Civil War

It should come as no surprise that a film titled, Civil War, is divisive, but it isn’t for the reasons you’d expect. With advertising that initially grabbed people’s attention with its seemingly time-appropriate over-the-top premise, the trailers for Civil War got enough online hype to warrant at least some interest and the fact that it was being led by popularly niche filmmaker, Alex Garland, that anticipation was only further heightened, yet the tables were quickly flipped once the public and critics got to see it. While it fared average at the box office and the critical consensus was mostly positive, the outcry that came from people who were disappointed with the film not taking advantage of its idea and actively lying in its advertising didn’t present the best light for this hypothetical experience. Set in a future where America has been flung into a civil war spurned on by the President (played by Nick Offerman), it has become a feeding ground for attention-hungry journalists who would give anything for the perfect news story. One such journalist is war photographer Lee Smith (played by Kirsten Dunst), who intends to travel with her work colleague, Joel (played by Wagner Moura) to Washington D.C and interview the president before the city is claimed and falls (taking him down with it). Also on this journey is Lee’s elderly mentor, Sammy (played by Stephen McKinley Henderson) and aspiring photographer, Jessie (played by Cailee Spaeny), who admires Lee and is trying to follow in her footstep, which Lee strongly advises against given the traumatizing nature of the work. That reality becomes all too real once they set out on the road, coming across multiple twisted people who use the civil war as an excuse to showcase their worse tendencies, with Jessie slowly starting to become numb to the violence and in doing so, excel more as a photographer. With the money shot of the president being their top priority, these four throw themselves into a war zone and are willing to steamroll through any body necessary (the term being quite literal this time around) in order to get that desired shot. Civil War provides a harrowing experience that features some quality ideas, polished visuals, and great performances, but overall feels like a pretty sour and misleading movie with more focus being put on what it is ‘’stating’’ to you rather than what it is saying.

For a movie that should on the surface, be un-apologetically political and scathing in its delivery and commentary, the film strongly paints itself as apolitical, with Garland himself not wanting to pinpoint a specific leaning in order to not alienate or attack either group. While maybe smart in theory as to avoid distancing any potential viewers, it’s another situation where the film covers up its true agenda underneath a veil of passive mainstream appeal, propelling the film into a situation where it is more likely to crash and burn rather than stick the landing. This movie isn’t action-heavy, isn’t a more casual sit in comparison to other Alex Garland pictures, and (in the most shocking twist) isn’t even a film about a civil war and the state of a corrupt America, but rather a cautionary tale about journalism and the poisoning influence it can have on not just the public that views it, but also on those that shoot it. The film is almost hilariously underwritten in regard to its world building, with the screenplay (also written by Garland) giving absolutely no indication or context about its current world order outside of a few little throwaway lines that barely register in the moment. While this seems incredibly counterproductive and detrimental to its premise, the audience will quickly realize that the ‘’civil war’’ was never the intended focus, but rather just a hypothetical setting the film uses to explore this negative dissection of journalism, creating a scenario where everybody is selfish, no decision made has a good result, and the whole driving force of the film is by definition insane, stupid and very single minded. This twist on the genre shouldn’t be too surprising as not only is Garland as a filmmaker a little avant-garde and not one to play things straight, but the film’s distributors, A24, are also known for releasing movies that hold nothing back when delivering unpleasant topics and themes. At its core, the film does a decent job at capturing the truly graphic and disturbing mental space a journalist would have to go to when documenting these kind of real-world tragedies, and also exposes the less than favorable qualities about the industry and how the perspective of ‘’get the shot, no matter what’’ truly is a dangerous and toxic ideology. However, this isn’t what people came to see the movie for, and the limited to zero information given about the driving force of this story, means that people are going to feel very cheated. It is decently paced, the dialogue isn’t great but isn’t terrible either, there are a lot of moments that in a package feel forced and desperate but individually work okay, and even though another director probably would’ve handled this topic smoother and with better awareness of who it’s meant for and how to deliver it as such (someone like a Kathryn Bigelow or a Clint Eastwood), Garland isn’t bad at what he does and can bring a slight sense of gravitas to a project even if it feels unfounded.

