So thanks to MAX I finally got to see Alex Garland’s “Civil War.”
I had heard the reaction fell into two distinct camps: some loved it, others hated it but nobody talked about the film itself. I had stayed away from reviews so it was all new to me.
Put me in the, “Loved It!” camp.
It wasn’t what I expected. I’m not sure what I thought it might be. Yes, it’s a story about an American civil war, but the conflict was kept too vague for people to be satisfied. Perhaps it’s a war film about the horrors of war, maybe an expose on journalism.
It wasn’t any of that. It’s an art movie about war photography and war photographers. Had they marketed it as such I wonder how it would’ve faired.
*minor spoilers ahead…
One of my favorite films is Sigourney Weaver’s 1982 film “The Year of Living Dangerously.” The actress co-starred with Mel Gibson and Linda Hunt in a tale tied to war photographers. Hunt won that year’s Best Supporting Actress Academy Award.
Another great film about war photography was 1984’s “The Killing Fields.” The drama explores the lives of two journalists – American Sydney Schanberg and Cambodian Dith Pran – as they uncover the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia.
To round out the set you have Oliver Stone’s under-appreciated film “Salvador.” The 1986 film follows a war photographer played by James Woods.
All three are fantastic explorations of what it means to be a war photographer.
I should stop to note that in 1986 I had been accepted to the Brooks Institute for Photography in Santa Barbra with plans of becoming a photo journalist.
I thought “Civil War” told a powerful story about the rush of war, how it becomes an addiction and how wars and war photographers just keep cycling. I thought it was brilliant to avoid actual wars like the other three films mentioned.
This time, we see the tragedy as if it were in our own backyard. I would imagine this film will be talked about in journalism schools for decades.
From that lens the movie is perfect, brilliant and amazing – well acted, well written, well staged and deeply engaging. I liked how Garland used the same technique Stone deployed in “Salvador” of stopping the film to give us black and white stills of the photos being taken by the characters.
The war itself didn’t make any sense (likely on purpose). There’s no reasons given for the secession of Texas, Florida and California, the front lines had no rhyme or reason, none of it… especially the ending.
I suppose, say, if you tried to actually deport 14 million illegals those states: California, Texas and Florida might truly collapse into chaos and start a Civil War. That’s never explored in the film, much to many people’s disappointment.
I won’t give anything away but generally the winning side in a civil war feels they were right and vindicated and want to prove so in a court of law.
Alex Garland breaks down why Texas and California are allies in ‘CIVIL WAR’
“Two states who are in different political positions are saying we are more concerned about [this fascist constitution] than we are about our political differences” pic.twitter.com/cNU6q1o8Dv
— DiscussingFilm (@DiscussingFilm) April 14, 2024
The other main takeaway is how events like Jan. 6 and Elon Musk’s talk of a new civil war made me a bit sad. “Civil War” isn’t realistic, but it leaves a mark of just how bad a civil war would be in the states.
I thought stars Kirsten Dunst, Wagner Moura, Cailee Spaeny and Stephen McKinley all did great and well done Jesse Plemons for having a small role but making a big impact.
There are no small roles only small actors… eh?
For sure see this film if you can but let go of it being anything other than a well-made art film about war photography and war photographers.
I left the theater feeling empty and confused. What just happened? What was the point? …and it seems that the point is that war and conflict have an organizing function. Everyone understands themselves in relation to the conflict. The sniper scene makes this point explicitly. “War is how humans organize their existence” is the message. “War is its own purpose.” And, thus, it’s circular and pointless. Like this film.
No, it won’t. It glorifies scum , the PRESS that should not be glorified.
Terrible movie. Horribly made. Poorly acted. Nothing about this film is good.
Oh please. The first part that makes this a terrible movie? The attempt to show journalists as some sort of heroes, when in fact they are state propagandists. Also, the too subtle for the average viewer’s politics. Let’s see, the President disbands the FBI, a criminal organization that has become so politicized it effectively operates as the Police in the UK do: A deep state security agency. What else? Oh, the “rebels” are all people of color, the defending army are all white, and the implication is the president is somehow racist, but it’s the well known blue states of FL and TX that decide to go kinetic. This is an incredibly stupid movie, based on a ridiculous premise, oh, and all the action is between two functioning armies that somehow continue to operate as if the modern military isn’t completely dependent upon civilian contractors that are comprised from the same population that elected President Baddy. Sure bro. Only a vapid film commentator would think this was a good film. Also, except for “Red Glasses Guy” (aka, Jesse), all of the war crimes are perpetuated by the successionists: Shooting of unarmed prisioners, the execution of the president without trial by some female goon, etc.
This is not how a civil war will go. Think Bosnia times 10,000. This was a fanciful take by a liberal that has no grasp of reality.
“I should stop to note that in 1986 I had been accepted to the Brooks Institute for Photography in Santa Barbra with plans of becoming a photo journalist.”
There is no need to put yourself in the story. It may be a fact, but it is nothing of “note.” In fact, if you had attended journalism school you would have learned not to do this.
And the first sentence, “I had heard” doesn’t work. If you have to start with “I” (and you shouldn’t), just say “I heard.”
The movie is a big nothing burger. It purposely ignores the cause of the civil war, which means it doesn’t explore the process and divisions within the country. The battles make no sense. The story then becomes about the photo journalists. This too falls flat, other than the tidy story loop. We get the ridiculous photographer persona/vibe by having the young girl use a manual focus film camera with a single focus lens. There just aren’t many places to buy film and chemicals these days, let alone during a war. It’s all theatrical and not never happen.
So, if it is a photo journalism movie, it’s not very good. “The Year of Living Dangerously” and “The Killing Fields” were both great movies, although I wouldn’t TKF a movie about photo journalism. Other far better movies than Civil War about photo journalism are Salvador and The Bang Bang Club.
Ah yes, journalism. I’m old enough to remember when it actually existed. Now it has been replaced with propaganda.
Like this movie.
If you want to know really how bad a real civil war was, read the history of the American Civil War. 500,000 dead in under 4 years and the south totally destroyed.. You have to read about it to REALLY understand how these pundits are being flippant about it.
The good thing also, about this movie, is it didn’t pick a side. At least they made it humanist and universal.
If they actually deported 14 million, no one would notice. These things happen in the shadows. Our lives go on.