when the director doesn't give a f**k about your politics
🕹Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC or Mobile: 💥 con.onelink.me/kZW6/FISP001 Receive 13,000 gold and 1 month of a Premium Subscription for free for the next 30 days!
🎬 In this FilmSpeak video essay, we discuss Civil War Journalists are FAILING America. We also discuss why A24 Civil War is a masterpiece and what happens when the director doesn't give a f**k about your politics.
🔔 SUBSCRIBE: kzhead.info?sub_con...
Why is Civil War so controversial? A24's Civil War was always gonna be a contentious film. I mean, it’s quite literally a movie about America’s political divisions exploding into full-blown armed conflict, releasing at a time when America is perhaps more divided than it’s been since the actual Civil War…during an election year, no less. And not just any election, the first presidential election since the one that ended in an attempted coup. But putting ALL of that aside, it just felt like people were rooting for this movie to fail. If, like me, you were unfortunate enough to stumble into the discourse surrounding Civil War movie in the months leading up to its release, you know exactly what I mean. Based on little more than a trailer, a few promotional images, and some choice quotes from writer-director Alex Garland, large swaths of the internet quickly decided this movie was going to be an embarrassing joke.
Hell, I was even guilty of this to an extent, too. While I think Alex Garland is a talented writer, I’ve always been a bit mixed on his work as a director. Ex Machina is undoubtedly a masterpiece, but 2022’s Men left a really bad taste in my mouth. And while I realize I’m very much in the minority on this, Annihilation’s relentlessly bleak tone has just never worked for me. So I was more than willing to buy into the narrative that was forming around this film.
But the thing is, contrary to what the online consensus had decided Alex Garland was trying and failing to do with this film, Civil War isn’t actually trying to depict the most realistic way a second Civil War might play out. Rather, it’s a thought-provoking meditation on the broader mechanics of division - on the way the often arbitrary distinctions we make between ourselves and others allow us to abstract their humanity to such an extreme degree that violence becomes not only inevitable, but easy. And far from sitting on the fence, Garland lays this culture of dehumanization at the feet of the news media, whose dogged pursuit of objectivity, while admirable, is framed as being instrumental in facilitating this process of abstraction.
Rather than the toothless mess of banal political equivocation that people suggested it would be based on little more than a trailer and some promotional material, Civil War is as incisive and biting as any political thriller released this century. This is why Civil War is not just the best Alex Garland movie, but Civil War is one of the best A24 movies.
Griffin (@griffschiller) gives you his Civil War movie review and explains why Civil War is perfect, why Civil War is a Misunderstood Masterpiece, why Civil War is the most important film of the year, the hidden brilliance of Civil War A24 in this A24 Civil War video essay. Enjoy this Civil War Explained and Civil War ending explained video!
#civilwar #a24 #videoessay #analysis #endingexplained #explained #explainervideo #movies #podcast #alexgarland #civilwarmovie
Edited by @CadesCinema
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @filmspeak
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
🎞 About Civil War 🎞
In a dystopian future America, a team of military-embedded journalists races against time to reach Washington, D.C., before rebel factions descend upon the White House. Civil War is written and directed by Alex Garland and stars Kirsten Dunst, Wagner Moura, Cailee Spaeny, Stephen McKinley Henderson, Sonoya Mizuno, Nick Offerman, and Jesse Plemons.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▶️ Other Amazing Videos ◀️
🔀 Click here for more masterpiece cinema! • Masterpiece Cinema
📺 Click here for a surprise video essay! • Why Killers of the Flo...
▶️ About FilmSpeak ◀️
Welcome to FilmSpeak hosted by Griffin Schiller, where the conversation continues after the credits. If you'd like to become a part of that conversation, consider subscribing for more thoughtful and exclusive insight, analysis, and interviews behind YOUR favorite movies!
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Follow FilmSpeak on Social Media
► Visit FilmSpeak's Homepage: filmspeak.net/
► Twitter: / _filmspeak
► Instagram: / griffschiller
► Facebook: / filmspeakofficial
► TikTok: / filmspeak
What did YOU think of Civil War? Comment below!💥 Thanks again to Conflict of Nations. 🕹Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC or Mobile: 💥 con.onelink.me/kZW6/FISP001 Receive 13,000 gold and 1 month of a Premium Subscription for free for the next 30 days!
