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.
The post ‘Civil War’ Will Be Watched, and Studied for Years appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.