CIVIL WAR and the Art of Saying Nothing | Movie Review
Watch my other Alex Garland movie reviews here:
• Alex Garland
Alex Garland returns with another original film, and this time he is concerned with the polarized state of the world. "Civil War" is a dystopian road movie, set in a near-future America, as the country has split into different factions and descended into a civil war. In the midst of all of this, a group of reporters and photographers embark on a road trip in hopes of getting an interview with the President, encountering all kinds of people and dangers along the way. It’s a film that’s very successful in certain aspects, and it has its heart in the right place, but does its main point come across as well as it should? Does it actually have all that much to say to begin with? And what in the world is that Texas and California alliance about? Let’s discuss.
► Support my channel on PATREON:
/ impressionblend
► WHERE ELSE TO FIND ME:
LETTERBOXD - letterboxd.com/ImpressionBlend
INSTAGRAM - / impressionblend
THREADS - www.threads.net/@impressionblend
GOODREADS - / impressionblend
WEBSITE - www.impressionblend.com
► P.O. BOX:
Marianna Neal
P.O. Box 7406
Prospect Heights, IL 60070
► DISCLAIMER:
This video is not sponsored. Images and clips are under fair use, and are copyright material of their respective owners.
#civilwar #a24 #impressionblend #explained
The discourse behind this movie is so strange to me because when I was watching the movie, hearing that the president was trying to be a dictator was enough for me to understand that a majority of the country wanted him dead. I thought that was more than enough motivation to understand the context of the war. Some people remain loyal to the president and some people don’t want American to become a dictatorship. Idk what else to say
Dicks wanting more power is in every comic book movie today. It still would've been dare I say it interesting to understand why he did what he did and why so many others followed him.
“Dude wants more power” is a comic book trope. We might as well replace him with Commander Cobra if the movie fails to even hint and the ideological framework and political conditions that made his ascension possible.
I haven’t watched anything but the trailer. But, why are ‘photographers’ even a thing?😂. Is it because cellphone are no more? But newspapers are still circulating?
There was 4 different factions fighting. Apart from looneys just out killing people. It wasn’t one side against another.
@@rygarnett if u wanna get technical yea I guess but the Florida alliance for example had the same goal as the western forces if I remember correctly cuz there was a line I believe where the president was telling them to stand down or something like that
I think the point came across crystal clear and I will quote my Bosnian refugee rack mate from basic training in the 90’s: “Don’t ever think it can’t happen here. That’s what we thought and then our neighbors began killing each other.” Large countries break up into smaller countries all the time throughout history and there are global powers who would find us much easier to deal with if we were no longer united and are invested in making that happen. I hope everyone watches Welcome to Sarajevo after this movie because everything from this was taken from things that actually happen when countries break up. This movie was less an appeal to civility and more a 5 alarm wake up call.
You nailed it. It’s interesting that the main characters are reporters and photographers and that we see scenes often turned into photographs. I see the film like a photograph, a snapshot of civil conflict and atrocity. When you look at photograph, you don’t necessarily get all the context or background or explanation that everyone is crying about. Garland is addressing the division and the glib eagerness for conflict that so many seem to have by holding up a picture for us and asking “is this what you really want?”
There are multiple perspectives presented in the film: people who horde resources and kill their neighbours, people who pretend nothing is happening and try to stay out of it, people who enthusiastically jump on the chance to be part of the action or act out their dark desires, people who are just trying to stay alive and some may find a little joy amongst chaos, and people who are horrified this is happening in their homeland, but try to carry on. Lee's existential crisis stemmed from the fact that her photos of the horrors of war didn't seem to have the impact she wanted --- preventing more war from happening. I don't think it would have helped by removing the film's setting even farther from America. We keep getting WWII movies every year, but fascism is still on the rise. When it boils down to it, the reasons why we got here truly don't matter. As soon as you dive into the reasons, there could be a rationale to "justify" war. Maybe not a reasonable or moral rationale, just A rationale. Perhaps the debate about this movie is the point. If we can't get over "how we got here" and want to quash the possibility and reject any reason for a Civil War, we are inevitably heading that way. Garland is the journalist; we should be asking questions.
Well put. People's reaction to the film, wanting to know about how it started so they can point fingers are someone, is exactly the problem Civil War is trying to illustrate. It doesn't matter if you're a soldier or a photographer, if you stop caring about the person next to you, that's the problem.
Sometimes war is just. If a president declares themselves dictator and refuses to leave office while attacking citizens, going to war with him is morally just and defending him is morally unjust. An action film set around civil war in the US pretending that war doesn’t have sides and the causes don’t matter is delusional centrist propaganda
Can't agree more, well said.
Wanting to know how we got there isn't so we can point fingers at someone - it's about understanding the complexity of the situation and how to avoid it. As is, we remain with the snipers' view of the situation: someone's shooting at us, we're shooting at them. While the film is trying to warn against that very thing, it simultaneously falls into the same logic because it treats context as an irrelevant element. I do think it's an interesting discussion to have though, we seem to be coming at this from different angles. As for multiple perspectives - I wouldn't call those brief encounters actual perspectives, we know nothing about them except for their behavior in one isolated situation. The only true POVs we get are the 4 people in the car, and even they don't all feel like fully fleshed-out characters.
Well I think a big problem with a lot of those world war II movies is that they actually don't delvin to why fascism rises and that's the problem I had with this film I think they had a missed opportunity. It would have rooted the action in a larger context and made the film a lot more powerful.
CA-TX makes sense because they are the most economically powerful states and also have geographical advantages. A huge amount of our military's weapons are also manufactured in those states. They are really the only two states geographically situated to from an economic & military coalition strong enough to take on the federal government.
I’m get the economic reason for sure but that raises the question why is Washington and Oregon and Nevada and Arizona and New Mexico not also in that camp. That they are explicitly in a different group says there is an idea logical split. And that isn’t explained as far as I can tell.