1) I bought a ticket and saw the movie, I went in with no expectations, except to hear what the movie has to say. 2) The movie didn’t say anything. Even with the implication that the guy with the red sunglasses was some kind of a racist but according to the movie he wasn’t a racist, he was a regionalist. Sure he killed two people from Hong Kong but not because they were Asian because they weren’t American and he killed the wrong kind of American not according to race but according to region. 3) The president in this movie was a tyrant, in the early part of the movie, they mention in passing, “I bet the President is sorry that he dissolved the FBI.” I’m sorry but tyrants would strengthen agencies like the FBI, not dissolve it. Yes, the President got a third term but the movie never says why?? Is it because the war has been going on for so long the President suspended elections until the war is over?? That would be perfectly constitutional and not the act of a tyrant but the problem is, the movie never says either way. 4) You made up your own conspiracy theory on why this movie sucks. It sucks not because of an organized conspiracy. It sucks because it sucks. The Passion of the Christ one of the highest grossing rated R movies of all time, why? Is it because it danced around the issue of what Jesus suffered, was it because it censored itself like all of rhetorical Jesus movies that came before and after it?? No, it actually showed the brutality of what Jesus went through, it made clear in no uncertain terms of the suffering of Jesus. I saw it in the movie theaters, I cried watching that movie and so did everyone else in the theater watching that movie. You want to talk about a hated movie before it released, Passion of the Christ was sued by Jewish groups, calling the movie anti-Semitic before it was even released, some churches denouncing the movie because of the so called unnecessary violence. Yet, because it was a wonderful movie it was a huge hit and most people who saw it in the theaters cried because it was that powerful. In short don’t blame the customers if the product sucks, just blame the product
He wasn't going to be in the movie. The original actor who was hired quit before shooting the movie. Kristen Dunts who is his wife, she suggested him to the director.
I saw it with the only intention of seeing what Hollywood's take on a modern day Civil War would look like. I was not disappointed, but I wouldn't go to the cinema for another watch. I think those who were disappointed were, because they were looking for details to spell it out for them. I believe it looked pretty close to what we'll see, when the proverbial shit hits the fan. I only pray we can avoid the whole scenario, because it's not going to be pretty. Best scene in my mind was Jesse Plemons's scene. In a real world scenario I think that's how it'll go.
People wanted so badly for this movie to be only about politics. They wanted so badly for this movie to suck. I absolutely love this movie for not doing that. Having this movie about journalism set in what is essentially an americans backyard really makes this film hit. It takes the horrors of these conflicts, and instead of having it halfway across the world, its placed right in front of us.
Do you genuinely think that war is not inherently political? Apoliticism doesn't exist in art, and especially not a film about a new American civil war, and the fact you think it does is SHOCKING
Not at all what dude was saying. How did you miss the point of the movie the video and the comment in one fell swoop
It gave enough F's about politics to misrepresent absolutely everyone.
Couldn’t agree more
Its more subtley political. I think it mainly highlights that it doesn't matter what reasons there are, people are killing each other. It could be stupid reasons it could be rightious reasons but it does not change that fact.
Jesse Plemons disgusted me here as he did in Breaking Bad. The actor must be known for playing characters like that.
He's such an excellent character actor. Always a highlight when he shows up.
He plays nice characters too like in The Power of the Dog and in Fargo
He was also pretty good in Judas and the Black Messiah
@@studio96films65 Another cruel character, too.
Meth Damon is goated
I understand that people will find the scenario of liberal California, and conservative Texas teaming up sounds silly. But did we all forget the fact that the communists and the nationalists in the Chinese civil war, teamed up. To defeat the Japanese, in the Sino-Japanese war? Silly? Yes! Impossible? No!
Also rural california is pretty red, only LA, sacramento, san diego, the bay area and orange county are democrat-leaning and they happen to have more inhabitants than the rest of the state combined
@@riccardomallardo7779Texas is also slowly getting Blue, albeit rural texas is still super red
True, but the Nationalists and Communists still clashed with each other from time to time. And as soon as the Japanese were defeated, they went right back to smoking each other full-time. Maybe something similar happened after the ending of the movie.
@@Redneck2393 in the film, one of the characters suggested that the Western Front will begin infighting the moment they kill the President, so I think you're thinking along the right lines here.
They are part of the same establishment. A false dichotomy. People forget that conservatives didn't want Trump in office in 2016. He kinda imposed himself on them through his popluarity.
One scene that I think pushes the "journalistic disconnect" the best is the first firefight of the trip, neither side is explicitly labeled, and either side could be who the characters are following
Oh yeah, 100%
I think American journalists being able to go into combat scenarios with any side that is fighting in an American civil war is unrealistic. There weren't Union journalists in the Confederate lines or even in the areas controlled by the Confederacy because they would have been arrested and probably executed as spies.
If you're talking about the guys in Hawaiian shirts, they're probably meant to be stereotypical conservative "Boogaloo Boys" since the shirts were one of their trademarks. Just a guess.
No , Hawaiian shirt guys pro gun youtubers. All famous ones. As well as boogallo folks.
Imagine being a combat leader in a war and losing your humanity, I did it and it destroyed me. Fortunately I had leaders who saw what was happening and pulled me off the line and I was able to get help, but for a very long time I looked at the Iraqi people as vermin. I grew up a straight edge kid who was part of the punk movement calling for unity among all people and fighting prejudice, and here I was thinking a people were less than human because of war. Losing your humanity is a terribly crippling issue that can make you doubt your own desire to live.
