[This story contains spoilers for Civil War.]
“The footage you are about to see may be disturbing.” This content warning, which has been broadcast on the news all too often in modern history, was at the forefront of my mind while watching Alex Garland’s latest film. It kept looping. civil war.
As I read the credits, I thought about what that warning actually implied. Sure, this is a useful way to prepare the viewer for what they’re about to see, but it also encourages them to look away, ignore it, or pretend it never happened. . that Method. It is permission to avoid truth and discomfort.
Therefore it is not surprising civil war With no warning, no invitation to look away, no tribe to hold on to and tell us what’s right and what’s wrong, it makes us and our central characters feel uncomfortable. This movie is bound to cause controversy. civil war This is an unpleasant and disturbing movie, not because it fully subscribes to any particular ideology, but because it doesn’t. And we don’t like clearly defined sides for or against sides, and we dislike media that doesn’t quite align with our worldview. We can walk out of the theater with confidence knowing that we are good people.
Both as a writer and director, Garland has consistently offered a unique perspective on the human condition, largely eliminating dichotomies like good and evil that American audiences subscribe to. Garland’s characters are constantly caught between evolution, death, or both.That’s certainly true Civil matter war‘s central character is Lee (Kirsten Dunst), a celebrated war photographer who has lost faith in her ability to create meaningful change. Joel (Wagner Moura) is Lee’s colleague who lives for the thrill of being at the forefront of history. Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson) is a veteran journalist who has served as Lee and Joel’s mentor and is well aware of how little the world has changed. And Jesse (Cailie Spaney), a novice war photographer, is thrown into a terrifying yet exciting world.
An exploration of death and evolution within the framework of a highly politicized era in America, and no less an election year. civil war need. That is the future that America is now staring at: death or (re)evolution.
Naturally, viewers are left wondering if now is the right time for such a film, or if Garland’s claim that the film is apolitical is just an excuse that stands for nothing. ing. Some on social media are concerned that the film gives legitimacy to right-wing influencer Andy Goh. Andy Goh is credited with a few seconds of real-world footage in the film, and there are concerns that Garland’s film may be endorsing Andy Goh’s activities. atlantic Although journalist Helen Lewis is thanked in the credits, his views have been criticized by the transgender community.
I believe these are issues that this film deals with, but perhaps not in the way some would like. To paraphrase what Lee says to Jesse in the film, the purpose of war photography is not to provide answers, but to present an unaltered image and make the viewer ask questions.This is what is happening inside the garland Civil matter wargiving viewers the opportunity to ask questions based on what he’s showing.
I would argue that this film is not actually apolitical and is not simply an exercise in propaganda. It’s naive to believe that a movie can change someone’s political ideology and suddenly sway viewers to one side or the other. Garland doesn’t attempt to do that, but he does offer an opportunity to evaluate what we believe and why we believe it. We are shown an America torn between the US military and the separatists known as the Western Front, consisting of California and Texas. We are given a third term in office (Nick Offerman) who has abandoned the American people, conducted airstrikes, and denied journalists any chance to tell the truth. Parallel to this, the police are being called in, denying resources to civilians, and committing brutal acts on the streets. Does it look like a movie about MAGA types and flag-waving fascism?
Demilitarized zones that provide aid and food are primarily run by and inhabited by black and brown people. why is that? Are they the ones who suffer the most as America plays political games and sends minorities to war for lies about better careers and more money? Did they decide not to participate in a white-led war because historically they did not see significant changes within the country of their ancestors? Or will they once again be tasked with rebuilding, providing medical care, and healing the country?The tale of civil war‘ America is told through these question-provoking images, but what is beyond question is that the film is inherently anti-fascist.