@@nonionbeezness Yeah, that doesn't make sense. You would think a CA-TX alliance would want contiguous land.
@@nonionbeezness The map shown is the state of the nation after the civil war has been going on (they never say for how long), and we are witnessing the end of it in the film. Wagner Moura tells us that Washington and Oregon are the "Portland Maoists" of the New People's Army. It ranges all the way to Minnesota by the end of the war. Possibly Chinese backed? Plemons's character hints that the Florida Alliance is Central American backed invasion, but we can't be sure if that is just his opinion. The president further claims that the FA was trying to take the Carolinas by force, but that could be propaganda. Both those sources of info are unreliable. The older NYT reporter states that The Western Forces are an alliance of convenience or necessity, and he thinks they will fight each other after DC falls. So, some of the states we see on the map might not willingly be in the factions shown. I highly doubt Wyoming or Utah would decide to turn Maoist.
The US and Russia also have a ton of resources and a lot of factories but they don’t work together.
But Texas and California are ideologically at odds. You can put them into the same camp but you'll need to explain how the two came together.
I felt Civil Wars story arc is quite simular to Apocalypse Now/Heart of Darkness and in that sense it's more about the inner journey of Jessie (Cailee Spaeny).
Who's s that? And I watched the movie. That's how bring it was.
I'm going to go in a different direction. While this movie has a message, it kind of follows a horror movie blueprint. (1) We have a final IT girl, (2) We have comforting and safe places turned into death traps - filling gas tank, candy cane lane, American backroads on a sunny day - even the music choices play into this (De La and a mowing down of soldiers), (3) Americana is the haunted house that we are traveling through, (4) There's awful decision-making that causes characters to get picked off, 1 by 1, (5) sound effects and design are amped and paced not for scares as much as to evoke horror, and (6) we have the characters who are willing to go into the haunted house. Classic horror movie bones.
I like your take ))
To add to that, the archetypes of the Wise Man (the NYT reporter) and the Mother (Lee) are either corrupted or neutralized, so the Final Girl archetype now finds herself in a tale of Horror rather than an adventure or fantasy.
Once i was in germany for a conference with social psychologists specialized in group conflict and political psychology. I (a Brazilian) was talking to an US citizen from that conference and was surprised of how much he believed that political instability was only something that underdeveloped countries could have. I took it almost as a political immaturity from him, and said something like "this could happen to the US too you know" and he denied completely. One year later the invasion of the capital happened and he even wrote me, saying that i was right. Just give the right conditions the right political forces opposing, the conflict of interest. It can happen anywhere.
It can happen, but it wouldn’t look like it does in other nations and would take longer. The Capitol wasn’t “invaded”; people were for the most part let in. But if you’re gonna call that an invasion, surely the “migrant crisis” is one too. Consider how polarized the nation was in the 1960s regarding foreign wars, civil rights, the President was liter assassinated, and yet no civil war. There is no way America turns to civil war simply over one President. They would just take him out. Multiple US presidents have been assassinated. Our only civil war (or two if you count the revolution) were about major grievances involving groups, where military force was involved, not centralized anger at one guy.
@@TrekBeatTK well, in other nations, conflicts are, often times, financed by international forces. Many of the countries we see on tv having political crisis were because foreign countries had economic interest in this particular country and financed some sort of invasion or internal coup. It was what happened in Chile and Brazil for example. So, yes, it would be different in the US. Im not saying the invasion of the capitol was civil war, i was talking about instability. What i was trying to argue, is that i was amazed of how much an US citizen believes that they are immune to serious political crisis, as if it was a problem of the poor countries.
Was he a random guy at the conference or was he one of the social psychologists? It's hard to believe someone that educated, especially in that subject, could be so naive.
@@azula3906he was a specialist on a big university of the USA! I understand it might be hard to believe, but there is a lot of prejudice underlying these assumptions. He was a great inteligent guy, but I believe it is very important for US citizens to believe that other countries have conflict because they are corrupt, poor, or evil. Its easier that way. As if stability was about competence, and global south countries are just incompetent somehow.
@mixgb I guess very powerful nations in any given era have a certain irrational narcissism about them. When I think about that, it makes your experience easier to believe.
this movie is more about the photographers than the war. it makes is ABUNDANTLY clear - so i don’t know why the discourse behind this movie is so focused on the geopolitics than the actual plot
"I have no idea why people would focus on the politics of a movie about a modern American civil war in a movie named Civil War" lmao. Also look up Garlands quotes about what he thinks the left and right divide really is, garland comes off as a centrist
In that case he should have used a real war and just put fictional characters in it. Then you wouldn't need to explain why the war happened because people would already have a good idea. The problem is he creates a completely fictional war and then gives no explanation for why it happened. That's annoying.
This movies reminds of Night Crawler where the journalist have an almost perverse desire to photograph and document clearly provocative images such as death and violence. The older journalist are used to seeing death, and seem indifferent to seeing somebody die right before their eyes and have no desire to intervene. They have basically become a sentient camera or like they are document wild animals. In the beginning the younger journalist is the opposite and is clearly unprepared and greatly affected by such grisly scenes but towards the end we see this attribute in the younger journalist as well.
If your perspective was that the older journalists were unaffected by seeing all of that death, you might want to consider watching the movie again. And pay attention this time to Lee's eyes when she sees what she sees. It's all in the eyes.
So why not have the journalists somewhere like Ukraine or Gaza so you don’t have to explain anything?
Exactly and a whole movie about that is blah, play a game, same thing. Tired of violence, especially when it’s treated as a good time to get a picture.
I've lived 'context and background' for 73 years. Most people I know are either heterodox right or left, left but not Democrat, Right but not Republican, Independent or Libertarian, or Politically Homeless and afraid to talk about their feelings for fear of being canceled. I've never seen this country as fucked up as it is now. Basically I wouldn't trust either side for these reasons. But I don't want a Civil War.
