Strong Directing Choices Make for a Clear Message: Force Majeure

Swedish writer and director, Ruben Ostlund, makes a statement about the societal norms and expectations of the nuclear family in his black dramedy Force Majeure (2014). The film focuses on a seemingly perfect swiss family ski vacation, until an avalanche poses a threat to the family and the father flees the scene to save himself. No one is injured but the family then must deal with the aftermath of his instinctual yet selfish decision to run away at the sight of danger. The film examines many global themes including family, masculinity, societal expectations, survival instincts, and heroism. Through strong directing choices Ostlund shapes the viewer to not only watch this family fall apart, but to question our own instincts and expectations of the world around us.

The film opens with the photogenic nuclear family out on the slopes of the alps getting family portraits taken. The family appears picture perfect and happy. The first day of the trip goes smoothly with a day filled with skiing. There is a scene with the family all wearing matching pajamas and laying in the master bed of their hotel suite napping. This scene begins to drop hints to set up the conflict between Ebba, the wife, and Tomas, the husband, regarding him using his cell phone. It becomes apparent that Ebba wants his attention to be on the family and not on work or other external factors while on vacation. It is not until the second day at lunch, twelve minutes into the film, that the family is faced with the inciting incident that will shake up their world. A controlled avalanche comes roaring down the mountainside towards the outdoor patio that the family is dining on. Ebba reacts by grabbing her children and holding onto them tight, where as Tomas’ instinct is to grab his gloves, iPhone in hand, and run away from his family amid this crisis. When the snow settles and no one is injured, Tomas returns to the table and they eat in silence.

In the aftermath of the avalanche, the children, Vera and Harry, are the first to respond by yelling at their father to go away, clearly disturbed by what happened. They appear to feel abandoned by their father. It is not until the couple attends an awkward dinner date with another couple staying at the resort that Ebba confronts Tomas about the incident. Tomas claims that he did not run away from the table as this would challenge his masculinity. Their marriage becomes unhinged as Ebba cannot come to terms with the way Tomas reacted, bringing it up again when Tomas’ best friend Mats comes to visit with his younger girlfriend, Fanni. Mats and Fanni become very affected by the conflict between Ebba and Tomas, keeping eachother up all night wondering how they would have reacted in the same situation. Tomas spirals out of control from this point on and breaks down on the mountain with Mats as well as in the hotel corridor where he is observed by a janitor as he embarrassingly wails and cries. When Ebba finally gets him back inside the hotel suite, he continues to break down as his children gather around him, hugging him, watching him spiral even further out of control.

The film has a false ending followed by another ending that is more up for interpretation and strays away from the central point of the film. “The film ends with not one but two reversals- a faux-redemptive moment and another brush with fear that suggests the impossibility of undoing what came before” (Lim). The first ending is a scene where the family takes to the ski slopes one last time in the fog. As Ebba gets stuck behind, Tomas plays the hero and goes to save Ebba, proving to his children that he can be the man that he is supposed to be.

The last scene is a little more ambiguous as it opens up the conversation beyond the nuclear family and onto a bus full of strangers. As the family, as well as Mats and Fanni, takes a bus down the mountain to catch their flight, the bus driver is operating the bus dangerously. Ebba yells out in fear to stop the bus and asks to get off. She, as well as all the other passengers of the bus, excluding Charlotte, the woman from earlier that was at the dinner date, exit the bus and decide they would rather walk down the mountain side than risk their life on the bus. The ending of the film has mixed reviews, as one critic states, “the entire sequence, which features the family as just a small unit within a much larger group, might be trying to extrapolate what it has just shown on a larger scale but instead the opposite happens, as the events and dynamics don’t jive with the film’s general sense of a large, uncontrolled event having a devastating impact on an extremely intimate level” (Hoeij). However, in another way, the ending is quite powerful and can be interpreted in many different ways. It brings many of the themes back to the foreground and brings closure to many of the conflicts that have been opened up throughout the film. Ebba is the one who panics and escapes the bus first without the children, paralleling Tomas’ reaction when fleeing from the avalanche. However this time, because she is a woman, she is not looked at in a negative light. There is no expectation for her to be a hero. When she does leave the bus the rest of the passengers begin to panic. It is Mats who steps up to calm the crowd, giving priority to the women and the children, showing Fanni that he would take on the hero role for his family in a crisis situation. As the bus leaves, Charlotte, a character that has been established as outside of the norm is the one who is brave enough to break away from the pack and remain on the bus, presumably making it down the mountain safely. As the bus goes down the mountain, many of the passengers have their cell phones out recording the reckless bus driver descend the mountain, mimicking Tomas at the beginning of the film recording the avalanche. This is a nod towards the modern age that we live in that Ostlund specifically is critiquing throughout the film. As the group harmoniously walks down the mountain, Tomas smokes a cigarette in front of his kids. As Ostlund says in an interview “Tomas is able to smoke a cigarette, which I think is a positive step for him.” Harry asks his Dad about the cigarette seeming surprised that he is smoking. Having previously seen their father in a perfect light, Tomas’ children are now exposed to their father’s flaws.

