MovieChat Forums > Captain Fantastic (2016) Discussion > How great the USA would be with parents ...

How great the USA would be with parents like Viggo's character?


Make America Smart Again!

reply

Yes!
I think one of the subtexts of this film is that people with ideologies like viggo's character have seen this fascism thing we are experiencing now coming from a long way off.

Easy to imagine the kids growing into amazing resistance fighters or even world leaders where they may have to eventually wrestle with big philosophical questions ...or maybe they will not struggle with moral quandries and become like pol pot

reply

Do tell me more of the fascism thing we're experiencing now.

reply

They said so in the movie when they mentioned the "Citizens United" ruling. No doubt an asshat like yourself thinks that was something about uniting citizens.

reply

Most would be parents of dead kids considering what danger he put his kids in.

I WILL NEVER GIVE UP!

reply

He almost got his kids killed cause they rockclimb or climb on roofs?
Most kids do stuff like this anyway...
Pretty easily balanced out by his teaching them all kinds of knowlege and skill
Again, strange! ... people don't even know how to watch a movie

reply

He almost got his kids killed cause they rockclimb or climb on roofs?
Most kids do stuff like this anyway...


Yes and many get killed or maimed doing it.

Again, strange! ... people don't even know how to watch a movie

Aw gee, I guess we need your superior intellect to teach us how to do it, eh? 

I WILL NEVER GIVE UP!

reply

That notion is entirely contrary to the philosophy of the characters in the movie.

It's explicitly noted that the kids are being raised to be "philosopher kings." The world doesn't need a whole lot of a kings ... given the current capabilities of communication and transport, it only needs very, very few.

A system based on philosopher kings needs a whole lot of ordinary schmoes / soldiers / proles.

So, was Ben's worldview fundamentally more supportive of fascism than against it? Well, yeah. There's that.

reply

In Leslie's letter to her mother she stated that her children are philosopher Kings... she did not say that they were being raised to be philosopher Kings

Fascism is the Bastion of right-wing therefore a left-wing extremist cannot be called a fascist
Left-wing extremism is called radicalism
American right-wingers want the left to tolerate their intolerance, if we don't then they call us fascists it's a stupid soft brain trick that works on an uneducated populace

reply

I don't get any of this..guess i better watch the movie.

reply

i just enjoyed the film, fiction as far as i know,no to be taken seriously

reply

*beep* off Right wingers

reply

How great would the USA be if every parent taught their kid it's okay to steal?

reply

What is this corperate capitalist sugar and meat processed-food based absurd way of nourishing ourselves teaching our children?
These kids in this film had enhanced and very developed ethics
...clearly they will contribute way more to society than they would take away from it.
I would not support stealing crom a mom and pop shop, but these behemoth exploitative chain stores?
In my book...they are stealing from us.

reply

The funny thing about this film is I thought it had the potential to drive home a left wing angle MUCH better than it did. And it wasn't only the stealing, which to me came across much less a case of lack of respect for private property than it was total short term self interest. You're not being Robin Hood if it's for yourself.

The central problem with the left wing angle here more than that was really about the father's relationship with the middle son, Rellian. He is the rebel in the family. He is the one who challenges his father and on some level the whole approach taken raising the children (not that none of the others have questions, as they do, but Rellian has the most issues with his life and family).

Is Rellian a rebel because he's at a certain age? It seems like that must be part of it, but does that mean then that the approach taken raising this family has an incomplete answer for that sort of challenge? In any event I think it goes well beyond Rellian's age, as Ben himself comes I think to understand there is something to Rellian's critique.

Is Rellian instead some kind of adolescent right wing snake in the garden, upsetting an otherwise perfect paradise? It might seem like a silly question, but the thought occurred to me when I saw the film.

The point in any event is why should there be so much conflict between Ben and Rellian if what Ben is doing is "the right thing"?

My problem with the film is I could see only one plausible answer to that, and that was that Ben was too autocratic and controlling, which is what Rellian was rebelling against. Was this over controlling approach necessary to the whole life approach Ben had? Was it less than that, somehow particular to him?

I don't know. Perhaps I needed to see the film a second time.

But that in essence is my problem with the film. It in effect argued that the life approach shown was so problematic the end result was, from a Marxist point of view, that Rellian exemplified the "seeds of [the family's] destruction", a countering antithesis to Ben's thesis.

That would have been one thing if the way in which Ben's approach was NECESSARILY problematic as particular to him had been spelled out. Or even conversely if the case had been made why the overall approach without Ben's particular involvement and choices had been "shown" to be problematic.

But the film left that all inadequately addressed, and the end result is how one felt about Ben's approach becomes instead a mirror back to each viewer's own perspective, a kind of ink blot test. And if so that would merely mean that the filmmakers in some sense lost their nerve.

I gave it a 6 out of 10 for the cast and the basic story and context, but it would have been higher if they had not lost their nerve.

reply

Relian has his gf's blood

Im pretty sure ben straightened out is father in law in the end
With just the strength of his argument

Frank langela and everyone was so great...give em good parts and everyone is great
Great film

reply

It would be a HELL HOLE!






Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar and doesn't.

reply

I think so. The kids were so civilized and smart. Something we don't seem to value anymore.

reply


Yes, but after the "Roof Mission", one of them was pretty banged up. And except for some good luck, the Captain might have gotten some of his kids killed or maimed.

reply

My brother's wife nearly got my niece killed or maimed when she was putting her through gymnastics and skiing. Tell me the difference?

reply


Evershin,
There's a really big difference. Gymnastics and skiing are both considered normal activities for kids. Rock climbing on a rock face hundreds of feet in the air and climbing over the roofs of other people's houses are not. Now if her kids were not physically able to do those activities, or she she forced them, that might be different.

