Reviews

I was excited to see the film, hoping that finally a movie would explore just how rich the possibilities of communication are. But nope, we again and again get a very anthropomorphized bred of aliens.

It bothers me that they have too much in common with humans. Their primary medium of perception is visual perception apparently; they not only use visually perceivable system of communication, but also react to external stimuli by visual observation (doing nothing but looking at the humans as they arrive on the ship).

Their language is of course easily translatable to human languages within a few months. Just try to translate the communication system of bats or dolphins; you cannot. Alien communication should be even harder as we do not even share basic genetic familiarities with them. The only reason we cannot understand dolphins, but we can somehow teach gorillas sign-language, is that both humans and gorillas have a lot in common in how they conceive reality. Our concept formation processes are similar, hence the availability of a translation between our systems of communication. This should not work for aliens.

Other than the issue of communication, the movie itself is just another example of a typical Hollywood flick. The Americans are the good guys, and the Chinese, the Russians and some other Muslim countries are bad guys. The main characters end up romantically involved just like in any other movie.

There is one good thing that Villeneuve does exceptionally well, and it's that he can show the paranoia, the pessimism, the capacity of destruction that lie within humanity. Incendies and Sicario were good movies in this aspect; they weren't filled with naive optimism, but a realist pessimism. Arrival does it well too. It's right in saying that the biggest obstacle of humanity is humanity itself.

Lastly, there's the aspect of being able to perceive time non-linearly. Yes, language is more than just naming objects. It's the bedrock of culture, and science for that matter as well. But it's not a magical potion that gives you superpowers. I hated that aspect of Interstellar, but as most scientists found the movie okay, I just said maybe I am scientifically illiterate. But I know that in this movie, science-fiction becomes a fantasy.

Almost all discussions of this film center around two themes: criticism of the mainstream American/Western culture and raising children. But I think the strongest aspect of Captain Fantastic is its critical exploration of alternative systems.

We all know the inconsistencies and the ironic hypocrisies of the mainstream culture. But no system is actually inherently coherent. While Ben appraises the norm of critical discussion during the part where the little kid opposes to the Chomsky day, Ben himself dismisses critical discussion and attempts to forcefully take the child from his grandparents. While we see that the little girl knows more about the Bill of Rights than two 13 years old boys, we also see that the oldest sibling is completely ignorant and clumsy when he chats up with Claire. While we see them very violently hunt animals, they are shocked with the brutality of video games.

Now, the mainstream approach of the alternative system acknowledges these facts, and argues that the skills of our protagonists are more important than the skills of the American masses. This line of thinking can also be seen in various kinds of elitisms such as scientism, rationalism, eliminative physicalism, etc. But according to what standards exactly are they more important? How did the dichotomies between natural/unnatural, actual/non-actual food, real/unreal, etc. come about? This is where armchair intellectualism comes to a stop. These standards of determining what's important and what's not originates not by reference to some prior starting point that prepares the ground of discussion. There is first starting point, first standards, fundamentals of any kind, because they too would be in need of justification by reference to some prior standards.

What gives rise to these standards at the first place is simply the way we live and the way we conceive of the world. These cannot be criticized through intellectual discussion, but they can only change through active participation in the world. This is what the film confirms. Before the girl fell down the roof and almost died, there was no intellectual discussion that could have changed Ben's beliefs. Not because Ben was bigoted the same way every other person is bigoted too, but because some things are inescapably accepted by him to make way for further beliefs.

To sum up, Captain Fantastic shows the imperfect, fallible nature of human beings. It shows that derailing from the mainstream culture is not an answer to our problems, but that if there's any answer, it could be known not through blind intellectualism, but through actively exploring the alternatives.

PS: the dialogue about Trotsky, Stalin and Mao also points to this issue.