Many argue that you experienced peak US as all the factors were suitable for the US to become what it did. Those conditions are not there anymore or have changed dramatically.
As far as anti war films go, Come and See and Stalingrad are two of the best. The concept of Civil War seems interesting, as it’s not something I’ve seen done before. So I’ll probably check it out, even if it isn’t that good.
Apparently, "Come and See" was a big inspiration for Garland here, he talks about it a bunch.
@@ImpressionBlendCome and See executes the true horrors of war on a postgraduate/doctorate level. Civil War executes it on a special needs first grader level. In other words, the inspiration fell flat and was run over by a steam roller 100 times to further flatten it
You’d be surprised at how many people today think that a reset is needed (on either side of the Overton window)… they fantasize that it will just be a weekend at the beach and somehow we all just get back on with our lives. Whether it’s Seattle Portland for one side of the spectrum or the capital/ Charlottesville on the other… more people then the average person might think are very much thinking some akin to civil war is not only possible but probably should happen. This film is hoping to be a wake up cal to those people, and people that may unfortunately be enabling something that could become real.
I know there are some crazies out there who think we "need" a civil war, but my genuine hope is that it's a minority of people who slept through their history classes at school and don't understand the fallout and human cost of this.
@@ImpressionBlend there are a lot of them… but orders of magnitude more useful idiots whom are adjacent to them.
@@ImpressionBlenddelusional. It’s so much closer than you think. You aren’t in The shoes of generations of pissed off and disenfranchised young men. People have no idea what’s coming. The shit storm we’ve created for ourselves.
@@steveg2277 it just feels that way - there's a lot of manufactured grievance being incited by grifters who make money and clout from it. most people are quite content with food in their bellies and a roof over their heads. some things do need to change, but violence will not achieve anything good.
@@tomas-qr2el Equally as delusional. “It just feels that way” lol some people. Just because I recognize the reality doesn’t mean I want it to come to fruition. Like you, I’d rather it not happen at all, but let’s not be naive and act like this isn’t a very real threat that we’re facing. All power is won through violence. (Overt or implied) How are people so unaware of this stuff? As long as there are men, there will be wars.
I think showing the story through the neutral journalists perspective was exactly what made this movie good and special. It was interesting to see it through the perspective of three generations of journalists and their development during their journey.
Call me naive but i really dont think you can have too many anti-war films, or depict how ease it is for modern day civility to disappear. I was a bit disappointed that there was no context for this film, but once I got past thst, it didn't bother, since in most circumstances when this sort of thing happens the average person is just stuck in the middle trying to keep them self and those they care about safe.
I think the lack of context was entirely the point, for the reasons you said. Like, I didn't need the context for why the two (or three, or four) sides were fighting, because the context wasn't the point of the film. You weren't meant to obsess over why they were fighting, because the "why" of it all doesn't really matter to the average person. It's like the two men trying to take out the shooter in the house said, right? They weren't getting orders from anyone. They were just trying to kill that guy before he killed them. They were just trying not to die.
Well, we know that the president is in third term and he supress FBI ... this two things alone can explain why there is a civil war
"or depict how ease it is for modern day civility to disappear." Where is this depicted?
One of the few recent times a non-matinee movie audience was 95% quiet. I miss that.
I loved it, while not perfect I was thoroughly entertained. When there is a dictator in the white house it makes sense that a bunch of culture war nonsense would be set aside to deal with a real threat. There is even a line in the movie about how when the president falls the factions will likely turn on each other.
I loved it as well👍
Its sad that some folks need a film like this spelled out for them.
Then they most likely won't like it.
Civil war was good at sending a message, but not much else. A24 has a habit of leaning so much into the artsiness or moral of a story that they forget to make a worthwhile plot that’s actually entertaining. This entire movie was a depressing road trip with quirky music and no plot progression.
I hate how everyone who defends the film thinks that those who didn't like it its because they want it "spelled out for them." Trust me WE GET IT. The problem is it is such a surface level exploration of these events/characters/themes. It tries to provide an objective and apolitical perspective on a fictionalized American civil war. That's frankly mind boggling.
Another reviewer who doesn't get that not giving all that information is actually the best way to do an anti-war movie. All of the attempts to do anti-war movies in the past fail precisely because the audience ends up choosing sides. Personally, I have always thought that the best approach would be to show a person from outside looking at a war they have no understanding of; think "The Gods Must be Crazy" where the poor fellow tries to give back his bottle in a war torn country. I've had many conversations with peacekeepers who served in places like Somalia or Yugoslavia where there seemed to be little rationale except killing.
One of my favourite anti-war films is War Horse. The portrayal of war as its own monster that takes on a life of its own, regardless of the reasons for the war or the underlying motivations of the warring parties was so effective. The portrayal of war from the horse's perspective as a horrific fight for survival heightened this. Incendies is another anti-war film that I thought was incredible. Again, the reasons and motivation for the war didn't matter (although they allude to the sectarian conflict in Lebanon and the Lebanese Civil War was itself was extremely complex). Its focus on the portrayal of war as a grotesque Shakespearean tragedy that strips people of their humanity was the key message for me. I do hope Civil War conveys something similar and I'm looking forward to seeing it.
It's an incredibly important film in my view. I've heard him say that he's tired of the distrust in journalism and that's a big reason why he made the film. I would say that a lot of people, myself included, are tired of not being informed objectively about the world. It's come to that. The journalism he portrays in this film is what it's supposed to be. What it used to be. How we're given the news feeds into how we think about what happened. Maybe more modern day journalism should take a hint from Civil War. Great Review.
