God bless America. A country that’s currently facing the difficult choice having to vote to elect one of two old and frankly dangerous men to lead their country, one of whom is now a convicted criminal.
It seems that Civil War then couldn’t have released at a more appropriate time, with tensions running high and the future of the country hanging in the balance.
But how does writer/director Alex Garland create a politically driven war film without alienating fifty percent of the audience?
In the near future the United States of America is divided and plunged into a civil war. The ‘Loyalist’ states follow the rule of the President (Nick Offerman) who has been elected for a third term.
In the southeast the ‘Florida Alliance’ holds power, the north west is occupied by the ‘New People’s Army’, and Texas and California have formed an alliance known as the ‘Western Forces’.
Renowned war photojournalist Lee (Kirsten Dunst) and her journalist partner, Joel (Wagner Moura), have received word that the President’s power is slipping and that the Western Forces will be making a push to Washington D.C to take him down. They intend to get the final interview with the President.
But matters are made more complicated when Joel invites fellow veteran journalist Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson), and aspiring photojournalist Jessie (Cailee Spaeney) along for the ride, with Lee concerned for their safety owing to Sammy’s poor physical health and Jessie’s inexperience.
It seems that Civil War then couldn’t have released at a more appropriate time, with tensions running high and the future of the country hanging in the balance.
But how does writer/director Alex Garland create a politically driven war film without alienating fifty percent of the audience?
In the near future the United States of America is divided and plunged into a civil war. The ‘Loyalist’ states follow the rule of the President (Nick Offerman) who has been elected for a third term.
In the southeast the ‘Florida Alliance’ holds power, the north west is occupied by the ‘New People’s Army’, and Texas and California have formed an alliance known as the ‘Western Forces’.
Renowned war photojournalist Lee (Kirsten Dunst) and her journalist partner, Joel (Wagner Moura), have received word that the President’s power is slipping and that the Western Forces will be making a push to Washington D.C to take him down. They intend to get the final interview with the President.
But matters are made more complicated when Joel invites fellow veteran journalist Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson), and aspiring photojournalist Jessie (Cailee Spaeney) along for the ride, with Lee concerned for their safety owing to Sammy’s poor physical health and Jessie’s inexperience.
I spent the entire journey home from Civil War in silence. I didn’t say anything, I didn’t listen to music, I just sat and processed the whole thing because I had so many thoughts. I didn’t even manage to make any notes on the film so I can’t even go into this review with a series of points I want to talk about because I was almost in a state of shock.
Civil War is not Alex Garland’s best film, nor is it my favourite film of the year, but I reckon I’m going to be hard pressed to find another film I think about more this year than Civil War.
It’s an extremely important film for studio A24 too because it’s their first foray into big budget films with mass appeal in mind. A studio that for so long has been all about tiny budgets and allowing writers and directors explore themes too weird for mainstream Hollywood and just letting them do pretty much whatever they want with it. I think Garland is the perfect person to entrust with this task too, he’s proved himself a number of times in the past writing for Danny Boyle films, and even though he’s definitely into high concept ideas I think he’s one of A24’s more down to earth regular collaborators.
But I think it needs to be addressed how poor the marketing for Civil War is, and I think A24 might just shoot themselves in the foot with it because it presents the film as something it’s not. The trailer showcases lots of action, explosions, shootouts, and grand set-pieces. The reality is a stark contrast to that; Civil War is slow and thoughtful and doesn’t pick sides in its depiction of an America divided. It’s a road trip film about journalists, and yes whilst they do occasionally find themselves in war zones, they are far from the focus of the film and only make up a small fraction of the runtime.
I think Civil War’s greatest strength is in its impartiality. You’re frequently shown atrocities, or an event is mentioned in passing, but you’re never given specifics about which faction is doing what or why. Each and every single time it hammers home the futility and barbaric nature of what’s happening, and there’s are a handful of scenes that will linger in my mind for a long time.
The large population centres are of course war zones, but it’s the smaller towns and rural areas that we visit that present the bleakest and most arresting view of America at war. These low population areas that are being left to their own devices are downright scary, even if they aren’t outwardly violent. The most terrifying scene of these features Jesse Plemmons as a man deciding what he seems to be ‘true American’ and therefore who is entitled to continue living. It’s these sequences that most accurately represent some groups in society, and how frighteningly close we are to giving them the freedom to carry out their own warped justice in the name of defending their country and liberties.