So the question is: civil war Are you liberal enough? And that’s the question I find most interesting. The designations of liberal and conservative are so mixed up that even the soldiers in the movie don’t know who they’re fighting against. This is emphasized in the scene where two shooters are pinned to the ground by a sniper hiding in the mansion. The soldiers on the ground, one with dyed hair and the other with painted blue and pink nails, immediately think of the trans flag, are asked who they are shooting at. They tell Joel they don’t know. He was shot at, so he was shooting back. Joel asks them if they know the gunman is on the other side, suggesting he may be on their side. Then one of the soldiers again replies that he doesn’t know. The gunman opened fire and is now firing back. And the audience doesn’t know either.
Combatants in military and civilian clothes are stationed on both sides, with no clear uniforms to distinguish which side they are on. Even the film’s most obvious antagonist, a racist soldier in fatigues and red sunglasses played by Jesse Plemons, is not assigned a side, and he is completely It is also quite possible that they are not allies and simply entered the conflict to kill. It is suggested that his hiding hole was filled with corpses covered in lye. These scenes and supporting characters reflect much of our contemporary political discourse. Political discourse is populated by people who aim for the heads of their allies because they do not fully agree with the most extreme and most perfect version of their ideology.
We see these extreme situations every day, from the serious to the silly. Conservatives who want gun control may be criticized by right-wing extremists who give guns to children at Christmas, or liberals may reject other liberals for not being as vocal about certain social injustices as they are. doing. Some scammers make bold claims and promise the truth for a monthly fee. Even more distressing, the horseshoe theory has led to claims that purported liberals enraged by Biden’s support for Israel over the Palestinians have said they will vote for Trump, or even not vote at all, as if such a choice is permissible. We can see it at work. It is a moral high ground that spares people the further suffering they will endure.
We form our personalities around these ideologies and get so wrapped up in them that we begin to lose sight of what we stand for and who our allies and enemies really are, until we lose sight of everything. dissolves into chaos.
I personally don’t care, but as a vocally liberal black author, I can’t even talk about this movie on social without implying that I support a movie that supports neo-Nazis. I thought that was interesting. Does Andy Go’s mandatory and legally required credit for the use of a few seconds of footage showing where America’s conflicts exist mean Garland supports him? The credits include a thank you to the controversial journalist, whose right-wing writing undoubtedly influenced Garland’s thinking while making the film. civil war Do you think this movie is in line with TERFism? Or is it that Garland’s film, all the way to the end credits, suggests that acknowledging a work we don’t agree with means that the entire endeavor is worthless and contains no truth that we can acknowledge? Are they just showing us footage that forces us to ask the question?
Garland recently said he plans to step back from directing for the time being, but his comments share an interesting parallel. civil warMr. Lee. Her Dunst portrays her as having no light in her eyes, especially when compared to her colleagues Joel and Jesse. She observes but rarely reacts, and her photojournalism abroad is shown in flashbacks, reaching out to the Americans and trying to prevent them from falling prey to such atrocities. It captures the horror of war that I wanted. However, her award-winning photographs could not prevent the war. Her career is thus defined by her inaction, her inability to directly engage in conflict, her inability to help others avoid conflict.
She thus moves around the film like a zombie, but this isn’t the only Romero-inspired element in the film, which is notable considering Garland’s big break in Hollywood. 28 days later (2002). And in a way, just as the garland has evolved over the decades; civil war In this film, the characters are trapped in a dying society, unsure of who to trust and lacking confidence that they can still effect change.
The images we see are civil war You may feel anxious. But the biggest question looming over all these images is still up in the air. Was there anything in our time that would cause enough anxiety to prevent an actual Civil War, or are we just asking the artistry of the images and the skill of the photographers to make us feel uncomfortable and ask difficult questions? Will I be able to stumble forward while avoiding them? It assures us that we are on the right path, that hope springs eternal, and that such a thing can never happen in reality, because we know who is on our side and who is our enemy. Because I know for sure that there is. and if the dispute or judgment is made outside of the spectator area, civil war To prove anything, Alex Garland’s cinematic perspective on America definitely makes him enemy Allies. Isn’t that so?