That scene with Jesse was powerful his acting just wow
Clicked because cool title, then saw FUCKING WAGNER MOURA AS ONE OF THE MAIN CHARACTERS, gotta watch this
He's so good!
Anyone who remembers 2009s Modern Warfare 2 campaign and the "of their own accord" mission went to this movie to watch Washington DC be a warzone
Haha yeah...that was definitely on my mind in the 3rd act 😅
Thanks for this. As a Northern Irish person i kept having flashbacks to The Troubles from watching this. This captured the feeling of being caught up in incidents of paramilitary violence in my hometown, better than any other film I've seen. The moment when Kirsten Dunst cowered in the battlefield, it felt like I was looking at my mum's face the times back when I was a child and we got caught up in some outbreak of violence out on the street. People here have been commenting for a few years now that the rhetoric coming from around the world, especially america feels so eerily similar to the emotions and attitudes that led to our own decades-long civil conflict here. The term "the whole world is turning into Northern Ireland" has popped up a number of times for me in conversation. That's made it particularly frustrating to hear the backlash coming from people in your country, because it's an intentionally crafted warning to not follow our example and to not have to see your own families and neighbours endure the unique evil of modern industrial conflict in your own backyard the way we've seen our own go through this. Thankyou for making this and contributing positively to the discourse about this film. I hope analyses like this will shift the perspectives on what Alex Garland was doing here.
Garland's father worked at newspapers during the Troubles, so I'm sure that fed a lot of what he put on screen. And I hope to god the rest of us learn from what you went through.
@@CortexNewsService this is a really good point! I knew his dad was a newspaper man, but it never occurred to me that he would have been covering those events. Wow. Much appreciated. Thanks for sharing
imo way too many people who try to defend this film lionize it for what it isn't. It's not an epic antiwar film that shows the dangers of political polarization from the "objective" lense of journalism, its a roadtrip movie where the conflict is merely a backdrop. I'm sorry but simply showing extreme violence and mass graves in the absence of any social context doesn't make some sweeping social critique about why civil conflict is bad. Social context doesn't even need to be explicitly taking a side but simply showcasing the human toll of the war on everyday life. The main cast barely interact with refugees and their stories, which makes the choice of centring the film on a team of journalists so underutilised. All of the movie's battle scenes are shitty or weird asf sans the Battle of DC, hardly a "realistic" portrayal of conventional warfare. Ethnoracial violence is given a passing mention, etc. The thing that pisses me off the most is how empty and self-aggrandising the main driver of the plot is; the team is doing all this dangerous shit because they want to get "le beeg scope^tm" of interviewing the moribund dictator president first before anyone else. We were promised an American rival to "Come and See" but instead we got pretentious journalistic self-masturbation.
@@AweSean-wv3xo Can you show us on the doll where the journalist touched you?
@@hhhieronymusbotch gigabruhh
I feel bad for Alex Garland's movie being wrongly and badly portrayed by the marketing's tonally-distant trailers and AI-generated posters.
I watched this in theatres twice. Im an American college student and I loved it!
Same here!
War never changes
John fallout? Is that you?
I went into this film completely without any context other than my friend said "it's about a hypothetical modern civil war". The film ended up being completely different from my expectations, in the best way possible. I really love that we don't get context or in depth analysis of the political situation, because it means every ounce of the film can contribute to its own message, and also focuses the audience's attention exactly where the filmmakers intended, on the human element (or rather, intentional lack thereof in many cases). One thing that especially stood out to me was the sound and music design. The sheer punch of the gunshots (that sounded like real gunshots and not just standard movie effects) and explosions really sold the impact of the war to me. Also the music was phenomenal, especially the dissonance in scenes such as the first combat scene where the soldiers with the journalists took prisoners and gunned them down with a machine gun, all while the sound effects were suppressed and happy and carefree music played in the background. Or the complete lack of music in the Jesse Plemons scene, which added to the suspense and unpredictability of the scene by completely grounding the audience in the moment, and avoiding giving any tonal cues at all. Absolutely masterful film, and a wonderful essay about it that really helped me condense some of my own thoughts as well.
You have nailed the context of this film. The overarching message is brilliantly portrayed. I was also dismayed that the rebel forces not only took justice into their own hands but actually placed a bounty on the president's head. Vigilantism is not justice. Are the Western Forces replacing one form of tyranny with another? The Jesse Plemons character illustrates what many who dont take a side might do. For them it is an opportunity to express their own extremism under the cover of the greater conflict. In the aftermath of whichever side prevails it is those on the extreme that will continue the conflict on their more personal terms.
Spectacular analysis, using journalism was a great way to tell this story. It gets better on rewatch too
THANK YOU! You grasped & understood the film on the same level as myself, it's just sorrowful that out of the dozens of takes from those that I follow, merely one saw what I did in the end. This film has haunted me since seeing it two weeks ago, I shudder to imagine what such an event on our soil would & could look like. Breaks my heart to know that on some facets, we're closer than we think.
You are the first critic who understood the film. I don't agree with all point's. But nobody else understood the political points in the movie.