Since the world doesn’t establish anything about why people are fighting or who is even in the right and wrong, it creates a situation where you have no idea who the good guys are, and who the bad guys are. With better writing, this could work in creating an amoral environment where it’s up to the person to determine whether they connect with someone’s struggles regardless of moral standing, but in a world that seems to be about complex themes and complex individuals, it needs a least a little bit of grounding in order to set people in the right direction. The film doesn’t have a big cast and does feel a little small scale (despite its moderately sized budget of $50 million), but the people that are given focus are pretty talented actors that do a good job playing these roles as slightly exaggerated, but never too far that they feel phoney (at least for the most part). Kirsten Dunst is quite strong as the lead, capturing the broken and soulless look of a person who has seen too many terrible things and is numb to the constant danger, yet still holds at least a fragment of humanity. This is paired well against her younger counterpart, with Cailee Spaeny also doing a great job bringing this youthful, but still logical spirit into the picture, and watching her transform from this passionate but easily shaken kid into a cold-blooded killer behind the camera who doesn’t so much as flinch when bullets fly past her is pretty effectively handled. These two are probably the best part of the film, as while their dynamic is a little underdeveloped and could’ve been pushed further if given more time, it feels like the most thought out and established part of this whole story. With this in mind, the rest of the characters are well acted, but aren’t allowed the same courtesy of featuring portions of subtly, as everyone else is an obvious trope. Wagner Moura acts well as this scummy journalist whose only in it for the money and adrenaline, but his overt manner of depiction and inconsistent attitude makes him feel quite fabricated and only a tool for a message rather than an actual person. Stephen McKinley Henderson brings the expected amount of wholesome charm and kindness you’d expect from him, but his role is so small and generic that he only serves one obvious purpose that doesn’t even have a good pay-off, Jesse Plemons is part of a very suspenseful scene, yet he’s only got that one moment (despite all the trailers showing him off), Nick Offerman is barely even utilized as the president, and any person they encounter on their journey is effectively disturbing if a little generic for the kind of story being told.

Since it is an A24 film, it’s going to be a nice-looking picture, and because the budget is much bigger than any other A24 movie previously, it was going to use that money smartly. As previously stated, it doesn’t feel like the movie is that grand in scale as there is very little action present (outside of the set piece at the end which is still plastered all over the trailers) and most of the locations look pretty generic for the kind of rural road-trip style of film its presenting, so all of the money seems to have gone into the visuals and the cast. From a visual perspective, the film is very nice looking with clear quality, atmospheric lighting, and some nice cinematic shots from Rob Hardy, but because this world is very bland and doesn’t use its apocalyptic situation in a way that would result in a drastically different environment, it means the film doesn’t have a unique identity. The only things that really stand out are whenever the film takes a photo of something truly horrific, whether it be people who are already dead or ones that will soon be dead. The film isn’t going to sugar-coat any of its content and does show some truly disturbing imagery through black-and-white photography that does feel in line with many photos taken by real war photographers, and while it can be hard to stomach and doesn’t feel like it truly earns that graphic nature, it isn’t handled poorly and the way it quick cuts from blistering harrowing conflict to a silent colorless snapshot can be a little chilling in its own way. It can feel a little pretentious sometimes with how it portrays some of these events, and once paired with an obnoxiously loud and obviously ironic song, it starts to paint a picture for what the film is. While the sound design for this film feels disturbingly real, especially in regard to gunfire, the soundtrack of the film feels much more typical of a mainstream picture. The score for the film by Ben Salisbury and Geoff Barrow is fairly unmemorable but is at least used well and does have that sombre acoustic sound that is pretty prevalent in most travelling apocalypse stories (this might pretend to not be in that camp, but it totally is, just without any zombies).

Civil War is like going to the movies to watch Red Dawn, and then you realize that you’re actually watching The Hurt Locker, which are very different films with very different experiences in spite of having similar pieces, and this film for some reasons believes it can do both. On its own, the movie isn’t actually that poorly done and addresses things in a manner that is clever and do feel cinematic in delivery, but whether it’s from the sourness that comes from the mere feeling of watching the movie or just the fact that it feels very false from what it promised itself to be, something just doesn’t really work about this film. Its acted well, the directing is fine, it looks and sounds nice and raises some good ideas and principles, but the poorly handled world building, characters that can feel a bit wasted, a complete waste of its premise, and a script that thinks it is saying a lot of deep stuff, when in reality, doesn’t say a lot that isn’t all-too-familiar already, it just feels pretty hollow. Much like any civil war, it’s going to divide people and personal taste will be what decides the side you’re on, but unlike this movie, there is probably more of an understanding as to why you are fighting in a true conflict rather than this cinematic one.