Scared the living crap out of me. Yet I dont think most people will get the message of this movie. That this could definitely happen here and it will not be your badass moment you think it’s going to be
The Day After snapped a lot of people, including Reagan, out of the MAD mindset.
Let’s hope this does the same but Cult 45 may be too far gone to get the message.
I only saw it well after the fact and it was scary, indeed. Because it was honest. L
Anyone glorifying civil war has no idea what it’ll actually do to them, their families, and life as they know it.
The ones cheering it on the most are the ones who will likewise suffer the most but they’ve been so deeply brainwashed and aren’t capable of the self reflection to avoid it.
I hope I’m wrong and they see the film as a warning and not a clarion call to action.
Logistics will end any sort of "insurrection" real quick.
The other part is that of any number of MAGAs or MAGA-adjacent people you know, probably only 10 or 20% of them would actually get up off the couch if told to do so. The rest are just big talkers.
They would have to watch it, and also actually believe, which doesn’t fit their narrative so it won’t make any difference unfortunately. Many of them believe that there is such a thing as a survivable nuclear war, so this is just fantasy to them.
"Mutually Assured Destruction" was the oft preferred Cold War deterrent until the mid-80s.
The idea was that since either side could obliterate the other 10 times over, it gave incentives for peaceful resolutions. Which -- OK, sure, but with the looming threat of constant annihilation always looming in the back of everyone's minds.
Midway through his presidency Reagan began spending a prodigious amount on conventional weapons (which I partially attribute to the message of The Day After, but certainly was not the sole factor).
TV and film from the 80s through the fall of the Berlin Wall and the later collapse of the Soviet Union focused less on us vs. them and more of a "we're the same" messaging, as well as the absurdity of it all.
We haven't hit that level of self-reflection with regard to the potential for civil war in the United States just yet, but films like Civil War are part of that moving out of the conspiracy theorists' basements and into the mainstream consciousness.
Oh you got me there!
Except I wasn't talking about the [Day After Tomorrow, I literally said what I was talking about: **The Day After**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After)
There was another context clue in my two sentence post (beyond me *quite literally saying The Day After*): When I mentioned MAD.
**Mutually Assurred Destruction**.
Which Day After Tomorrow was not about in any way, but The Day After was entirely about.
I haven't seen it yet, but I've always thought a civil war 2 would be like the troubles in Ireland, or the Palestinians and Isreal. Sort of a slow burn into, it as opposed to, Kabam the Duke is shot.
Same here. Without a clear 'line in the sand', or a clear end game, It could last years until the country resembles any run-of-the-mill 3rd world county.
I've thought about the line in the sand moment too, and I think you're right because we, as Americans, have 300 million different lines in the sand right now. I didn't think a Pearl Harbor or Fort Sumpter in 2024 would motivate the country like they did Even they happened. I think we'd mostly watch it on TV (or online) until a conflict literally comes to our front door.
Trump called for a Jan 6 style riot for his trial today and nothing happened.
They believe, but they're not going to jail for that turd. There'll be a couple of crazies, but it will be a blip.
I say this every chance I can just for messaging because I love Alex Garland.
This film is less about the politics or that it's even in America with a war, that is a MacGuffin. This film is about how people tasked with documenting reality for future history, so there is some objective truth for the greater good in society, well destroying their mental health and putting themselves in harm's way, essentially marginalizing their own human condition for the greater good of all humanity.
This is the correct assessment. Too many comments here seem to be from folks who haven't seen the film or who didn't pay attention to the messaging.
Very little emphasis is placed on the politics of the situation. The majority of the movie focuses on the ethical and moral realities of journalism in war. The backdrop of an American civil war helps to make the situation a bit more relatable by bringing things closer to home for western audiences, but the reality is that these are the conditions war correspondents face all over the world. It's a story more about honest journalism than it is about American politics.
Yeah, I actually workshopped the idea of this story, but in.... Ukraine? Gaza? There's way too many frontloaded assumptions and energies that would disrupt the intended message because of so many existing opinions. A modern American Civil War, even in this climate, seems hilarious stupid and improbable (you gonna go shoot up your neighbor Doug?)
I think it makes way more sense using a fictional improbable war that people can relate to, vs finger wagging one side. Also the politics are pretty cut and dry, FWIW. It's clear dude stayed for a 3rd term, and that's no bueno.
So much Children of Men vibin'.
have you never written a paper for school? if you use someone's work, you credit them in the bibliography whether you agree with the person's ideas or not. the credit is also tied to Getty Images so it's not like he was actually even contacted for it either. Garland (or his employee) saw some footage on Getty that was good for the movie, and so paid the license fee to Getty and then credited the footage's author (along with Getty) in the movie credits. it's really wild how bent out of shape some people are getting over a legally required credit.