Thank you for this. I watched the movie recently and thought it was excellent yet deeply uncomfortable with a clear and unsubtle message, and when I went online afterwards to see what others were thinking, all I found were people completely missing every single point, intentionally or not. It felt like I was taking crazy pills.
I feel like this wasn’t trying to take sides and was aiming to show the brutality of what could be, I think it was genius to not make sides distinguishable from the other as there is no reason for it. It’s war, and we’re just the bystanders, and all we see is death for an unknown reason.
i just kinda feel robbed bc the trailers kinda lied abt what we were gonna be given in the film. i wasn’t expecting a road trip. i was expecting a modern day war film
The marketing was definitely misleading, but for me the actual film was far better than what the trailers promised.
Exactly! Marketing Trickery!
@@FilmSpeak "Yeah the trailer was misleading and this isn't going to be what it said it is or what you want, but it's good!" meh take.
@@Vespyr_ How's that a meh take? A trailer to a film and the actual film are two completely different things, which are also almost always made by completely different people. Yes the marketing was bad, how does that objectively bear on the quality of the *actual movie*? What if I didn't watch any trailers at all, how's the quality affected then?
@@sopsiarskye1577not watching trailers means you have no expectations, so if you like or dislike a movie is your problem in the end. If you did and the movie is not what the trailer says, that teeters on false advertisement. After all. Buying tickets without advertisement (spoiler free reviews, trailers, posters) is still a choice
I believe the message of this movie is a civil war might sound grand to the extremist out there, but there will be nothing left, no schools, no jobs, no economy, no wealth, no sports, no homes, our way of life will be gone, and that the lines will become so blurred that we start to lose what's right and what's wrong. Losing our humanity, losing everything. When the media refuses to call out what's wrong and what's right, that humanity, that sympathy and empathy, gets lost.
For real I am asian so I don't care about American politics. However this movie not just not choose any side but not have any of story. I mean I feel like log-in into some war game but get forced to not into the main story until that game ending. All it gave me are just mini games or mini event.
Thank you. People are praising this movie, and it was really horribly written. So the war is secondary, and it's mainly about the journalist, but their characters are so poorly written that you don't give 2 💩s about them.
Tbh I want a movie explaining how it started, who is this president? What did he do? Who are the WF? Why did Texas and California formed an alliance? I need more context and more world building, I understand that the director wanted to keep things neutral and to keep away from picking a side and wanted the viewer to focus on the journalist characters, but to me I feel like it would’ve been much much better to have discussed these things and have the viewers talk and discuss the movie with friends etc, make people interact with the movie, have people talk about it, but maybe since politics nowadays is such a sensitive topic maybe he wanted to keep away from having viewers have heated debates and discussions I’m a fan of world building so idk, I liked the movie but I need more context and understand this world rather than just jump in and not knowing which sides the characters are like for example, the first firefight that we see the civilians fighting the military, who is who? Which side they’re fighting for? Are the civilians their own militia or are they siding with the government of WF? Hopefully we get more movies that expand on this world cuz there’s more to explore here
Western Front???
To quote Harrison Ford: “It’s not that kind of movie, kid”
People forget this movies focused primarily on the journalism aspect of the film. Everyone’s so ready to focus on the bullshit politics associated with it. Rather than the actually premise of the film. Lazy
Absolutely amazing movie but I don't think it's cuz of Alex Garland not giving a fuck about the politics. Moreso that he cares about the human perspective in all this mayhem. It's apolitical filmmaking.
I definitely get into that here. It's a deeply political movie, that's just not interested in PARTISAN politics for the reasons you stated.
@@FilmSpeak Yeah true. I kinda glanced over that.
The movie's about a president successfully using force to stay in power and a bunch o' rednecks taking up arms against the gubmint. What modern-day political issues could the director POSSIBLY be trying to comment on? I get this may not be the film's main focus, but the near-ubiquitous read on the internet that the film "doesn't take sides," is "apolitical," and so on seems weird to me -- it's a clear allegory for VERY specific issues that are going on in our present-day world. The fact that it's a bit fuzzy on the details doesn't obscure that fact -- the sitting president having stayed in office past the end of his term didn't *have* to be part of the backstory they DID give us, after all. They didn't have to tell us anything beyond, "The prez is in hiding and the Western forces want to assassinate him." I feel like this is a result of mainstream critics trying WAY too hard to take the wind out the sails of the Nerdrotic set who are inevitably going to complain that the film is "political." This is a fairly rare case of a film that really IS political in the precise way those dudes like to complain about -- the fact that the villains don't wear MAGA hats doesn't make it NOT political.
No it's just a vibes movie with little to say outside of War=Bad and Civil wars=VERY BAD. Pointless.
I understand that a liberal California and a conservative Texas teaming up sounds silly. But did people forget that the communists and the nationalists in China teamed up to defeat the Japanese in the Sino-Japanese war? So silly? yes. Impossible? No.
