Why is it that every movie more complex than AVENGERS MEET GODZILLA PART III seems to have one entry on the forum that theorized that either:

A. One of the characters is dead all along
B. One of the characters never existed
C. The ending is just a dream

Or, ALL of the above?


Amen! I couldn't have phrased it better. My thoughts exactly.

Oh oh oh, I can one-up this, actually.

Remember all those scenes where Ben dreams about Leslie?

Those weren't dreams, bro. Leslie was really there. Think about it!!!

reply

MOST. UNDERRATED.COMMENT.EVER

reply

Did his character really evolve though? His daughter was millimeters from paralysis, yet he goes and does illegal things with his kids a day later in digging up a corpse and burning it on the edge of a cliff. He never really learns his lesson other than lets sort of live under a roof so the kids wont be taken from me.

reply

I think these 15 minutes are quite ambiguous for serving two kinds of moviegoers: once who are uplift and optimistic, they could take ending literally; the others are pessimistic/realistic, could take alternative approach it was only a dream.

I agree this ambiguity doesn't add much except these kind of topics.

In the end the movie clearly made the point, it was a mistake, human are sociable creatures and captain has realized and accepted it. Also his motives explained like care of his wife. That's why I can't blame him.

The movie is really interesting :P particularly for parents.
Pity I don't have kids yet, probably would appreciate it more.

reply

[deleted]

Not sure if this was supposed to be a two sided ending. If it was, it was lost upon me because I frankly felt the movie should have ended with him driving the bus alone back to Washington state. On the other hand, if the ending was supposed to be Viggo imagining how he really wanted the ending to be, with the family around him, then that should have been made more clear. It just isn't.

reply

Yes, I agree 100%. They could have made an "ambiguous" 2-sided ending by just having the kids come off the bus and sit with him around the fire... that would have been perfectly fine as a compromise between a suck-up happy ending, and the rather dismal Dad returning alone, kids surrendered into the system ending that I was also more than willing to accept. Some things are best left to the imagination.

The idea that they return to the mission - and actually go to dig up the body - seemed like someone felt the need - probably from test audience reaction or conventional market data of "Little Miss Sunshine" fans - to write in a happy fantasy ending as the real ending for the film.

I could have also gone with an even more dark ending, where Dad goes to complete the mission on his own, and ends up committed to the psyche ward himself after busted trying to dig up his wife. If you don't think that is enough to get you medicated with anti-depressants under a court order, and a slam dunk case for the grandparents custody, think again.

reply

Laughed and agreed.

reply

I don't think it is supposed to be the father's imagination. It is the movie stepping out of the gloom of where its story seemed to end and changing the direction, offering us a fantastic and more hopeful end. I loved it for it. It does what a great movie should do in this case I think.

reply