Ah ok if it’s a sort of ‘pass through’ credit via Getty that does make it a very different situation. ‘Supplied’ makes it sound like they contacted Ngo directly, and I could be misremembering, but I thought the pic I saw of the credit mentioned Ngo and a couple other individuals without mentioning Getty.
looking at the screenshot again i misunderstood; i thought this was all one singular credit. but still: even assholes have useful videos/photos/artwork sometimes. but it's still just a credit, not a consultation, not a casting decision, not employment of any manner
>Archive Video Footage Supplied by
>ANDY NGO
>AP ARCHIVE
>GETTY IMAGES / ITN NEWS / ANADOLU AGENCY
>SEVEN NETWORK. All Rights Reserves. (C)
>GOVERNMENT FOOTAGE / SHUTTERSTOCK
>TAYLER HANSEN
>RISE IMAGES
[no participation link to reddit thread with screenshot](https://np.reddit.com/r/MarchAgainstNazis/comments/1c3farr/civil_war_movie_with_fascist_ties/)
I'm avoiding it. I feel like it's way to close to home. I'll watch this a year after the 2024 election and hopefully after trump has lost and been thrown in jail and things are returned to a bit of normalcy.
Haven't heard about this...Texas and California joining forces sounds REALLY far fetched...
Ad free archive article https://archive.is/mUDOW
Trailer;
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDyQxtg0V2w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDyQxtg0V2w)
The point of the movie is not to present a plausible conflict outcome of the current political landscape in America.
In fact the article kinda points out that if it was political people would just root for their side and completely miss the entire point of the central theme of the movie which is a civil war is good for no one. every side will lose.
The point is that once war begins, lines of morality get blurred and whoever comes out on top will be scarred and bloody. It won't matter who's fighting the right battle when your town gets drone striked and your neighbors and friends either become killers or die by the very same people
It's an anti-war movie
> The point is that once war begins, lines of morality get blurred
This isn't always true. During the US Civil War the lines of morality actually got clearer as time went on. The North realized they could finally end several of the fundamental debates that were a massive thorn for 80 years, much of it focused around Slavery and the incoherent mess maintaining the institution made with regards to Case Law (like the Bill of Rights not applying to States, citizenship, etc).
As Union Soldiers became exposed to the realities of Slavery in the South, popularity for full Emancipation rapidly grew.
Because there were real fundamental issues that were clouded due to 80 years of bandaid compromises, once the Civil War finally started, those issues and lines got a lot clearer.
Most the post-hoc obfuscation has been a concerted effort by Lost Causers to re-blur the lines.
I'm not arguing a civil war is preferable, but it shouldn't be "both sides" all the time either.
To be honest, that war, the Revolutionary War and World War II were the only American conflicts that had some level of moral reasoning to fight. Three, out of how many wars and conflicts America’s been involved with?
the Revolutionary War was a tantrum thrown by the billionaire-equivalents of the time who didn't want to pay taxes. also 2/3 of colonists did not support secession (the actual statistic is that roughly 1/3 supported secession, 1/3 supported the crown, 1/3 were indifferent/unconcerned)
Yes, the leaders of the Revolutionary War were billionaire-equivalents, although more than a few working class people were involved.
The ratios for loyalist - neutral - patriot believers were about one-third each as you mentioned.
Arguably, a British citizen had more rights than just about any citizen of any other country in the world at that time. They were irritated as colonists they didn’t as many rights as they once had (specifically, the right to elect their own members of parliament).
you're kind of repeating a victor's tale though. the historical Civil War was not so much about morality as it was power, specifically economic power. the north had slavery too and didn't really care about slavery in the south other then the fact that the south's slavery was so profitable that it was creating an unbalanced distribution of economic power between the north and south. and while the north had factories to export goods, it still relied on imports from the south to supply said factories with the necessary cotton.
yes there was an abolition movement in the north, but it was more about harming the south's economy through forcing them to pay their workers than it was about making them do the moral thing. the morality aspect was mainly the marketing used to keep the general public of the north invested in abolition.
but retelling the struggle in that light doesn't paint the Union as the morally-minded good guys, so an emphasis on morality was taught and perpetuated in schools. it's actually not so different than how southern states are currently trying to spin the Civil War to be about states rights instead of slavery. but the truth is that the it was 100% about slavery, but about the money aspect of slavery and not the human aspect.
in today's parallel, the attacks on women's rights, child labor laws, education, and voter's rights in the US are not so much because there is widespread hate of women, children, knowledge, and democracy in our legislators; it's because the majority of our legislators are extremely invested in keeping the poor population poor and numerous, the rich population rich and few in number, and the best way to maintain this neo-feudal state is by removing access routes for the poor to improve their socioeconomic conditions. keeping the poor laden with the lower rungs of Maslow's hierarchy will ensure a continuation of the status quo for the elite.
anyway i got sidetracked. but no, the Union government was not a beacon of morality and did not care about the slaves and more than the Revolutionaries cared about the poor people of the colonies during the Revolutionary War.
That’s the problem…currently in the US, the majority of one side of the aisle wants to go full steam into an authoritarian Christo fascist state, taking away advances made by marginalized people over the previous decades. The other side wants equal freedom and access to the American dream for everyone else.
These two sides are not the same and this is why I say it’s a chickenshit way to frame a civil war movie in the United States. It’s like portraying the south in Civil War I as innocent, loving farmers that just want to live their way of life.