I love that you used clips from The Greatest Beer Run Ever in this. My mind was constantly going back to that movie while I was in the theatre. I’m sure it was mostly because of the hotel scenes, but they share a lot of theming.
Excellent analysis, I’ve been thinking on this film for almost a week now after seeing it in theaters last week. Your work is appreciated by this movie fan!
Ah man thank you so much. That means a lot!
I'm so happy to have found this review. The on line discussion has been exhausting because I felt like everyone was intentionally being obtuse. Like they were throwing fits it wasn't the movie they imagined instead of meeting it on its own terms. I'm gonna link my husband to this video so he can see we aren't the only people in the world who saw what we did.
Excellent Movie Review ! Since viewing the movie a week ago, ive watched and listened to many, and your take on it is closer to mine, than ANY of the others I've witnessed. Thanks again, I appreciate it 👍👍
Brilliant analysis. I concur entirely and am bemused at how so many of us are missing the point.
Love it!
He made a smart Move by staying neutral.. now it’s timeless because it’s not biased propaganda
Great review man i excited for this movie and I can’t wait to see it with my brother
I hope you guys enjoy it!
@@FilmSpeak thanks
Im probably going to go see it on Thursday.
It's a great film! I hope you enjoy it!
Shit.. You got me I was super ready to go the "ode to war reporting" direction. I still do not agree that Lee was the icon of objectivity. She is clearly emotionally affected throughout the entire film even if she preaches otherwise. Her entire pushing back on Jesse coming is emotional. Her entire mentoring of Jesse is emotional. She is fighting the affect on her emotion to be objective But I will honestly say that I missed the photos taken of Lee's death. In the moment, I interpreted it merely as drama, and ironically waited for Jesse to turn around while walking away to take the photos. I knew that was the moment of the callback to the earlier question of photographing Lee's death. Lee deletes the photos of Sammy, signifying her answer to the question for us Prior to this video, I would have said that the message was a warning to this age of voters who do not revere journalism like previous generations. I still think Alex Garland reveres war journalists as heroes (he has said as much). But as I was watching the final sequence, and it was clear that Jesse or Lee was going to die, to me it was an extremely strong message of how much we take journalism for granted I honestly felt fine about the shooting of the president. I saw it as wish fulfillment. Pretty much the same as killing Osama Bin Laden But one thing that I think everyone can agree on: Jesse Plemons is a juggernaut
"I saw shooting the president as wish fulfillment" You are the exact kind of person who is going to ensure that this warning goes unheeded, the terrifying reality is that you probably consider yourself fairly neutral, too
The bear scene? Really? That was child's play compared to the snake intestines scene. Like not even close
For a hot moment, I thought Civil War was a sequel to Leave The World Behind. Also, on a side note watch LTWB, it’s so strange but so captivating.
The journalist aspect of it was actually my biggest issue. Having Jesse use a film camera to document a fast moving war zone in 2024 just makes zero sense. I understand that’s what she had, and inherited, but how many rolls of film did she go through in the movie? Film is freaking expensive and in a divided war time US, how easily accessible is it? Even using an older DSLR is a better option in this scenario than a film camera. And I’m no war photographer, but on the final assault, I have a hard time imagining the soldiers would be hand holding the photographers all the way until they reach the president. That’d be like Seal Team Six guiding photographers and journalists along as they raid Osama Bin Laden.
Yea that’s maybe my only gripe with the film that they seemed somewhat cool tempered with a photographer following them around . Should’ve been less easy going and pushed them out the way every second and you even see it in found footage films with regular people not wanting to be filmed so they get aggressive with the camera man .
Went to watch this movie with my younger brother and a friend. It ended up hitting deep, especially as someone who wears the uniform. It confronts some pretty dark realities from the observatory but non participant lens of the press. This movie was excellently done.
“Attempted coup” Hmm. Ok
loved the movie! Especially that sniper showdown in the mini chrismas town.
Such a great sequence!
I like the idea there's actually subfactions such as the Boogaloo bois lookin dudes a chapter of a bigger state cause they gave strong Florida Alliance vibes
I think Garland mistitled the movie. Calling it “Civil War” polarized preconceptions even before people had a chance to see the picture. He should have called it something like “PRESS” or something journalism related. Then the twist would have been the surprise that the event being covered was a civil war in the US.
Yeah but then foreign audiences wouldn't want to see it. Let everyone know it's about war in America and all of a sudden it becomes interesting, ironically due to the way the media portrayed our country from 2016-2020. Total cash grab by the marketing team. It worked.
