Whatever one finds entertaining in a film directed by Alex Garland will always, without exception, be something never seen before. In the case of Civil War, it is civil war. It had its premiere in the US hours before I posted this and, quite strangely, it is already controversial. In spite of the fact that both extremes get me tired and exasperated, and in spite of the fact that I do not particularly look for understanding from early raves and pans, I am really curious about all of the arguments for and against the scandalous nature of the discussion. And surely there will be some, in spite of how lowbrow entertainment like Civil Wars: (1) is about an alternative future history of the life of divided United States and is purport to be a warning; (2) is a great American Movie in the same lines with American Sniper and black water genocide pornos but cuts from meaningful political context intentionally to not annoy conservatives; (3) with heavy sound Dutch angles and fast cuts make for a great quiet TV experience but also leaves space for viewers imagination and opens a window for all the possibilities as to what message the film contains.
‘Civil War’ is in the first place something else: an inquiry into the American pastime of journalism and its ethical implications in the future, while maintaining a similar feel to older movies about Western journalists looking into the fall of other states, such as the Year of Living Dangerously, Salvador, Under Fire or Welcome to Sarajevo.
How utterly bizarre, you might think. And in the abstract, it is bizarre. But, that being said, ‘Civil War’ is an incredibly convincing and, at times, disturbing piece of cinema in its own right, when you take the time to watch it. It’s a great film with an unusual sophistication. And it was not created by Garland. Nor could it have been, and while it uses dozens of other films (and novels) that have fed the vision, it does not use any of them.
Perhaps most remarkably, in the “Civil War,” Tarasov has even been able to portray the perspective of a pure reporter; a type of person who, when determining the importance of a ‘scoop’, only internalizes the external importance, rather than trying to collect additional patronage such as that of a nationally respected panel or editorialist devoted to analysis and explanation of what has taken place. This ‘scoop’ can be in the form of writing articles, reporting on television, creating an award winning image, or other things, however the thrill of physical danger or the ‘scoop finding’ urge is very addictive. People like East or West correspondents, the eternally mired in war practitioners, don’t even think about who controls events when real epics of violence are being described, and compartmentalize such thoughts to stay possessed by the narrative.
The movie shows them being a part of an event happening in New York City where it seems there’s a fight between some government officers and other opposition forces (there’s a lot of speculation thanks to Garland dropping you straight into the action, like Haskell Wexler did in ‘Medium Cool’ about a cameraman during riots at Chicago during the 1968 Democratic National Convention). In Lee’s story, Kiki Dunst takes on the role of Lee, a famous white photojournalist inspired by the likes of Lee Miller. She’s in a working relationship with Joel (Wagner Moura), who’s a reporter born in South America. Both are Reuters news agency journalists, who look after Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson), who is a retired African American journalist for the quote babysat by Joel, Yeah and the what is left of he’s a New Yorker, walks slowly with a cane and for a guy like him covering riots and shots probably high risk.
Jessie manages to catch the attention of the aggressive, woman loving Joel and agrees to accompany him. They are later joined by two other Americans in their efforts to drive to Washington, D.C. to speak with the president regarding the ongoing violence perpetrated by the WA (Western Alliance). The WA is composed of militias from California and Texas (with secondary support coming from Florida which is apparently part of a separate separatist movement with similar principles as the WA).
However, “Civil War” was received so warmly that the first full length trailer has undergone the kind of scrutiny that would befit the film itself (quite the normal odd usually of most “film discourse” however crazy that is). Yet the film itself is more intelligent, and realistic politically than those first impressions suggested it would be. Still, it’s probable that Garland “you already know the story” (which combined with the wider US occupation of Vietnam in “Full Metal Jacket” how about the entire storyline was) technique will add to the complaints for the first hour.
It is correct to say that Texas votes Republican on national elections while California votes Democratic. However, at this time, Northern California is gradually becoming dominated by tech billionaires who are libertarians and much of the central and eastern California are Republicans and hate California Democrats to the point of wishing for the “divide parts of coastal California including the Bay Area from California and become an independent country.” He is called a fascist. I am not sure how constitutively should we regard this because both Trump and Biden are treated that way by people who dislike them.