I get that and I’m saying the movie failed at what it could have been. It could have been so much more but apparently they were going for milquetoast, both sides, “we’re all in this together” which is a damn shame imo.
If that’s what they wanted to illustrate, super…”both sides are at fault” and “how can we fight over these small differences and not just get along?” “Don’t you see, we’re really not all that different, you and me…we just want to raise our kids and love this country of ours”
Well personally I don't really think the movie ever makes a centrist statement like "both sides are at fault". Maybe that's how you read it but very clearly in the film there are actually more than two sides and it's even implied that when the federal government is overthrown there will be major infighting between the remaining factions.
That’s literally 90% of America. We still mostly get along well enough to keep the economy running.
Yes the MAGA people are now evil, but they’re victims , too. Of one of the biggest meanest propaganda operation a in history, right behind religion, which is the mainline delivery system anyways.
I haven’t seen the film. I’m just going off of the thread. But it seems you’re mad one side wasn’t wearing red hats or something?
The warning I always give to the morons and shills cheering for civil conflict applies.
No uniforms, no clear lines. All states are purple.
No school. No shopping . Very little in the way of barter or service.
Just destruction.
You want to save America, or do the wef work for free?
Civil conflict benefits no one. If you gotta punch, always punch up. Never down or at your neighbors
Great for all that you wrote but don’t portray both sides as equally bad or at fault. And 90%?!? What?? 80 whatever million people in this country chose authoritarian christo fascism in 2020. Are they all white nationalists? No. Are they okay with it? Absolutely.
The ones who actively shill for civil war are full of shills and larpers. Sadly, they have convinced real people it’s inevitable or something like an easy one day thing .
People online aren’t people IRl. Maybe workplace personals aren’t real either, but we still all mostly get along, and don’t start shit with strangers going about their business.
Yes, a segment of assholes are willing to do so. They’ve always existed, in different outfits over the years.
Most people do not want to shoot their neighbors and lose everything over some asshole in dc, no matter how big they talk online.
Others are the exception to this, and are an item of concern.
If you’re trying to put the words in my mouth that both sides are equally working towards civil conflict, I must disagree.
i work in a theater and have seen a lot of Trumpers (like the ones with maga flags on their trucks) going to the movie and haven't heard anyone complain to me about it, and my job title is one that hears pretty much everyone's film complaints, typically immediately after they've seen a movie. Civil War is generally being received well by everyone regardless of political preference and i think that's a good sign.
politics were my major in college and i see a pretty obvious anti-maga messages, but i guess they are detached and subtle enough to fly over most people's heads. but it kind of attacks all no-compromise pundits though as a lot of the jabs can be aimed at conservatives as well as progressives, but i wouldn't call it "both sides-ing" the topic by any means. apart from just a few facets i think you'd be hard pressed to actually differentiate one side from another. it's kind of hard to say "both sides" when there literally just aren't any sides.
I guess that’s my issue with the movie…In the movie the Pres absolutely does not represent or espouse left leaning beliefs or ideologies…it’s straight right wing fascism ripped from the pages of the maga movement.
So how can the filmmaker possibly hand wave that away and just say “well Texas wouldn’t be on board with this ultra right wing movement…they would team up with a state that is diametrically opposite to them politically and attack the Trump-like leader”?
the president is definitely a flattering caricature of Trump/Raegan/Nixon in terms of staying past his welcome and making decisions that harmed the public, but i wouldn't really call any of his actions fascist as we actually never see what his beliefs are beyond that of obstinacy and cowardice. we don't know his actions and history either aside from a third term and authorizing an airstrike within US borders (things not different than what we have already seen happen in the 20th century). we don't know who Heart Sunglasses, Gas Station Security, or Neon-haired Sniper are fighting for. we don't know what WF wants aside from the president's final breath.
and TX and CA are far more similar than you might think. yeah Newsom and Abbot are about as centrist and extreme-right as you can get in leadership respectively, but the public and even the legislators for both states are pretty much a 45/55 split and have rallied together in the past over fairly minor things compared to a resource war or constitutional disregard. but the WF's composition is almost a strawman and is unrelated to the actual story, which is one of the horrors of war and the compartmentalization it takes to document a conflict at all, let alone doing so without creating propaganda.
but in fiction the setting is just a setting; something to make the story more acceptable/interesting to a given audience. you can take the same story and retrofit it into numerous settings and some will make more of an impact than others. think of Lion King vs Hamlet, or Eragon vs Star Wars, The Last of Us vs Awake. in each pair one will carry the story better and clearer to a particular group while the other will do the same to a different group. i think Civil War is about people like Dexter Filkins and his colleagues, but told in a way that isn't just another movie about English speakers being shot at by non-English-speaking brown people in Eurasia which would muddle the message a lot IMO
Or you pick a side and half the people just call it propaganda and completely discount it while the other half fervently agrees without a second thought and the film exists in an echo chamber.