Wplains,
Climbing on roofs might be normal for kids, but doing it on another person's roof could be considered trespassing and illegal entry. But climbing a shear rock face hundreds of feet in the air is not. That is very dangerous.

Also teaching them shoplifting, indecent exposure, and contempt for the law are not good either. I'm not saying he was wrong for pushing his kids to be strong and smart, but he took it to ridiculous extremes. He's a poor father imho.

reply

Who is doing the "considering" exactly and if either activities injure a child for what could be their life (an arm I broke at 13 still bothers me) how is that considered normal? It is foolish and irresponsible to put a child into something that is "considered normal". So many notable people have died skiing and injured themselves severely. Way to screw up a child's life before they've even begun.
So there is not a "big difference." The biggest difference is that skiing and gymnastics smashes children up while the rock climbing in this movie just banged the boy up.
Also, he wasn't teaching them contempt for the law. Quite the opposite, he taught them the bill of rights and the constitution which are the highest law in the land and taught them to have contempt for authorities and others that have contempt for the law.

reply


No there's a VERY big difference. If the kid had fallen off that sheer rock face he would have been killed or paralyzed. That is much worse than a broken arm or a gymnastics injury.

And teaching the kids to steal is NOT teaching them the Bill of Rights. There is nothing in the Bill of Rights which even remotely suggests that you have a right to steal other people's property. It's teaching them contempt for the law.

And the indecent exposure is also teaching them to contempt for the law. And if you're uncomfortable with this or any other law, change the law.

reply

As far as the stealing goes: Captain Fantastic would believe that stealing in general is indeed wrong, but also that those big corporations are stealing from their employees. "A thief who steals from a thief gets 100 years of forgiveness." is a relevant proverb in portuguese.

reply


Apparently not. Stealing is stealing. It's illegal and immoral, and you can't justify bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior. He is a thief, and he's teaching his children to be thieves.

The store owner didn't steal anything from anyone, and is not a big corporation. The store owner is just another person trying to make a living through honest work. The Captain is a thief and a bad father.

reply

Yes, if you examine his behaviour through normal american capitalist ideology he is indeed all that. I'm just pointing out he had his radical leftist views and acted according to them.

I don't mean to say you're wrong, just want to point out that many people would frame the situation in different ways and come to different conclusions.

It looked like a chain store to me, in which case the employees there wouldn't really be inconvenienced by the stealing, but do correct me if I'm wrong.

reply


No his behavior is bad regardless of how you examine it. The fact that he had radical leftist views is no excuse. I'm not a religious person, but Commandment 8: "Thou shalt not steal."

As to stealing from a convenience store, it makes no difference who you steal from. Stealing is stealing, and it's illegal, wrong
and immoral. And it's wrong to teach your children that it's okay.

Would you be okay with it if he stole from you?

reply

What I'm saying is he believes the chain store is guilty of stealing from its employees, and that, regardless of whether that is true or not, it justifies the behaviour to himself.

You say stealing is absolutely wrong in a Kant sort of way. What about killing? It's kind of a commandment too that you shouldn't do it.

Would you agree that participation in WW2 was justified? (I'm sorry I went for the WW2 example, it's just the easiest/obvious way to compare.) I feel like if we follow your rationale we'd arrive at the conclusion that every participant in it was immoral. Which is definitely a valid conclusion, just wondering if that also fits in your perspective.

To answer your last question, I'd be pretty annoyed if he stole from me, yes. I don't think he would though, because he doesn't see me as guilty like he does corporations (I don't remember exactly what he says in the film, but I think there's a bit where he's on the bus and goes over the way he thinks capitalism is immoral).

reply


His warped view of reality does not change the fact that stealing is wrong, and teaching your kids to steal is wrong. What makes him think that the store is stealing from its employees? And even if he believes it to be true, bad behavior does not justify other bad behavior. He's apparently an anarchist, and believes that he is above the law. That is incredible arrogant as well as wrong.

And I agree killing is also wrong, except in self defense or defense of freedom. Some wars are immoral and wrong, especially if they are for conquest, as was the case with the Axis Powers in WW II. The Allies were defending freedom, so in their case killing is justified. Regrettable, but necessary.

And since you would be annoyed if he stole from you, why shouldn't the store owner be annoyed? And if he thinks Capitalism is immoral, he should work to change the system. Further, I challenge him to come up with a better system.

Capitalism has brought more wealth and a higher standard of living for more people than any other system in history. That's a fact. That's why the Communists had to build a wall around West Berlin, to keep their people from fleeing there to freedom and capitalism. That's why the USSR eventually collapsed. And that's why millions of people come to America, for freedom and capitalism.

It works because it takes advantage of basic human nature. If you work hard, you are rewarded and get ahead. In socialism and communism, everyone is equal and you are not rewarded for hard work. Since there is no incentive to work harder, nobody does. Progress and achievements thus stagnate.

reply

I think he could come up with a system, but you probably wouldn't see it as better the same way he would.

I agree with you that freedom is a worthy right to defend.

Thank you for indulging me in this conversation and showing me your perspective, which is obviously very different from Fantastic's.

I don't agree that his view of reality is any more warped than yours, or mine, though. Reality is hard to interpret nowadays. So many unknown unknowns, and worse, unknown knowns.

reply


You're welcome, and thanks. It's been an interesting and intelligent conversation. I've enjoyed it.

reply