Garland's mistake is that he misread the room. He doesn't understand, or refuse to do so, that there are large numbers of Americans - on either side of America's strange political spectrum - who don't care about the horrors of war if it can be visited on those they consider as "deserving it." Garland is putting up a picture to your average American at a time when the most probable response would either be, "The heck is that, bro?" (as in total misunderstanding of his message) or "hell yeah, that's what I'm talking about!."
im really exited about this film and was even more exited when I knew that you were gonna be doing a review for it (cause duh) and I was not let down. I always enjoy how you speak about movies and you thoughts about the themes and meanings! Will we get a "April wrap up"? One of my favorite videos from you as I get so many recommendations from them!?
I think the point of the movie was to make you ask all the questions that you’re asking in the video. Sounds like a successful movie.
A film is not just supposed to ask questions. It's also supposed to provide you the tools to draw your own conclusions. Garland failed in that regard.
I can’t decide if Garland isn’t being a bit disingenuous with his answer about the California-Texas Alliance. The message sounds correct at a surface listen but then he has only two states willing to put aside their political differences to overthrow a dictator. Maybe he feels more states would dilute the impact of having the cooperation of the two poster children for “opposing political views” (a general belief I’m not sure I agree with as I feel, despite the vitriol in discourse in our nation, we still have more in common than we are considering while arguing). Yet by saying only these two could put aside their issues for the good of the nation, what is he saying about the other forty-eight states? I can’t believe more wouldn’t stand for the unity of a country and so, by focusing on just the Big Two allying, it removes the credibility of his reasoning and takes me out of the story; an issue plenty of other things did in the movie.
This is a good point! I think you're right though, he wanted to two extremes coming together to illustrate this idea of coming together for a greater purpose.
While I don’t necessarily think we need a background and origin of this civil war (the finger pointing from the audience would be even more aggressive with every added detail), I do wish the lead characters weren’t so empty so we had some insight into broader themes of communication and trust. As is, we only experience the callousness of the journalists.
This film is a good conversation starter. Next time you gather around the table just ask them "What kind of American are you?"
😂
Hurrah, any impression blend is a good day. Dredd & Ex-Machina my fave Garland films x
It reminds me of Dunkirk as both movies are about feeling the vibes and experiencing the situation.
This. Dunkirk was also very ambiguous if it was pro British or Pro German...
That's a really good take. I watched Dunkirk and followed it with Darkest Hour. Dunkirk thrust you into the situation without the intricacies of the political machinations. Darkest Hour, an excellent film on its own, did focus on the political side. I certainly wouldn't choose one over the other. cc @ImpressionBlend
Both suk
HOWEVER, we already inherently UNDERSTAND the history of that point in time. We understand everything we need to about these events and characters before the film even starts. Civil War creates a fictional war and doesn't communicate the details of it at all. We come into the film with no idea how this war functions in any way. What exactly these people are fighting for/against. So we are unable to take our own subjective opinion from this objective approach.
While watching the film, I didn't give a thought to how this fictional civil war came to be because, like Alex Garland, I don't care. (Note: I'm not American and I don't live there; I'm European, but relatively well educated about the current political situation in the US). For me, only the existing situation was decisive for the experience of the film and not how it came about, since in my opinion it was only about the neutral war journalists and photographers and their hunt for taking a/the famous photo, as well as the message (rather image) that war sucks for everyone involved and should be avoided. So I think it's a good trick on Garland's part not to name or allude to the cause of the civil war. I can also completely ignore the fact that Texas and California, of all places, became allies because it's fiction that wants to illustrate where political tension can lead without pointing the finger at anyone. (I don't mind if you see the whole scenario as being set in a parallel universe, the message remains the same). Whether extremism, running for a third term or whatever led to the escalation is irrelevant. I don't feel any desire at all to find out what the possible answer is. In any case, dear people, keep your hands off war and don't even start thinking of it as an option.
See, you’re European so you don’t get it. That’s actually a good argum for ehy the journalists in the film should have been foreigners covering the story for global news. Because they DID NOT behave like Americans who would care one way or the other. I’m sure war in your country would hit differently from war in America. But Garland wants to have it both ways by “shocking the audience” and yet never having his characters really express that. He also doesn’t understand the politics or even geography at play. To get to this state would take A LOT more than “the President suddenly went rogue”. How??
- Where r u from? - Hong Kong - Oh, China Pang🤕🤕🤕
I was disappointed in the film. Nothing felt less relevant to the times we find ourselves in. It didn’t feel like an anti-war film. What it felt like was a paintball tournament that had somehow gotten out of control. Or a knock-off zombie flick without the zombies. Just poorly written stock characters road tripping from scene to scene of gratuitous, mind-numbing violence, purposefully devoided of any meaningful context. Why are these people killing each-other? What is driving them to do this? Take away that dimension and what is left is little more than a voyueristic spectacle that trivializes its subjects at best and worse, leaves the underlying causes open for every hyper-polarized bad actor to insert their own warped values into. Remember Children of Men (2006)? THAT was a dystopian flick that felt like it had something to say about political polarization, creeping fascism, war, and xenophobia. That and the numbing effect it has on the human psych. And it did it SO much better, because it didn’t shy away from being topical. It felt both relevant to its own time but also predictive of our own and it was made in 2006, not 2024.
Brilliant review as always Mariana. Loved it. This is a film that I’m definitely interested in checking out. I’ve heard great things so far.👍
Marianna, it’s like you were in my head! Wow, I literally agree with everything you said. This was a frustrating film because the elements were there, but it felt like they got cold feet and removed a lot of the context and development that was sorely needed.
Thanks Kyle! Really enjoyed your review as well!
I really like your reviews and they're amongst some big channels I listen to when I want to listen to film chat. Often interesting and lots of good ideas, however, I think the fact that the film has done so well and reached the no1 slot in the US now for several weeks shows how people do understand the subtleties in the plot (e.g. the Texas / California alliance). Even if there's some loud voices seeing what they want to see, the general, mass public seem to be really responding to the film and do understand it's not necessarily choosing sides or calling one group idiots and the other group Saints. It makes me really hopeful for cinema and of audiences that a fairly small, often quiet film has made such a big impact. P.s. I agree with you on MEN, it was far too much and too silly in moments. Thanks for your videos!