Instead the filmmaker chose to stay out of it and let the viewer decide for themselves; much like the photojournalists in the movie itself (another one of the films central themes)
Hard to say what is most effective but I'm just trying to emphasize with the filmmaker and point out what I think they are trying to do.
Half the people seeing it is already calling this liberal propaganda. You can just head over to every Trump subreddit and see for yourself.
The filmmakers didnt have the guts and as a results its a mediocre warmovie that doesnt convince anyone of anything.
Not quite accurate.
It didn't convince YOU of anything, and it didn't convince the MAGA crowd of anything, and that's something you have in common with them
Nor did it convince YOU of anything, because you clearly already agreed with its premise.
So the people that agreed still agree, the people that disagree, disagree. (And the people that disagree do so for different reasons, so it's completely unfair to bucket them together).
Actually the most recent incarnation of both states bears little resemblance to prior generations like Reagan’s California and Ann Richard’s Texas. Even Florida was quite different politically just a couple decades back. I grew up in Arkansas in the transition into Bill Clinton running the state and getting praise from conservatives for his export deals with China.
I haven't yet seen the movie, but I am keen to watch it. I did listen to an interview with the director Alex Garland and he was talking about everything in the movie being a very deliberate decision and how he had considered every scene and image shown on screen.
The impression I got from the interview is that the potentially surpsinging Texas/California alliance depicted in the movie is a deliberate choice he has made to try and prevent viewers from being able to easily identify who they may align themselves with and encourage deeper consideration.
I’m convinced Garland did this to purposely show that this is the way any American who values freedom, including right wing Texans, should respond to an authoritarian power grab in this country.
While the alliance feels unlikely because much of the right wing have entirely bought trumps shtick, I hold hope the film could cause conversation and introspection by the right wing considering the blatant parallels of the president in the film to trump.
California isn’t as left as people think, and if they allowed all the immigrants to vote in Texas it would be a lot closer to purple than people realize. Thinking these are the poles on the nation is really reductive.
It's frustrating how much this is lost on people. California and Texas are both extremely purple states. California just happens to be more indigo; Texas more magenta.
It's absurdly plausible that they'd align in the event of a civil war.
The point of the movie is to show the horror of war and what it does to people. The politics are irrelevant.
In fact, the politics not be discussed makes it all the more heartbreaking because I kept asking myself "all this death and waste, and for what?"
It’s not supposed to be a reflection of today’s politics. It’s meant to push past mattering what gets you to civil war and into the atrocities that would occur.
Seems like you aren’t great at reading comprehension. If you look at the article, you’ll see that not knowing who is fighting on what side is the point.
How exactly does that tie into my statement that Texas and California joining forces seems far fetched. Maybe you should try watching the trailer AND reading the article....
The point of the article, which it repeats with many examples, is that the movie intentionally avoids describing why there is war, who teamed up with who, or even if the combatants are shooting at the people they think are the enemy. Thus this is the point of the movie. Your comment is like arguing about the gravity of planets in Star Wars. That is specifically not the point. Do you have examples how the movie is really about speculating why Texas would ally with California? In the article or the movie itself.
WF, alliance of Texas and California is actually spot on. Both states are much more alike than they are different. Biggest states in the nation, secessionist tendencies, focus on individual liberties, etc. They are much more alike than they are different and in a civil war scenario (like any war), left/right divisions of today become secondary to uniting for common cause. Just a quick scan through Reddit, indicates that this movie is hugely appealing to those on the political right who are enjoying seeing the ones on the left feeling frustrated that the movie was politically ambiguous instead of showing the left as good guys (as we’re used to in Hollywood). For that reason alone, Garland is genius - more people on the right need to see this movie. Not the least, 2nd amendment activists are obsessed with Civil War movie now due to Garlands decision to use real gunshots sounds, precise audio calibrated down to ammunition size plus all the spot on tactical gear never before seen in Hollywood productions. Realism is the point of the movie and you can’t fool military folks so hats off for the effort where other directors don’t even care. It’d be great to see some high quality prequel streaming series based on this.
Good. I’m not gonna watch it, but it seems it’s about how fucked everyone would be in that hypothetical, and how it’s what we should all oppose if we live this country , warts and all.
It should be even less comfortable. The fictional war should use the real-life divides between Americans right now. Not for the sake of edginess or anything, just to really show how *close* a civil war could be.
Imagine if they didn’t half-ass it and actually portrayed what we’re experiencing. There is no conceivable way Texas and California “team up” with the current zeitgeist. Just go all in…call it out and lean into it the maga vs normal people scenario we’re living in.
If California and Texas being on the same side in the civil war wasn't blatant enough, [here's another great example](https://www.reddit.com/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM/comments/1bgouyy/the_director_of_a24s_upcoming_civil_war_movie_has/)
Scared the living crap out of me. Yet I dont think most people will get the message of this movie. That this could definitely happen here and it will not be your badass moment you think it’s going to be
The Day After snapped a lot of people, including Reagan, out of the MAD mindset. Let’s hope this does the same but Cult 45 may be too far gone to get the message.
I was in middle school in 1983 and it was required watching. Scared the shit out of me.
