Blame it on the marketing for depicting Civil War as political war movie, where we learn how the United States of America ended up as a nation torn asunder. From the trailers alone, it’s not wrong to expect heavy social commentary from Alex Garland‘s latest film about the current political and ideological climate in America. But Civil War is deliberately more vague than that, because the film is not interested in the politics aspect of it all.
It’s never really clear why America has fallen under civil war, and the film never bothers to answer it. The film opens with the third-term president (Nick Offerman) addressing the nation, which also serves as exposition as to where things currently stand. There’s an ongoing conflict between the authoritarian federal government and secessionist states, including the unholy alliance of Texas and California known as the Western Forces. Unlike Garland’s previous films (Ex-Machina, Annihilation), he’s made Civil War to be more frighteningly rooted in reality, playing up a more violent version of America’s current social divide. And like in his other works, he ends up only scratching the surface of what could’ve been a genuinely compelling lore-heavy premise.
The main protagonists of the film are a group of war journalists, photographers, and reporters trying to sneak their way across occupied states into Washington, D.C. They plan to get the biggest story in the world – an exclusive interview with the president before the Western Forces siege the White House. Lee (Kirsten Dunst) is a decorated war photographer who’s become numb from the horrors of it all. Along with her for the ride are Joel (Wagner Moura), a veteran reporter that’s in it for the thrill; Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson), an old newspaperman doing one last job before his retirement; and Jessie (Cailee Spaeny), a rookie photographer who idolizes Lee and tags along to get more experience.
The choice of using a neutral perspective lends Garland’s main point. Lee’s determined pursuit towards a journalistic mission, while being desensitized to everything happening around her, drives the fact home that these people are mainly apolitical. They are merely observers, as indicated by their constant repeating of their press status, and are only in it to capture that one historic shot or pull quote for journalistic glory. It’s a bold choice for Garland to use this film as a critique of journalism’s role in a crisis situation, especially when you have an audience looking for answers about the what the hell is going on. But in a world where information is manipulated for propaganda, at what point does being neutral become an act of complicity? Is it still right to not intervene when faced with a moral dilemma? Or are they essentially just storm chasers and adrenaline junkies at their core?
It’s safe to say that I am a bit disappointed that this film turned out to be different than what we were led to believe. Still, Civil War will leave you quite tensed and pretty disturbed. Just seeing the White House, Lincoln Memorial, and other icons of America under siege provides a strong, horrifying imagery. More importantly, Garland has created some brilliantly shot combat sequences that I’ve seen in a while (he final act left me quite exhilarated), and is perfectly capable in building up tension. The most memorable one goes to Jesse Plemons’ uncredited role as a racist militant playing judge, jury, and executioner, nonchalantly killing anyone he deemed not “American.” We know this kind of person has existed for decades, and that’s a real scary thought.
Rating:
The Talking Screen 