Ostlund provides a commentary for his viewers about the world we currently live in, relating to familial norms and the outdated ideals of masculinity and patriarchy. “Force Majeure functions as a viral thought experiment, which Ostlund dramaticized by compelling Ebba and Tomas to replay the traumatic moment and examine its implications in front of one couple, and then another” (Lim). Mats and Fanni function in the film as a mirror for the viewer. Through Mats and Fanni’s discussion we are brought to think about our own natural instincts and the implications of our own actions and behaviors. As Porton puts it, “when survival instincts are paramount, cultural considerations are forgotten.” The crisis that Ebba and Tomas are faced with show us just how animalistic and instinctual we truly are, which is a thought that we as humans try to stray away from. We try to be more advanced than our natural instincts, however in a moment of panic our true priorities come to light. “the father figure’s split-second instinct is one of self-preservation, rather than sacrificing himself to save his clan” (Debruge). This realization is what disturbs Ebba most, that Tomas’ natural focus is away from his family. “No one is harmed, but the foundational beliefs and expectations holding up the edifice of marriage and family have been shattered” (Lim). This calls into question the way our society functions, that it is expected of a man to protect his family, even though from an evolutionary perspective it may be more of the mother’s instinct to protect the family where as a man is more on his own.

Additionally, Ostlund uses technology throughout the film to show how far we have come as humans, that it is very outdated that we still have these patriarchal familial norms in the modern world. He uses an iPhone as a focal point, bringing it back multiple times to represent Tomas’ priorities and regrets. Another example of technology highlighted in the film is the drone that the family plays with the night of the avalanche that is later brought back in to break the awkward silence of the dinner conversation with Mats and Fanni. Ostlund also often cuts to plows on the mountain with the Vivaldi score playing to show the artificial world these characters are surrounded by. The ski resort and avalanche themselves play a part in the greater theme. “Not only do they first foreshadow and then recall the pivotal “controlled avalanche” — itself a contradictory term that goes right to the heart of the material — but they also visually suggest one of the main themes: the idea that humans try to control both human nature and nature at large, though both prove to be quite indomitable at times” (Hoeij). It is seen as a weakness to be overtaken by your emotions and to be ruled by your instincts but as Ostlund demonstrates time and time again in the film who are we to think we are greater than our own instincts and nature itself.

Ruben Ostlund’s strong choices go far beyond his screenwriting. His directing choices are so specific and add depth and nuance to the narrative. He uses a lot of long and stagnant wide shots that give the film an extremely observational feel. The pacing of the edit gives the viewer time to breathe and reflect upon what is happening on screen. As Ostlund says, “the janitor is like an anthropologist observing human behavior. Unlike the family, he’s from the working class and has a different view of economic and social reality. He’s able to have some perspective on their silly behavior” (Porton). With these long takes and wide shots, Ostlund gives us a similar experience to the janitor in the film. By watching the narrative in this format we are brought to feel like outsiders looking in on another world and are able to observe and make conclusions about their actions within their society. Prior to his narrative film days, Ostlund made ski videos (Tartaglione). Like a ski video, many of the shots on the mountain are vast and grandiose, making the characters appear small within the greater backdrop of the film. “I wanted the film to take place in a ski resort because I have experience making ski films and I’m interested in the absurdity of the ski resort. We’re creating avalanches and trying to control nature- it’s a struggle between the civilized and the uncivilized,” says Ostlund (Porton). He brings the themes of the screenplay to life so seamlessly all the way through to post-production. His actors put on emotional performances, showing how one can become so deeply impacted by a simple event where no physical harm was actually done. “Ostlund’s unsettling psychological thriller leads with the spectacular incident and studies its disastrous consequences on each of the family members involved” (Debruge). Every character brings in a new perspective and helps build the narrative and contributes to the theme in a new way. A strong suit of the screenplay and the performances in the film are that every detail brings in a new layer that contributes to the themes Ostlund is trying to portray and he does it successfully, an impressive achievement.

The film has received very positive reactions from critics and at festivals. It won best film, best director, and best screenplay as well as three other awards at Sweden’s equivalent of the Oscars, the Guldbagge Awards (Roxborough). The film was predicted to be nominated for best foreign language film at the Oscars in 2015 as it had nominations at the Golden Globes, was honored at the Critics Choice Awards, and was Sweden’s candidate of the year (Tartaglione). Unfortunately, the film was snubbed an Oscar nomination. Even so, Ostlund along with his cast and crew demonstrated masterful storytelling.

Although the film did not receive an Oscar nomination for best foreign language film, the film is still incredibly well respected. Ruben Ostlund crafted the film so meticulously. Every detail of the script, every performance, every shot, and every cut were specifically chosen to contribute to Ostlund’s message. The film is timelessly thought-provoking and could be understood and relatable at a global level. The film has definitely left its mark on world cinema history as the themes and characters are universally pertinent.

Works Cited

Debruge, Peter. “Cannes Film Review: ‘Force Majeure’.” Variety, Variety, 18 May 2014,

variety.com/2014/film/festivals/cannes-film-review-force-majeur-turist-1201184517/.

Hoeij, Boyd van. “’Force Majeure’ (‘Turist’): Cannes Review.” The Hollywood Reporter, The

Hollywood Reporter, 9 Jan. 2015,

www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/force-majeure-turist-cannes-review-703556.

Lim, Dennis. “Films Not so Fragiles.” Film Comment, vol. 50, no. 4, 2014, pp. 62–63.,

www.jstor.org/stable/43459585.

Porton, Richard, and Ruben Östlund. “Winter of Discontent: An Interview with Ruben Östlund.”

Cinéaste, vol. 40, no. 1, 2014, pp. 38–42. JSTOR, JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/43501981.

Roxborough, Scott. “’Force Majeure’ Sweeps Sweden’s Guldbagge Awards.” The Hollywood