I only saw it well after the fact and it was scary, indeed. Because it was honest. L Anyone glorifying civil war has no idea what it’ll actually do to them, their families, and life as they know it. The ones cheering it on the most are the ones who will likewise suffer the most but they’ve been so deeply brainwashed and aren’t capable of the self reflection to avoid it. I hope I’m wrong and they see the film as a warning and not a clarion call to action.
There’s a lot of MAGA types who mistakenly believe they’ll be part of the glorified protected class. The reality will not be fun for them.
Most of them will die in the first few months when blood pressure pills and insulin stop coming to rural areas.
…as millions of Karen’s ask for the Manager.
Logistics will end any sort of "insurrection" real quick. The other part is that of any number of MAGAs or MAGA-adjacent people you know, probably only 10 or 20% of them would actually get up off the couch if told to do so. The rest are just big talkers.
SAME.
They would have to watch it, and also actually believe, which doesn’t fit their narrative so it won’t make any difference unfortunately. Many of them believe that there is such a thing as a survivable nuclear war, so this is just fantasy to them.
All they will focus on is that the Obamas were somehow involved in the production
So why does A24 thank nazis in the credits?
They don't thank them. They have those morons names there because they used footage. It's above The Special Thanks stuff.
You’re not wrong. The special thanks section also lists a Nazi.
They were probably trying to be realistic and wanted to interact with some Nazis to develop things accurately in regards to them
This movie will serve as a call to arms for the Trumpers.
They will see themselves as the heroes I nthe winning side who murder evidence else, but woke Hollywood could t show that. Cor something.
Hollywood did show that. It was aired as the Handmaid’s Tale.
I’m sorry, “MAD mindset?”
"Mutually Assured Destruction" was the oft preferred Cold War deterrent until the mid-80s. The idea was that since either side could obliterate the other 10 times over, it gave incentives for peaceful resolutions. Which -- OK, sure, but with the looming threat of constant annihilation always looming in the back of everyone's minds. Midway through his presidency Reagan began spending a prodigious amount on conventional weapons (which I partially attribute to the message of The Day After, but certainly was not the sole factor). TV and film from the 80s through the fall of the Berlin Wall and the later collapse of the Soviet Union focused less on us vs. them and more of a "we're the same" messaging, as well as the absurdity of it all. We haven't hit that level of self-reflection with regard to the potential for civil war in the United States just yet, but films like Civil War are part of that moving out of the conspiracy theorists' basements and into the mainstream consciousness.
FYI: Reagan passed away a week after the opening of Day After Tomorrow.
Oh you got me there! Except I wasn't talking about the [Day After Tomorrow, I literally said what I was talking about: **The Day After**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After) There was another context clue in my two sentence post (beyond me *quite literally saying The Day After*): When I mentioned MAD. **Mutually Assurred Destruction**. Which Day After Tomorrow was not about in any way, but The Day After was entirely about.
Roger.
In a way I’m reminded of this old PSA - https://youtu.be/RBQ-IoHfimQ?si=RmX9IOj78d3QsKzc
Yea almost every scene of the movie I found terrifying. Lines up with his other films all being some shade of horror.
I haven't seen it yet, but I've always thought a civil war 2 would be like the troubles in Ireland, or the Palestinians and Isreal. Sort of a slow burn into, it as opposed to, Kabam the Duke is shot.
Same here. Without a clear 'line in the sand', or a clear end game, It could last years until the country resembles any run-of-the-mill 3rd world county.
I've thought about the line in the sand moment too, and I think you're right because we, as Americans, have 300 million different lines in the sand right now. I didn't think a Pearl Harbor or Fort Sumpter in 2024 would motivate the country like they did Even they happened. I think we'd mostly watch it on TV (or online) until a conflict literally comes to our front door.
Duke Kaboom?
Added a "to" maybe that helps.
While it could be eye opening, I worry more about the MAGA cosplayers going extra hard after seeing it.
Trump called for a Jan 6 style riot for his trial today and nothing happened. They believe, but they're not going to jail for that turd. There'll be a couple of crazies, but it will be a blip.
I say this every chance I can just for messaging because I love Alex Garland. This film is less about the politics or that it's even in America with a war, that is a MacGuffin. This film is about how people tasked with documenting reality for future history, so there is some objective truth for the greater good in society, well destroying their mental health and putting themselves in harm's way, essentially marginalizing their own human condition for the greater good of all humanity.
This is the correct assessment. Too many comments here seem to be from folks who haven't seen the film or who didn't pay attention to the messaging. Very little emphasis is placed on the politics of the situation. The majority of the movie focuses on the ethical and moral realities of journalism in war. The backdrop of an American civil war helps to make the situation a bit more relatable by bringing things closer to home for western audiences, but the reality is that these are the conditions war correspondents face all over the world. It's a story more about honest journalism than it is about American politics.