Civil War is not Alex Garland’s best film, nor is it my favourite film of the year, but I reckon I’m going to be hard pressed to find another film I think about more this year than Civil War.
It’s an extremely important film for studio A24 too because it’s their first foray into big budget films with mass appeal in mind. A studio that for so long has been all about tiny budgets and allowing writers and directors explore themes too weird for mainstream Hollywood and just letting them do pretty much whatever they want with it. I think Garland is the perfect person to entrust with this task too, he’s proved himself a number of times in the past writing for Danny Boyle films, and even though he’s definitely into high concept ideas I think he’s one of A24’s more down to earth regular collaborators.
But I think it needs to be addressed how poor the marketing for Civil War is, and I think A24 might just shoot themselves in the foot with it because it presents the film as something it’s not. The trailer showcases lots of action, explosions, shootouts, and grand set-pieces. The reality is a stark contrast to that; Civil War is slow and thoughtful and doesn’t pick sides in its depiction of an America divided. It’s a road trip film about journalists, and yes whilst they do occasionally find themselves in war zones, they are far from the focus of the film and only make up a small fraction of the runtime.
I think Civil War’s greatest strength is in its impartiality. You’re frequently shown atrocities, or an event is mentioned in passing, but you’re never given specifics about which faction is doing what or why. Each and every single time it hammers home the futility and barbaric nature of what’s happening, and there’s are a handful of scenes that will linger in my mind for a long time.
The large population centres are of course war zones, but it’s the smaller towns and rural areas that we visit that present the bleakest and most arresting view of America at war. These low population areas that are being left to their own devices are downright scary, even if they aren’t outwardly violent. The most terrifying scene of these features Jesse Plemmons as a man deciding what he seems to be ‘true American’ and therefore who is entitled to continue living. It’s these sequences that most accurately represent some groups in society, and how frighteningly close we are to giving them the freedom to carry out their own warped justice in the name of defending their country and liberties.
It was a risky choice to have journalists be the central characters given that the media is considered untrustworthy by so many. But photojournalists are a wise choice as they’re just shooting what they see rather than being the ones giving it meaning.
The great performances also help sell it. Dunst is outstanding as she delivers a stoic and weathered veteran. Never cynical but always honest. She reluctantly takes Jessie under her wing and gives her the hard truths, how to deal with the awful things she’s going to see.
Spaeney is also excellent, the antithesis of Lee, young and hopeful and so completely out of her depth. She’s the heart of the film and whilst there aren’t many funny or uplifting moments, she can usually be found at the centre of them.
There was one big problem I had with Civil War though, and I’ll try and do this without giving any story specifics away. But there comes a scene where a character starts behaving differently for absolutely no reason, and then it’s as quickly halfway through that scene goes back to normal. Then shortly after that, said character makes a choice that is extremely out of character. It’s clearly all done for drama and to get the story to where it needs to be, but it stands out like a sore thumb because everything else is so strong and it feels like something was missing to make this character behave that way.
Garland seems to have pulled off an impossible feat here, portraying a politically charged war thriller without letting the politics influence it. I think this could appeal to all types of viewers, no matter how far you lean on the political spectrum. It just presents a frightening possibility of how such a conflict could look, and has some excellent performances driving it. Is this what they mean by Make America Great Again?
The great performances also help sell it. Dunst is outstanding as she delivers a stoic and weathered veteran. Never cynical but always honest. She reluctantly takes Jessie under her wing and gives her the hard truths, how to deal with the awful things she’s going to see.
Spaeney is also excellent, the antithesis of Lee, young and hopeful and so completely out of her depth. She’s the heart of the film and whilst there aren’t many funny or uplifting moments, she can usually be found at the centre of them.
There was one big problem I had with Civil War though, and I’ll try and do this without giving any story specifics away. But there comes a scene where a character starts behaving differently for absolutely no reason, and then it’s as quickly halfway through that scene goes back to normal. Then shortly after that, said character makes a choice that is extremely out of character. It’s clearly all done for drama and to get the story to where it needs to be, but it stands out like a sore thumb because everything else is so strong and it feels like something was missing to make this character behave that way.
Garland seems to have pulled off an impossible feat here, portraying a politically charged war thriller without letting the politics influence it. I think this could appeal to all types of viewers, no matter how far you lean on the political spectrum. It just presents a frightening possibility of how such a conflict could look, and has some excellent performances driving it. Is this what they mean by Make America Great Again?