The messages were all too clear for me: 1. Buckle up because THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN SOON. 2. War is a horrible thing. Period. I'm working in both states and believe me, Texas & California are aligned in many ways as far as disenchanted Dems in Cali and Texans who are sick to death of all the identity politics. The battle lines are being drawn and that 'Western Front' depicted in the film will have many more states involved with Texas & California 😉
Honestly, this is probably one of the best worded and most thought-out reviews on the movie I have seen. You explained your reasoning towards your main point highlighted in the title and gave credit to where Garland succeeded. Overall, you had a lot more to say than 10 minutes of "this movie is trash, it is trash because it is trash and made of trash, making it trash" (or that same sentence but with the word trash being substituted for gold). You've highlighted many of the flaws I think this movie also has but have been able to put them into words I found it hard to articulate to others. Something I've thought to how disconnected this movie is overall to the idea of a US civil war is how ultimately, almost any other country could be substituted for the US, and you would have the same story. Sure, if you made the setting for this somewhere like Germany or Canada you would have to change some surface level stuff, but ultimately it would have the same generic "war is hell" story to which we have plenty of. It disconnects itself too much from American politics, the polarization of American citizens, questions on state vs federal loyalties, and so many more things tied up into the complex topic of a modern-day US civil war, to generate a meaningful connection to the American people. In short, Garland has failed in my eyes to generate a meaningful discussion or message for a central theme I can get behind, by ONLY creating an anti-war movie when he set out to create an anti US civil war movie.
I think the film is a commentary on spectacle. We make spectacle of war in other countries. We watch so much media about the war in other countries and how detached we are from all of it. It makes sense to use photojournalism and getting the perfect shot regardless of the consequences i think it is a bit silly in some aspects and is not a perfect film but i feel the message alex is making pretty clear to me.
I like your take! I can definitely see that
Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). This movie is about what that concept looks like in the context of a Civil War. This movie is a warning to both sides of a dystopian future to take a moment to reflect before things go to far. When you play a game of chicken (two cars racing toward each other) and neither side pulls up, you get a head on collision. Does not matter the merit of your side if it leads to a MAD ending. This is less perhaps of a movie with a narrative story, than a warning for a time traveler from the future with a message to both sides to work to me more civil, and avoid war, its not worth it, it is MAD..
COULD NOT AGREE MORE. This movie is so thin.
while I agree with almost all said here, I don't in the "we know war is terrible" statement, as a non-US seeing US culture from the outside, I don't think they really know war is awful, at least not as the "host country" of it, war has been an outside thing for the US, the perception focused in their military forces in other countries, and at personal level by proxy with family and friends going to war, but always as an "external" thing, one bombing in Perl Harbor, a site most didn't even know it existed before the bombing and 9/11 and their entire world view crumbled, I agree, it was a devastating moment, but at the end of the day it was just 2 buildings, nothing compared with the Blitz in WWII, nor military forces walking and shooting in the streets, no fear of drone strikes at any moment. The "dystopian future" of the movie is just a regular occurrence in many places and yet many US citizens toy with toxic and dangerous ideologies like Nazism and Communism/Socialism as it were sports teams, and taking political divisions to ridiculous extremes. Just the fact that 2 states working together seems ridiculous it on itself ridiculous to me from the outside. So yea, from the outside seems like US-citizens do not, appreciate how horrible war is, how privileged they are and how dangerously extremist both sides are now. And to me both sides seem very extremist and intolerant, both beyond absurd.
I feel like people saying "Civil war doesn't tell me why there's a civil war therefore bad" is just using it as an excuse to cover up how uncomfortable the theme of having a civil war in the US is. Rarely do you see a film that can simultaneously upset people of all different spectrums.
Anyome else think the choice of music in this film made the anti-war message seem sarcastic?
Wouldn't call it sarcastic. I think it was to drive the point home about how mundane all of the violence is to the main characters and the people who inhabit the world of the movie.
5:00 Historically plausible as Texas and California already have aligned on 18 seperate occassions...when they both voted for the same candidate for president. 18 TIMES. Let that sink in.
The music during certain scenes in this film seemed to glorify violence rather than condemn it. Poor taste for an anti-war film IMO.
You didn’t get it then, its clearly meant to juxtapose the violence on screen and make you double take when the “good guys” are having a feel good war crime moment
Love your review Marianna! You completely nailed it and it’s good to see a few reviewers saying this. All the accolades Civil War is getting makes zero sense to me. The film felt very empty and I agree fully with you that it was a missed opportunity. It’s a bit sad that Garland has to constantly explain what he was trying to do in interviews rather than his film actually providing that to the audience upon viewing.
Thank you! I think the shocking nature of it can really be overwhelming and make the film feel more impactful than it actually is. But then you sit with it and you realize it actually didn't have anything deeper to it, which is sad.
Hi, Marianna this is a bit random but hopefully you can make a video of your Top 10 movies of all time.
My take on the movie was that whatever out political differences are, the realities of war make them seem petty by comparison. Hence the focus on the horror and not the politics.
If California and Texas have anything in common, it’s the importance of states’ rights.
Even though your background is blurred, I would recognize the Expanse series of books anywhere.
This movie was interesting because it was vague about what led up to the Cilvil War. It focused more on the humanity and how journalists would handle this intense situation in a 24 hour news cycle world.
Good analysis. Thanks.
It might have altered the entire dynamic if the two journalists, who were ultimately killed by Jesse Plemons' character, had embarked on the adventure alongside the three main characters, only to meet the same fate. However, that could have contradicted the movie's overarching theme of detachment that was consistently present throughout.