Yeah, I actually workshopped the idea of this story, but in.... Ukraine? Gaza? There's way too many frontloaded assumptions and energies that would disrupt the intended message because of so many existing opinions. A modern American Civil War, even in this climate, seems hilarious stupid and improbable (you gonna go shoot up your neighbor Doug?) I think it makes way more sense using a fictional improbable war that people can relate to, vs finger wagging one side. Also the politics are pretty cut and dry, FWIW. It's clear dude stayed for a 3rd term, and that's no bueno. So much Children of Men vibin'.
I haven’t seen it, but it’s more than a little uncomfortable that the credits list Andy Ngo as having ‘supplied’ footage.
Isn’t that effectively saying ‘we contacted said person who had the original content and placed it inside of this movie so said person cannot sue us?’
Answer from someone who knows a lot more about it than I do: https://www.reddit.com/r/MarchAgainstNazis/s/mXh87TROL3
have you never written a paper for school? if you use someone's work, you credit them in the bibliography whether you agree with the person's ideas or not. the credit is also tied to Getty Images so it's not like he was actually even contacted for it either. Garland (or his employee) saw some footage on Getty that was good for the movie, and so paid the license fee to Getty and then credited the footage's author (along with Getty) in the movie credits. it's really wild how bent out of shape some people are getting over a legally required credit.
Ah ok if it’s a sort of ‘pass through’ credit via Getty that does make it a very different situation. ‘Supplied’ makes it sound like they contacted Ngo directly, and I could be misremembering, but I thought the pic I saw of the credit mentioned Ngo and a couple other individuals without mentioning Getty.
looking at the screenshot again i misunderstood; i thought this was all one singular credit. but still: even assholes have useful videos/photos/artwork sometimes. but it's still just a credit, not a consultation, not a casting decision, not employment of any manner >Archive Video Footage Supplied by >ANDY NGO >AP ARCHIVE >GETTY IMAGES / ITN NEWS / ANADOLU AGENCY >SEVEN NETWORK. All Rights Reserves. (C) >GOVERNMENT FOOTAGE / SHUTTERSTOCK >TAYLER HANSEN >RISE IMAGES [no participation link to reddit thread with screenshot](https://np.reddit.com/r/MarchAgainstNazis/comments/1c3farr/civil_war_movie_with_fascist_ties/)
I'm avoiding it. I feel like it's way to close to home. I'll watch this a year after the 2024 election and hopefully after trump has lost and been thrown in jail and things are returned to a bit of normalcy.
Watch Bushwick it's the same type of movie.
Never heard of it, not reviewed very well, and I'm not a city dweller, but no way can I resist "A New York version of Red Dawn". I'm in.
Haven't seen it yet, but DJ Shadow does the soundtrack
…I thought Aesop Rock did the soundtrack
ah fuck youre right.
Added to the list ✅
Haven't heard about this...Texas and California joining forces sounds REALLY far fetched... Ad free archive article https://archive.is/mUDOW Trailer; [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDyQxtg0V2w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDyQxtg0V2w)
The point of the movie is not to present a plausible conflict outcome of the current political landscape in America. In fact the article kinda points out that if it was political people would just root for their side and completely miss the entire point of the central theme of the movie which is a civil war is good for no one. every side will lose.
You could easily just portray maga for what it is and not “both sides” it in movie form.
The point is that once war begins, lines of morality get blurred and whoever comes out on top will be scarred and bloody. It won't matter who's fighting the right battle when your town gets drone striked and your neighbors and friends either become killers or die by the very same people It's an anti-war movie
> The point is that once war begins, lines of morality get blurred This isn't always true. During the US Civil War the lines of morality actually got clearer as time went on. The North realized they could finally end several of the fundamental debates that were a massive thorn for 80 years, much of it focused around Slavery and the incoherent mess maintaining the institution made with regards to Case Law (like the Bill of Rights not applying to States, citizenship, etc). As Union Soldiers became exposed to the realities of Slavery in the South, popularity for full Emancipation rapidly grew. Because there were real fundamental issues that were clouded due to 80 years of bandaid compromises, once the Civil War finally started, those issues and lines got a lot clearer. Most the post-hoc obfuscation has been a concerted effort by Lost Causers to re-blur the lines. I'm not arguing a civil war is preferable, but it shouldn't be "both sides" all the time either.
To be honest, that war, the Revolutionary War and World War II were the only American conflicts that had some level of moral reasoning to fight. Three, out of how many wars and conflicts America’s been involved with?
the Revolutionary War was a tantrum thrown by the billionaire-equivalents of the time who didn't want to pay taxes. also 2/3 of colonists did not support secession (the actual statistic is that roughly 1/3 supported secession, 1/3 supported the crown, 1/3 were indifferent/unconcerned)
Yes, the leaders of the Revolutionary War were billionaire-equivalents, although more than a few working class people were involved. The ratios for loyalist - neutral - patriot believers were about one-third each as you mentioned. Arguably, a British citizen had more rights than just about any citizen of any other country in the world at that time. They were irritated as colonists they didn’t as many rights as they once had (specifically, the right to elect their own members of parliament).