I went on to watch this film with the expectation that it's just another one of those movies that romanticize and praise a certain style of living that too many movies have already been doing. Though some of them are among my all-time favorite movies, like almost all Woody Allen films, there's some narrow-minded, almost snobbish element in them which suggests that this is the cool lifestyle to be living (by this, I mean being a sarcastic, hating-on-the-new-generation New Yorker who loves literature and philosophy).

But Liberal Arts offer various perspectives on life which are never really encouraged or discouraged in the movie. Yes, "you should read books but also go out some time" is the thematic prescription that is given to book-lover viewers, but it is not presented too strongly; it is not the central motive of the movie around which the narrative is constructed, but it is the outcome of a narrative that just happens to occur without a thematic goal for it to reach. Teaching romantics without being a romantic, reading so many books to escape the social sphere, reading too many books to miss on the social sphere, being a conspiracy theorist/stoner, being old but feeling young, being young but wanting to be old; each of these perspectives on life is, while all of them are modestly presented in the film, neither glorified nor looked down upon.

Liberal Arts tells a story that is not told with a screamingly loud subtext. It's just a well-presented humble story of which we sadly do not get a lot these days.

The Graduate is one of those movies which is glorified as an excellent example of an alternative classic movie by some. I was under the impression that what the first two Godfather films are to the gangster/mafia film genre is similar to what The Graduate is to the romance/early-20s-starting-a-life genre. Boy, I was wrong.

I think it's a good film, and it deserves a 100 minutes of one's time even if it's only to be able to comment on such a popular and discussed movie.

The film starts by presenting a theme of "I've just graduated from college, but I don't know what I'm gonna do with my life." One of my favorites, although it is only expressed in similar words in the movie and then forgotten. We only coincide into the theme two more times; one is a compulsory pep-talk from the father, and the other is the incidental ice-breaker topic of conversation between Ben and Ellaine. It would have been OK to use the theme as an ice-breaker both for the couple and for the movie as well. But its absence, or rather, its introduction and then absence, makes the character quite unrelatable and the topic quite irrelevant. Because there is nothing much interesting about some rich man living off his parents complain about the uncertainty he feels regarding his future.

Since the whole drama of the film was based on this premise (exlc. romance), all that is left is a typical, ordinary romantic film where a young person has sex with an older woman, then falls in love with her daughter. The first half of the film is quite good for that matter actually. Ben and Mrs. Robinson are both portrayed as interesting, deep characters. Both develop over time. While Ben's development is rather obvious, we see that Mrs. Robinson isn't just some cougar who sleeps with young men, but has more to offer. Ellaine, though, is not even a character. She is there as if only to fill a void that's left at the script.

Overall, I think the writing of the film isn't strong enough for it be a top-tier movie. Maybe it was for the standards of its time, but compared to some of today's films that could be studied under the same/similar categories, it fails to capture not only a relatable portrayal of the lives of the newly graduated, but also a sophisticated and complicated love story as they really are. I give it 7,5/10 on IMDb if I could, and that's only thanks to the great cinematography and to the marvelous soundtrack.

The first 20-30 minutes of the movie seemed very original. The documentary-like style, non-traditional hero, aliens living in slums, the social settings of the Johannesburg and District 9, etc. However, after the protagonist escaped from MNU building, all the details that could make the film original lost their effect. It turned into another cliché film: good, innocent people and the hero that changes sides vs. bad, corporates. The movie from that point onwards is an action movie with a predictable plot full of Hollywood action movie clichés.

Overall, the film is a good one though. My complaint is actually more directed at Hollywood than this movie in particular. Despite being another product of the same meta that has been ruling in Hollywood for so long, District 9 manages to be original in many aspect. The aliens don't come to USA for a change; the protagonist isn't a instinctively virtuous muscle-tank; everything about cat-food; weapons using biotechnology etc.

The first 25 minutes: 9/10. The rest: 6/10 PS: Somehow the extraterrestrial creatures AGAIN have almost the same body and intelligence as humans do. Shocking!