I'm going to see this tomorrow afternoon Marianna. I am looking forward to it. But the best reviews seem to be saying something similar to yours. It would be interesting if there is a longer cut. A couple weeks Alex Garland said he does doesn't want to direct movies anymore. I wonder... He also said that he was influenced by Come and See. High bar indeed. Later: Saw it. I largely agree with Marianna. I enjoyed it. But like you I felt it was harmed by a lack of context. There were many cues that read various aspects of the current political landscape. Also I think we are told that the president is fascistic, but the why is very important here. And not discussed. Nevertheless an interesting film. But flawed.
I said the same thing in my Letterboxd. I really liked this movie and it looks amazing. But not have a clear view on the war or the director’s message makes the viewer disconnected from the film. They could have made this into the deep future or place the war in another country
I feel like keeping it neutral allows the viewers to discuss and imagine what led to the cross sectional moment he wanted to capture. Lacking a statement forces the viewer to wonder what led to that situation and forces them to consider the infinite scenarios.
Immediate gratification requires zero thought and no work.
How do the sides identify each other ?
Also my rewrite could be made the president just Ron Swanson. Only enjoying his libertarian lifestyle of his during wartime. Even after a corporate war ravaged the country a year or two before. But this war is much more devastating as its foreign invasion as well as some civil war due to militias on the rise. And the states who had major grudge on the republic for decades since the collapse, creating their own factional military. And not sending their tax money to the capital. Even the foreign invasion was caused by a grudge of nations this country invaded in the 1990s and of course by extension, parts of South America in 2003 to 2010. And this foreign invasion was sparked by the South American federation. A more falangism approach of governance due to the world’s war that occurred before. A war that caused more wars. For this country’s case, the corporate war weakened the country. The main country’s PMC Militech was recently nationalized and needed time to develop. But then the July 4th celebration caused an emp attack and let the invaders come in, also loans weren’t paid to the corporation that bailed the country years before.
Loved the review. One thing that bothered me was that acceptance of the press for whoever they choose to register. There's no neutrality. Of course they would always be questioned, what side are you at? But I think that wasn't show before to emphasize the real moment of the truth that is the encounter with the ruthless soldier. That, I can believe.
Holy hell, you completely missed the point. And you’re a movie reviewing channel. Half of your complaints are literally the very thing the movie is warning about. Also the Texas California alliance is done to help make it non partisan. The movie is non based in our reality, it’s dystopian and loosely based on current US with obviously fictionalized aspects. It’s not a movie about why a civil war happened, it’s about what would happen. The urge for people to see their own political side in the movie is so disconnected from the entire point of the movie. It’s also about journalistic integrity and the disconnect of human life from the masses. Peoples desensitization towards violence and death until it’s on your front door and how important true unbiased journalism is in that sort of setting.
Liked and Subscribed. I came home from the movie asking the same questions you eventually get to at 9:20 or so. The title of your video caught me first, because I was sort of thinking the same thing. Why do this movie now, why set it in America, why carefully sidestep the divisions in American politics (deftly, because California-Texas aligns to nothing really going on), if you're just doing a war journalist road movie that could be set several elsewheres? So if we had seen this movie together we would have both come out saying, "Yes, but -- right? I mean, right? Yes! Right?" I guess I found the youtube reviewer who seems to align with how I read movies. Thanks. Keep on.
It's hard to craft a good war movie without political context, esp. if, as von Clausewitz said, "War is the continuation of politics by other means." Garland could've written an alternate universe scenario with causal factors quite different from our timeline, resulting in the same tragedies shown, with even more resonance re whether objectivity of the press is moral or even possible in that situation. Years ago I wrote a screenplay, "The First Casualty," about an American reporter covering the Spanish Civil War in 1936 (as ideological a conflict as it gets) and learned that threading the needle of neutrality runs the risk of looking disingenuous.
I feel like if there was mini series before the civil war I feel like folks would appreciate it.
My friend actually said the same thing, she said she wishes this was a mini-series instead of a movie
It doesn't matter how it starts or why it would be horrible. Handmaid's Tale was about the results of a civil war where one side nukes the other takes over the whole country. Politics will divide the country if we let it. Things are already moving this direction it just depends on which side you see as Fascist it may not be the one we think. I like this concept that we could come together for the right reason.
Oh girl, thanks for that! Exactly how I felt about it
I agree with you.
No civil war will or would happen like this - at least for the next decade. Civil wars aren't this chaotic and organized and no 'breakaway' nations would retain their borders like how the nations in Civil War keep the borders they had when they were once states.
Great review! Also, not related to this movie at all, but are you looking forward to Yorgos Lanthimos’ new movie “Kinds Of Kindness”?
Thank you! Of course I'm looking forward to it!
California and Texas could easily have an alliance... California has the largest economy in the country, Texas has the second (5th and 8th in the world). California has the 3rd longest coastline with access to the Pacific/ and Asia, Texas has the 6th longest coastline with access to the Gulf/ Central and South America. California is the 7th largest oil producing state, with Texas being number 1. California has the highest population of military personnel, Texas has the 3rd. California has the largest population, Texas has the second largest population. In 2022 Texas was the state with the second highest defense spending, California was third. California has Northrop Grumman, Centene Corp, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, Texas has Lockheed, McKesson, Bell Boeing and L3Harris Tech, with roughly $40 billion and $35 billion going to defense contractors (California and Texas, respectively. California has the most tech jobs, Texas has the second most tech jobs. Both states together would have an enormous sphere of influence. Texas - California could include Hawaii, the pacific northwest, the southwestern states, the mountain states, the midwest prairie states, and the south as far east as florida depending on demographics. So aside from some disagreements in the culture wars, what exactly is it about these 2 states that would make them not want to work together? The Western Federation, if it is a federation, would mean a central government with a level of independence and autonomy over internal affairs and policy. At the very least, think trade and mutual defense agreements.
Along with those points, there has been a large migration of Californians to Texas. I can’t imagine all of those transplants having the same political beliefs of Texans previous to four years ago. Texas has been a democrat run state before, it’s not hard to imagine it becoming democrat run in the future.