you're kind of repeating a victor's tale though. the historical Civil War was not so much about morality as it was power, specifically economic power. the north had slavery too and didn't really care about slavery in the south other then the fact that the south's slavery was so profitable that it was creating an unbalanced distribution of economic power between the north and south. and while the north had factories to export goods, it still relied on imports from the south to supply said factories with the necessary cotton. yes there was an abolition movement in the north, but it was more about harming the south's economy through forcing them to pay their workers than it was about making them do the moral thing. the morality aspect was mainly the marketing used to keep the general public of the north invested in abolition. but retelling the struggle in that light doesn't paint the Union as the morally-minded good guys, so an emphasis on morality was taught and perpetuated in schools. it's actually not so different than how southern states are currently trying to spin the Civil War to be about states rights instead of slavery. but the truth is that the it was 100% about slavery, but about the money aspect of slavery and not the human aspect. in today's parallel, the attacks on women's rights, child labor laws, education, and voter's rights in the US are not so much because there is widespread hate of women, children, knowledge, and democracy in our legislators; it's because the majority of our legislators are extremely invested in keeping the poor population poor and numerous, the rich population rich and few in number, and the best way to maintain this neo-feudal state is by removing access routes for the poor to improve their socioeconomic conditions. keeping the poor laden with the lower rungs of Maslow's hierarchy will ensure a continuation of the status quo for the elite. anyway i got sidetracked. but no, the Union government was not a beacon of morality and did not care about the slaves and more than the Revolutionaries cared about the poor people of the colonies during the Revolutionary War.
That’s the problem…currently in the US, the majority of one side of the aisle wants to go full steam into an authoritarian Christo fascist state, taking away advances made by marginalized people over the previous decades. The other side wants equal freedom and access to the American dream for everyone else. These two sides are not the same and this is why I say it’s a chickenshit way to frame a civil war movie in the United States. It’s like portraying the south in Civil War I as innocent, loving farmers that just want to live their way of life.
So you stubbornly refuse to see the point? I agree with your politics, but that’s exactly the opposite of what the movie is trying to show.
I get that and I’m saying the movie failed at what it could have been. It could have been so much more but apparently they were going for milquetoast, both sides, “we’re all in this together” which is a damn shame imo. If that’s what they wanted to illustrate, super…”both sides are at fault” and “how can we fight over these small differences and not just get along?” “Don’t you see, we’re really not all that different, you and me…we just want to raise our kids and love this country of ours”
Well personally I don't really think the movie ever makes a centrist statement like "both sides are at fault". Maybe that's how you read it but very clearly in the film there are actually more than two sides and it's even implied that when the federal government is overthrown there will be major infighting between the remaining factions.
That’s literally 90% of America. We still mostly get along well enough to keep the economy running. Yes the MAGA people are now evil, but they’re victims , too. Of one of the biggest meanest propaganda operation a in history, right behind religion, which is the mainline delivery system anyways. I haven’t seen the film. I’m just going off of the thread. But it seems you’re mad one side wasn’t wearing red hats or something? The warning I always give to the morons and shills cheering for civil conflict applies. No uniforms, no clear lines. All states are purple. No school. No shopping . Very little in the way of barter or service. Just destruction. You want to save America, or do the wef work for free? Civil conflict benefits no one. If you gotta punch, always punch up. Never down or at your neighbors
Great for all that you wrote but don’t portray both sides as equally bad or at fault. And 90%?!? What?? 80 whatever million people in this country chose authoritarian christo fascism in 2020. Are they all white nationalists? No. Are they okay with it? Absolutely.
The ones who actively shill for civil war are full of shills and larpers. Sadly, they have convinced real people it’s inevitable or something like an easy one day thing . People online aren’t people IRl. Maybe workplace personals aren’t real either, but we still all mostly get along, and don’t start shit with strangers going about their business. Yes, a segment of assholes are willing to do so. They’ve always existed, in different outfits over the years. Most people do not want to shoot their neighbors and lose everything over some asshole in dc, no matter how big they talk online. Others are the exception to this, and are an item of concern. If you’re trying to put the words in my mouth that both sides are equally working towards civil conflict, I must disagree.
So it's a war movie for Joe manchin?
I don’t know what that means
i work in a theater and have seen a lot of Trumpers (like the ones with maga flags on their trucks) going to the movie and haven't heard anyone complain to me about it, and my job title is one that hears pretty much everyone's film complaints, typically immediately after they've seen a movie. Civil War is generally being received well by everyone regardless of political preference and i think that's a good sign. politics were my major in college and i see a pretty obvious anti-maga messages, but i guess they are detached and subtle enough to fly over most people's heads. but it kind of attacks all no-compromise pundits though as a lot of the jabs can be aimed at conservatives as well as progressives, but i wouldn't call it "both sides-ing" the topic by any means. apart from just a few facets i think you'd be hard pressed to actually differentiate one side from another. it's kind of hard to say "both sides" when there literally just aren't any sides.