It's also a theme about how our psychology in coping with the world around us works in cycles. You go in idealistic, get grinded down to a "realistic" perspective (many as a form of coping). But as you get older and experience even MORE you realize that being passive is against your nature, and you return to a spot between idealism and realism. I took photojournalism (back when we shot film or digital) and the instructor told a story about them covering a homeless family for an article she was going to write up. She indeed taught us how to be impartial etc. and that it was important. HOWEVER, she also noted that it is absolutely OKAY to get involved - you just have to pull yourself out of the story and either have someone else finish it or cancel it altogether. In the article about the homeless family it was a single mother with 3 kids and she was homeless. It got to the point where she couldn't arrange transportation for one of her children and it was nearing sundown. This was just the lynchpin btw, the overall story is sad and frustrating. So at this point she had enough, and simply offered the woman "Let's head back to my car and I will buy you guys dinner". From a photojournalistic perspective, that's actually a huge decision (at least when we had some standards before or you were taught that way). You have to understand that from her perspective, she could not share the PAIN and SUFFERING that homeless in GENERAL brings to people if she were to here and there, make things easy for this woman and her children. It's not like this went on for years, it was a few months. But you CAN be a caring journalist while also being dedicated to your work because you care about the message and (hopefully) the CHANGE that your message will bring. So for the journalist who cares about the issue of homelessness, they have to observe and document every facet to show people just how BAD it is. If they pitch in for dinner here and there, or sprinkle in a few rides, it may reduce the overall impact of the story. Now, unless you want the journalist to fabricate parts of the story, then you HAVE to let them practice impartiality. You don't get both. In the end, she passed the story to someone else at the local newspaper and her material was combined into the final photojournalistic piece. Which yes, it DID make an impact. And yes, the homeless family WAS rescued from the streets. This is also a lesson for life in general. If you have a long term goal to end suffering, you have to endure the short-term. If your long term goal to end suffering requires not addressing (or even contributing) to short-term suffering along the way, you'd best stay focused and learn some impartiality yourself to reach that ultimate goal that completely overturns in weight, all of the short-term suffering along the way. That may seem too complicated or impossible for some of you, but you have to understand human nature while being driven by a strong basic core, has an endless number of subsets that paint the entire experience much more in the "Morally Grey". It is in fact where most of human experience lies. Don't be the idealistic child in this movie, but don't be the impartial character either. Again, it's somewhere in the middle you find balance (and nobody's going to tell you where YOUR balance lies - that's for you to decide).
I enjoyed this film for the perspective. This could’ve easily been a soldiers perspective film like most war movies. But we are put in the photographers perspective giving it an authentic and realist feeling missing in todays movies.
California and Texas being together is not weird at all considering that both states are very much on the same side of the political spectrum, just californias more centre-right than right
I thought it was a great film and my son and I both really enjoyed it. Your point about the President being 'Trump-ish' echoes my feelings, and I came to a similar conclusion. The use of the Texas/California coalition made me think Garland was using it to show viewers that the situation was that bad that two such different states joined forces. That whatever your political leanings, you could end up on the wrong side of history. But wtf do I know.
Best analysis I've seen of this film honest
Thank you so much 🙏🏻
From what I hear of other complaints is that the trailer was misleading and are somewhat mad or frustrated, and that they were expecting something else. That and Truck-kun is MVP 😂
Yeah the trailers did seem to be playing it up as more of a traditional war flick by mostly showing the action/battle scenes.
I had a similar, but different take on it. Similar in that we agree what it is not about, but different in what it is about. And that's likely a reflection of what we bring into it. (a sign of good art) I felt that it was foremost a m movie about being a war journalist and the ways people look at war when it is not "their war." Secondly it was about war, showing its horrors and consequence in a setting that is harder for an American audience to distance themselves from, and asking, "Are you so sure this is what you want?" Thirdly t was about photography and the love of that art. (which is part of being a photo journalist) Bui that said, I think your take is certainly a valid one, and may well have been among the intents of the filmmaker.
Attempted coup? Get off the fucking gas bro 😂😂
Great summation and analysis. to bad the movie was negatively focused on i hadn't heard about it until recently this movie is the real sound of freedom not a marketing scheme
Wow, he actually said attempted coup. Put down the glue buddy.
I remember that my parents went to see this movie while my brother and I went to see Monkey Man (another film that wasn't as good as people hoped it would be), and I remember my parents talking to me about it after they've seen it. According to them, they felt that the movie played with the concept of a modern civil war...safe actually. By that I mean that according to them, the movie put more focus on the story of the photojournalist and their family and the struggle to stay alive while photographing a war...yet the movie never goes into detail on the war itself. They felt that there was no real explanation on how or why there was this division, or even what the actual differences were between both sides of the war. According to them, because they don't know which side was fighting for what, it was hard for them to get invested in the messaging or even the danger of the war itself...in particular it made the many battles that the heroes fall into not really mean much other than yet another dangerous scenario for them to get out of. I personally have yet to see this movie, but I want to ask if my folks have a point or not? Do you guys think this is an example of a political movie playing it too safe?