Maybe it’s because I’m already so entrenched in American political discourse online, but i thought it was pretty easy to fill in the gaps of the story. Having everything spelled out would’ve ruined the film for me personally
It isn't absurd that Cali and Texas would join forces against a runaway President. People act like California is a void of conservatism. More importantly, both states have insane economic and natural resources and Texas has always been flashing the blade of secession to the US. What bothers me about the film is that it felt like a Walking Dead movie without zombies. And it didn't really say anything that the Walking Dead didn't already.
I disagree. I think if the Dictator was a Democrat like Joe Biden California and New York would openly back him. I don’t see any blue states opposing a Democrat in office. If the Dictator were a Republican like Trump, DC would revolt and California and New York would openly declare war and Texas would back the Regime. I know the Director was going for a different angle, but the reality is the country is just too polarized. But I guess that’s why it’s called fiction.
The only reason for war should be to protect life, and civil rights and liberties. When it doesn’t matter to a government, or to any organization, that people have rights and liberties, soon peoples lives will not matter to that government or organization, if it was ever even a concern in the first place.
The reasons are only relevant to the audience right now before the fecal matter hits the fan. Once it hits the fan--the original reasons no longer matter. That's the point of the movie and one that I think is missed by audiences who haven't seen war and are used to having backstory and lore. A lot of the people, on both sides, agitating for civil war and tearing down the system don't understand this. They think a war would usher in their idea of a better world. What they don't understand is they are going to end up as one of two things: a corpse or they'll survive and become a monster. As a veteran turned writer I thought Civil War was actually very rich and complex thematically and in terms of writing.
I liked the movie well enough... But in the end it kinda seemed like it's underlying message was "Gosh, Civil War. Wow. Pretty bad huh?" and, well, I knew that going in. But I will say that the direction was good and the movie has a style to it that works. Worth seeing but I am not sure it's as deep as I wanted.
I'm on the same page as you with all of this
This movie is about critical distance and the apparatus of capture. But Maybe right now, ‘War is bad’ is a big enough thing all by itself that we all should stop and think about
Passive Neutrality is taking a side.👎🏿
Excellent review 😎 Comparisons by some to Come and See and Apocalypse Now get me interested, even if Civil War might fall short of these films’ greatness.
Thank you! Looking forward to your take on this film!
This review has gotten the closest to how I feel about any movie
I’ve not seen the movie but in hearing the director/ writer describe the key “how did this situation arise” problem - they fail to address the basic framework. Maybe the film addresses it - chime in if you’ve seen it. But it feels like really bad writing - like how bad Star Wars Ep IX is awful sci fi in that it ignores some established fundamental physics or economics or cause and effect logic. With Civil War there are two big questions that everyone is likely to ask of the film: 1) how did we end up with a 3rd term president when the constitution , that defines who the president is, prohibits a 3rd term ? 2) how did whatever that event is, split the nation into the bizarre groups depicted (how are the Carolina’s not with Georgia and Tennessee and Kentucky. How is Texas not with the rest of the gulf coast ? And why is the Pacific Northwest not in the same group as California? Those question need a plausible explanation if the premise of the film is to be believed at all rather than dismissed as bad fiction.
I really enjoyed this movie. I was even saying to my friends that The Western Forces being made up of California and Texas may seem nonsensical at first, but they should think about it a little more. If the government that took over the USA was so tyrannical that it caused two politically different states to join forces against the greater evil, then yeah I could plausibly see it happening in that context. It reminded me of how the USA and Soviet Union were technically allied because they wanted to defeat nazi Germany. But as soon as Germany was defeated, the two powers focused back on each other.
Excellent point.
It was four factions (Western Alliance of Texas and California, loyalist states loyal to the federal government, the Florida Alliance, another faction, militia groups not loyal to any faction, plus lunatics just killing people, plus American suicide bombers bombing water tanks etc. everyone loses is what I took from the film.
Everyone loses when it comes to a civil war is definitely right
I could’ve rewritten this story about a nomadic ex soldier who aids some rebels and third party foreigners and journalists. Who must endure foreign invading soldiers, occupiers, republic soldiers, collaborators, bandits, militias, corpos, and some traitors. As well as seeing his ex wife who hasn’t been seen since their child’s death. And that this nomad wanted to take a journey that not only will change his perspective and inner humanity but also would change the outcome of the invading war, the question would be. Would he succeed trying to guide the defenseless civilians, patriotic militiamen, and foreign journalists? Or would he not succeed reaching that journey?
Americans being so indoctrinated in their own little word that they can watch this film and completely miss the point is my new favourite thing 😂
Frogs don’t know they are being boiled alive if you put them in before the water heats up.
Yeah, as an American, it's really disappointing to see people missing the point of this film so badly. I keep thinking of the film in the context of the civil wars America has started and perpetuated in other countries. Like, the context so rarely matters when you're just a civilian trying not to get shot to death.
A point needs a story.
Guess I missed the point living in my own little word.🤣
what was the point in ur opinion and where are you from out of curiosity?
This movie was a little disappointing. Without explaining why the war started, it was hard not to see all the violence and death as needless and meaningless. Context would have helped with this movie.
It's true, it almost feels gratuitous because you have no context.
Did you mean ‘hard not to see’ ?
@@perrin6 Yes, I corrected this. Thank you for pointing it out :)
That's literally the whole point of the movie
@@skleetbeast The movie has no point. Just death and violence for the sake of death and violence.
8:48 It sounds like you did want him to pick a side though.
We should see you more often Marianna.