However, if you haven’t noticed, there are things that ‘Civil War’ seeks out and that could be forming a list of objectives, and one of them: ‘diagnosing what ails the United States of America’ is hardly top five. Yes, if one takes a written piece too literally, the way the movie was shot could be covered again. Nevertheless, when considering the film, one should try to explain why it was created in the first place, instead of only using pieces that fit their already adopted narrative. I entered “Civil War” with my arms crossed hoping to detest the movie as I have always had suspicion towards many contemporary social truths and views on US politics by outsiders due to majority of those filmmakers adopting a vision having binged on New York Times or bad tweets. It totally changed how I looked at things.
With regard to ‘future shock’, there is no need to assume that the Englishman, Garland, is putting up certain generalizations out of frustration. The text begins with the stylization of practitioners in order to build authenticity; until such time as the text bursts through the screen in the form of Jesse Plemons who appears briefly as a soldier who may or may not have the rank of an officer on the Western Front but who is indubitably an invader of the disintegrating body politic. This diffident scoundrel interrogates the scare and battered set of journalists (including two white females, a native African black male, a South American black immigrant and later on an Asian American gentleman and his Chinese immigrant wife) in a manner that offends the sensibility of how hackneyed white cops like Popeye Doyle rakishly gory scenes in ‘The French Connection’.
As Lee emerged as a prominent name in the industry for a photo titled ‘Antifa Massacre’ several years ago, Jessie’s childhood remains a mystery, as the name evokes respect. At the beginning of the novel, Jessie has been trying to contextualize the words. as in, From Edwards’ stance, various factions may be responsible for various forms of violence, yet everyone seems to share contempt for the “martyr’s ethos”. It was after Plemons’ performance that my views shifted, as accompanied by the storming up the stage, the final act (which was set after the storming of Washington) gave me clarity. However, others may not have had the same experience.
These characters don’t ever exposition each other and the audience and tell them how the world works because that is probably not something people do in everyday life, be it trying to escape out of Gaze, Ukraine, or live through a military dictatorship in Argentina, or Myanmar. In fact, one of the most intriguing (or if you don’t fancy it, annoying) characteristics of “Civil War” is that it feels at times as if it was a movie that was made in a time capsule and is played at this points in the world for the intent of watching an epic motion picture about a civil conflict more so than real events that actually took place.
Garland is predominantly recognized as a science fiction narrator. He wrote “28 Days Later,” “Sunshine,” and “Dredd,” co wrote Never Let Me Go based on a novel by Kazuo Ishiguro, and then both wrote and directed “Ex Machina,” and “Annihilation” which were not only metaphorical and visceral but built around a strong sense of physicality. (He also made the gender essentialist horror picture “Men,” which some people defend but which I consider his sole failure.) “Civil War” is not a science fiction story, strictly speaking, nor one could say that it is primarily “speculative fiction,” although it is quite accurate to describe it that way. The construction of the world is brilliant. Yet, the movie is not only about the construction of the world.
For me, it was as a tale about writers who go after a particular story with reckless abandon, even as their own homeland is in shambles and it may be their last story ever. Would they have thought it wise to have embedded themselves within Hitler’s army had they somehow managed to survive within German-held territories in the 1940s and have the chance to do so? I wouldn’t discount it.
Morally reprehensible or alienating to the average viewer is what they will come across In recent years, the New York Times and other equally so called “impartial” mainstream news corporations have faced criticism for appearing to treat the emergence of American fascism as an issue which warrants consideration of both sides, and when the reporters are bashed and cornered, they quite comfortably brush aside all such allegations saying that all they do is report the event. Certain professions will always have a particular creed or set of ethics in this case. Not everybody agrees with the other. These two groups are present in “Civil War” but in a more staged manner where the question is, “is it the duty of a storyteller to merely report or display” and then allows the spectators to bicker all they can over such questions. The title is not simply about the right-wing insurgency of future US, it also speaks about the infighting among modern day journalists.
All featuring events of the story that I have chosen to omit for this review as a matter of principle as I would prefer people who watch the film to be as uninformed of details as I was, who would then appreciate the film, which is rather episodic with respect to the characters’ physical as well as the moral and ethical challenges presented from a day and a point in time.
It is therefore enough to say that the last part brings all the themes together in a frightfully grotesque way and culminates in an epiphany that I believe will stay with me for the rest of my life.
For more movies like Civil War visit 123Movies.