No they dont. The whole point is that we have no context for the war so were forced to see the digusting violence without getting wrapped up in narratives that try to justify one side
@@coocoo3336 That’s a fair point, focusing on the overall disgusting nature of war regardless of the context. That being said, I personally think you can still provide context for what’s happening in the war without having to force the audience to pick a side. Children of Men for example had an overarching conflict between rebels fighting against a super oppressive British government, but portrayed both sides as terrible options regardless for their own reasons that our protagonists had to be on their own and avoid both factions. I think you can still get away with that in Civil War, presenting both sides with their own justifiable morals but still be terrible enough to put the protagonists in immediate danger.
@@ajerqureshi6411 you can but it's less effective. You can get wrapped up in who you think has the moral cause. The film just wouldn't have worked if it did something like that. And honestly I liked that the film didn't give us all the answers. Me and my friends were coming up with our own fan theories about how the war started.
Saw this last night. Highly recommended. Brutal and violent. But an important watch. A sober warning of why not to have war.
damn man you might be the only person who 'got' this movie
It was terrifying, I love it!
Nick Offerman was so underused in this movie that I hope Alex Garland is arrested. Like, all that build up and…? I was kinda disappointed by this movie, not gonna lie. There seemed to be a general lack of world building. It just doesn’t feel like there’s a civil war going on during it. Apart from action scenes, this could be any situation. A virus, a natural disaster, it could Godzilla for all I know. Similarly, who is the President? Who are the western forces? What do they respectively want? You could argue this isn’t the point, but the movie’s called “Civil War”. I would like some details about the civil war. I want some kind of political manifesto, but the refusal to have any discussion really lost me.
Killer critique!!
So the unrealistic setting is based on apathy instead of ignorance? And that removes the unrealistic setting as criticism?
You sold this movie to me way better than its advertising has. I think I'm going to give it a try, due to your thought provoking take. Thank you!
Ah amazing! Thank YOU for hearing me and giving the film a chance. I hope you walk away enjoying it like I have. If not, I think it'll at least be a thought provoking experience.
When I first saw the Civil War ads, it made me sick to my stomach because I see it as a very real possibility and I was worried it was going to be a disaster movie type thing. I definitely want to see it now that Im seeing these reviews, because it sounds like it also takes it seriously.
It wasn't even about the divided politics It was worse It was about a journalist
The last Purge movie more politics than Civil War.
California and Texas both have two of the largest economies in the world. Maybe they’d be brought together through pure self interest. Their alliance would be formidable.
One of the fews good points in the movie: Wagner Moura
I can see Texas and California get together, but the obvious enemy is Florida. 😂😅😂😮
My only issue is it felt it didn’t explain enough how it got that bad
I don't really think people are "missing the mark" in wanting more political context. This is a legitimate comment since the film is, after all, about a civil war in the US. If the film wants to focus on wartime journalism and at the same time avoid offending anyone, it could have chosen a different location - like some real or mythical country in the Middle East or Europe, or Middle Earth.
That shows that he is not yet Understanding. Not fully Matured into a Real Human Hero.
Marvel Fans: I Thought This Is Marvel Civil War, Bro😭😭😭 Civil War Fans: 🗿🗿🗿
No offense as a Texan, I could see us never have an alliance with them. I'm just going to be honest with you.
Awesome movie. In so many ways.
I just realised that one of the main characters is fuckjng Pablo Escobar!!
I could see Texas and California entering an alliance of convenience-I didn’t get the sense that Texas and California had become a country. I saw it as a military alliance. An intriguing one.
Men is great and underrated movie. It is not feminist movie. Watch it few times and look around, on colors, staging and story.
15:00 Big spoilers! First, I was spoiled on American fiction, and now this. 😭
Damn you just convinced me to give it a watch boss. As an American I’ve always wanted to see unity between myself and my countrymen. That’s my biggest problem with Trump, he cares not for our country’s solidarity. Makes me nervous….
Bro what are you talking about? That's all in your head. I was able to work with my coworkers who identified as non-binary in spite of that. It was the Democrats that had no ability to conduct themselves.
Neither does Joe Biden to be fair. Remember when he essentially called every single Trump voter a “terrorist” yeah, that’s always nice when a sitting President insults 50% of the country. That’s so good for unity 😉
I like Alex Garland as a director, and I wish he wouldn't retire from directing after " Civil War". I REALLY want him to direct "Dredd 2". Come on, Alex! Make Karl Urban the law again!
I can really agree with your reading of the film and what it was supposed to say. I just feel like the lack of specifics made the overall ideas of abstraction more abstract (lol) and less personaI. The ending scene of the president being killed really shook you because you had mapped trump onto the figure, but audiences members who don’t make the connection would not have the same experience. I think this could’ve easily been fixed by making Jessie start off as someone with political beliefs. these beliefs could’ve been about fictional events so the audience wouldn’t have been able to map their beliefs onto her. For example she could’ve supported the president in the film and really admired him and hated the western forces. Thus once she becomes “objective” and desensitized to the violence her being excited to photograph the dead body of this man she formally admired would’ve fully driven home the message in a way that is impossible to miss. This change would’ve allowed the audience to realize that this is a deeply political movie but in a way that isn’t about contemporary politics. Thanks for making this video because it really made me think more throughly and critically about this movie :)
Well ... heck !! No need to see the film now !! Spoilers galore by @ealguy1102 !!