The film is impressive. I am struggling to understand why reviewers are reviewing the film they wanted to get instead of the film they got. The film is about many things. However, the film is not a fictionalised narrative about how the US will find itself in a second civil conflict. The US setting is just window dressing; instead, it explores what modern civil wars look like where areas of the affected countries are running as before, but others are heavily affected. In some places, you have law and order. In other parts, people interpret the war differently and hence fight it in different ways, even committing war crimes; in other areas, you have total chaos and lawlessness. The film captures that sense of anarchy and dread perfectly. As far as the California and Texas thing, people who dismiss it are only thinking about a two-sided civil war; today, a country under civil war will have several factions jocking for power. In the movie, you have several sides; it is not inconceivable that the president was so awful that two factions join up and take him out to later have a go at each other (in fact, it is a potential scenario referenced in the film). It could also be the case that early on in the war, one state beat the other and installed a leadership that aligned with the idea of taking out the president. Surely, we don't need to be spoonfed exposition about what went before. We all have enough cultural capital to understand what civil wars were and what they are today. The film we got is incredible, so let's not review the film we didn't get.
I am completely shocked and terrified that the ""point" of this film isn't landing with American audiences. The tenor of this video and general discourse around this movie, the ultra evasive critiques and avoidance to engage.. I'm sorry.. his point is resoundingly clear, and evidenced by the exact reception you're a part of. We will not change course until it's here. We will not even fucking try. We won't acknowledge an alternative. We will nitpick reality and each other instead of fucking waking up to our situation and what it demands of us as a citizenry. Deepest American horror i've ever come across. I frankly pray for the USA.
Intensity
My name is Jeff
The young journalist and the stoner dude driving the truck ruined the movie for me. This review is accurate for me.
THANK YOU 🙏 for an intelligent breakdown as to why this film (in my opinion) doesn’t work. For anyone interested: A far better film that deals way more successfully with the idea of Left and Right being irrelevant (for the humanity caught in the middle of war) is Alfonso Cuaron’s Children Of Men. That film is genuinely apolitical, and truly humanistic. Very powerful and still relevant. It’s also an awesome, hugely influential and poetic action film to boot 👌(I know that entertainment may not have been the aim with Civil War, but I was actually disappointed in the combat scenes… they don’t come close ro Cuaron’s masterpiece, and were a step down, in my opinion [they were very traditionally staged… just fast and loud]). I struggled to wonder what the point was with Civil War; the ethics of photojournalism could’ve been covered in a 20 minute short. We didn’t need 90 minutes of aimless wandering. It’s not an entirely bad film (there are some beautiful moments, inspired artistic choices and excellent acting), but it could’ve been soooo much better. Although it’s photographically beautiful and very scary in places, the lack of story and pacing issues left me feeling underwhelmed. Check out Children of Men… you won’t be disappointed 👍
"what kind of american are you" is thematically important. because when we start dividing Americans into different categories. it drive polarization.I think it is saying that letting things get to the point they were at in the movie is absurd. I also think the discourse around this movie is weird. I thought everything came across pretty clearly, and it seemed pretty intentional that the movie wants us to project our own political ideology onto the situation, and then walk away reexamining that, or in other words "hey idiots. do better or look what happens" and while thats not a new concept, the way the movie said this was neat. the setting was viscerally familiar to americans, but the lack of the history and the photojournalist POV contrasted that familiarity with a feeling of being dropped in a foreign war zone, where there is usually only a basic understanding of the day to day politics or the complexities of what is causing the war. so it is also saying "it can happen here" not only with the narrative but with the entire way the movie was presented. and that is something society should always be reminded of
I have yet to hear a single person in the real world discuss any interest in or knowledge of this film. I have never heard anyone in the real world comment on the fear of or threat of an actual civil war or anything close to it. My world includes people from all walks, political persuasions, economic conditions etc. Many of whom have very strong opinions on political matters and candidates from both sides and they do not hesitate to share or argue when the time is right. The social media reactions to this film are incredibly overblown(understandably so because nothing like the prospect of Civil War to boost views, likes, shares, and subscriptions). I found the film to be only mildly interesting and not in the least bit thought provoking. Thats just me however and I certainly accept and respect the opinions of those who feel otherwise.
Civil War I think it’s one of the those movies that you have to use your intuition. In other words, the events before the movie, you have to think why did this happen, what did the President do that made him a tyrant; did he suppressed the constitution that made Texas and California (despite not seeing eye to eye in the real world) become an alliance, as well as Florida and the other states that are not part of the “Loyalist States”? What made it this? But I love it though, and I felt it was so short and needed a bit more scenes and actions.
How Americans and people around the world react and understand the movie say a lot the point of us see do not see that coming
Oh and Dredd is probably Garland's best work 😊
Like the rest of your videos, I completely agree with you here, too. Just felt like the movie didn't have anything interesting to say. I didn't care about the characters and didn't like the fact that it threw away any important context to why the Civil War happened. Why should I care when this movie doesn't seem interested in itself? The movie is visually beautiful tho Alex Garland is still a great director. Ex Machina and Annihilation are fantastic. Hopefully he goes back to weird abstract sci-fi films.
I honestly think if Garland did a civil war film on literally anywhere else other than America it would be so much better. The factions, the war itself, and the numerous issues with its unwillingness to say anything beyond "War bad" really detracts from the film. Honestly, if I was to make him do anything, I would have him do a film on the Russian Civil war. That was a truly polarizing Civil War where both Far Right and Far Left groups committed massive atrocities against eachother and were pulled to brim of extremism and dehumanization. Setting it in America, now of all times, and trying to be cautious about how you do the film, really limited Garlands potential
I think this is a very valid point. Having this unfold in America is very on the nose and you can’t avoid how politically charged the whole idea is. Then again, civil war as a concept is always going to be political, but it would have been good to see a different setting for sure
@@ImpressionBlend That’s the ultimate foot shooter here, doing an apolitical civil war is like doing an apolitical election year, it makes ZERO sense.
Same!!! I walked out at the end and thought "so what was the point other than War is Bad?"
just watched civil war and have no idea of who was fighting who and why no story line and no set up nor anything in way of an ending this movie was wrote in about 5min and comes across that way
To me, its simple.. 1:11 the film depicts how divided America is right now and Both Sides just want to see the other destroyed..