I don't get the idea that this movie is "not about contemporary politics" -- it's about a president who attempts to stay in office by subverting the Democratic process, leading to widespread (in this case violent) division... how much more topical can you get?
@@TonyB2279 sorry I meant the partisan kind of politics. Although now that you’ve mentioned it I feel that the movie would’ve served its message better by making the president less trumpian.
So, am I dumb for miss everything about this film that talk about nothing to me? Looks like Alex needs you to help him to make people understand all this
Finally someone who gets it!
Think the Texas California was a thematic troll. Pink glasses guy was brought me that conclusion. What kind of American are you? Where are you from? I think Garland kind of called some of us out before we got to the movie. My daughter and I watched it yesterday and the whole move into DC. I had this motion that I don’t even even know what it was it. It was almost toxic. My daughter leaned over and said it looks like we’re watching a crime. I’m kind of a 2 A guy and everybody I’ve seen talk about this movie to meet. They just didn’t get it. I think if it asked any questions of your personal politics it was probably something like you sure you want this? I think it was really really good movie and it took me a bit to process it.
I really didn’t give two craps about this movie. I was hoping for a different type of movie. This movie was really disappointing for me. It was pointless. I wanted more from this movie. I don’t know how to explain it. 😅 maybe Im just a moron.
Dump: I tried to make that on january 7'th.
Wagner Moura AKA Death Is Here Common W Alex
when your film’s true intentions ends up doing the complete opposite effect😂. Alex wanted to show audiences that civil war is horrible and it shouldn’t happen and instead most idiotic American kids and adults after watching (especially gen z) hopes a civil war that would happen in the near future.
This is one of the funniest movie I've watched this year so far
You missed the point entirely.
I wouldn't totally blame yourself for that bias you felt towards the presidential character because the way they acted like another politician you know of. Could it simply be the fact that Trump has said and done things one could quantify exemplifies what such a character would? I'm already feared long before this if Trump does win this year he'll do anything he can not to leave office in 2028. It's all scary tbh.
Attempted coup?
Say Swaths again like that and I am coming after you 😘
I thought this movie was great and really scared me because it seems so possible.
Dam the Cope goin so hard right now
Never seen it just thought it was stupid should I watch it
I think it's worth a watch. You might not like it, but I think even then it's an interesting time at the movies. Not necessarily a waste.
I woner what Harriet Beecher Stowe would think about such a Vulgar Humanist appeal?
California and Texas teaming up only doesn’t make sense if you haven’t payed attention to their internal political discourse, specially surrounding personal freedom amd firearms ownership. Cali Reds are VERY similar to Texan Reds when it comes to upholding constitutional liberty. Only recognizing California as a Blue state is as disingenuous as only recognizing Texas as a Red state. These two states have some of the most vocal and adamant proponents on either side of the aisle. People who list this as a reason for the film being bad completely missed the point to the extent of seemingly deliberate ignorance.
The thing is... its still about politics, as much as you wanna say lalala and enjoy the "minutia" of a journalist's perspective, the reality is that media places a vital role in manufacturing consent during wartime and no one is truly "unbiased". And while you mentioned this, simply ignoring partisan politics presents an inherent misunderstanding of how war is waged and what the true goals of both parties are... which is to serve capital, now if you wanna show a "civil war" in reality what he is attempting to show is a fascist coup... which is inherently right wing and almost always includes intense political persecution of minorities as the first step in their tyrannical plan. America's "strict two party system" you mentioned is a sham, there's a reason they can always agree on certain things like war and standing up businesses and billionaires. Everything is political. It seems like he copped out in focusing on specifically the journalists, not because it's done poorly but because their interactions with non journalists feel as if they are lacking nuance and simply exist to progress our protagonists. Lastly, the way it seemingly treats the death of a journalist, and specifically journalists documenting a war in their home country is the level of stakes and emotion inherent to it. While it may be easier for such a journalist to detach themselves entering a foreign country, that is currently invaded by an occupying force of the Imperial Core; you can see that at many points throughout history independent journalists, as well as their death's have proven to be quite substantial rallying factors, and in fact taking a non objective political stance. The act of photographing a dead colleague carries much more nuance than simply showing a detachment from humanity, as such images usually provoke a mass reaction. At the end of the day ill watch it, and I'm sure it will be extremely competent in all technical aspects; but even if I get the point of the movie, having a faulty analysis of the subject matter at the end of the day crumbles it's stability as a story in my opinion - That is unless, in reality the film is trying to illustrate all these things, and maybe the exact wording is what threw me off. In conclusion, go read some Noam Chomsky (I know this is long, wanted to genuinely think it out and interact with each of your points.)
This movie seems like a cash grab by using "America" as a backdrop. Given that isn't really a plot, it doesn't really give the viewer much reason to care. I'd rather just watch a movie set during the Civil War.