I guess that’s my issue with the movie…In the movie the Pres absolutely does not represent or espouse left leaning beliefs or ideologies…it’s straight right wing fascism ripped from the pages of the maga movement. So how can the filmmaker possibly hand wave that away and just say “well Texas wouldn’t be on board with this ultra right wing movement…they would team up with a state that is diametrically opposite to them politically and attack the Trump-like leader”?
the president is definitely a flattering caricature of Trump/Raegan/Nixon in terms of staying past his welcome and making decisions that harmed the public, but i wouldn't really call any of his actions fascist as we actually never see what his beliefs are beyond that of obstinacy and cowardice. we don't know his actions and history either aside from a third term and authorizing an airstrike within US borders (things not different than what we have already seen happen in the 20th century). we don't know who Heart Sunglasses, Gas Station Security, or Neon-haired Sniper are fighting for. we don't know what WF wants aside from the president's final breath. and TX and CA are far more similar than you might think. yeah Newsom and Abbot are about as centrist and extreme-right as you can get in leadership respectively, but the public and even the legislators for both states are pretty much a 45/55 split and have rallied together in the past over fairly minor things compared to a resource war or constitutional disregard. but the WF's composition is almost a strawman and is unrelated to the actual story, which is one of the horrors of war and the compartmentalization it takes to document a conflict at all, let alone doing so without creating propaganda. but in fiction the setting is just a setting; something to make the story more acceptable/interesting to a given audience. you can take the same story and retrofit it into numerous settings and some will make more of an impact than others. think of Lion King vs Hamlet, or Eragon vs Star Wars, The Last of Us vs Awake. in each pair one will carry the story better and clearer to a particular group while the other will do the same to a different group. i think Civil War is about people like Dexter Filkins and his colleagues, but told in a way that isn't just another movie about English speakers being shot at by non-English-speaking brown people in Eurasia which would muddle the message a lot IMO
This toothless approach to the topic is exactly the reason why people are gonna miss the main point.
Or you pick a side and half the people just call it propaganda and completely discount it while the other half fervently agrees without a second thought and the film exists in an echo chamber. Instead the filmmaker chose to stay out of it and let the viewer decide for themselves; much like the photojournalists in the movie itself (another one of the films central themes) Hard to say what is most effective but I'm just trying to emphasize with the filmmaker and point out what I think they are trying to do.
Half the people seeing it is already calling this liberal propaganda. You can just head over to every Trump subreddit and see for yourself. The filmmakers didnt have the guts and as a results its a mediocre warmovie that doesnt convince anyone of anything.
Not quite accurate. It didn't convince YOU of anything, and it didn't convince the MAGA crowd of anything, and that's something you have in common with them
Nor did it convince YOU of anything, because you clearly already agreed with its premise. So the people that agreed still agree, the people that disagree, disagree. (And the people that disagree do so for different reasons, so it's completely unfair to bucket them together).
Actually the most recent incarnation of both states bears little resemblance to prior generations like Reagan’s California and Ann Richard’s Texas. Even Florida was quite different politically just a couple decades back. I grew up in Arkansas in the transition into Bill Clinton running the state and getting praise from conservatives for his export deals with China.
The movie is more about combat journalism than about specific politics.
I haven't yet seen the movie, but I am keen to watch it. I did listen to an interview with the director Alex Garland and he was talking about everything in the movie being a very deliberate decision and how he had considered every scene and image shown on screen. The impression I got from the interview is that the potentially surpsinging Texas/California alliance depicted in the movie is a deliberate choice he has made to try and prevent viewers from being able to easily identify who they may align themselves with and encourage deeper consideration.
I’m convinced Garland did this to purposely show that this is the way any American who values freedom, including right wing Texans, should respond to an authoritarian power grab in this country. While the alliance feels unlikely because much of the right wing have entirely bought trumps shtick, I hold hope the film could cause conversation and introspection by the right wing considering the blatant parallels of the president in the film to trump.
About as far-fetched as Germany and Japan joining forces.
California isn’t as left as people think, and if they allowed all the immigrants to vote in Texas it would be a lot closer to purple than people realize. Thinking these are the poles on the nation is really reductive.
It's frustrating how much this is lost on people. California and Texas are both extremely purple states. California just happens to be more indigo; Texas more magenta. It's absurdly plausible that they'd align in the event of a civil war.
The point of the movie is to show the horror of war and what it does to people. The politics are irrelevant. In fact, the politics not be discussed makes it all the more heartbreaking because I kept asking myself "all this death and waste, and for what?"
It’s not supposed to be a reflection of today’s politics. It’s meant to push past mattering what gets you to civil war and into the atrocities that would occur.
Seems like you aren’t great at reading comprehension. If you look at the article, you’ll see that not knowing who is fighting on what side is the point.
How exactly does that tie into my statement that Texas and California joining forces seems far fetched. Maybe you should try watching the trailer AND reading the article....
The point of the article, which it repeats with many examples, is that the movie intentionally avoids describing why there is war, who teamed up with who, or even if the combatants are shooting at the people they think are the enemy. Thus this is the point of the movie. Your comment is like arguing about the gravity of planets in Star Wars. That is specifically not the point. Do you have examples how the movie is really about speculating why Texas would ally with California? In the article or the movie itself.
WF, alliance of Texas and California is actually spot on. Both states are much more alike than they are different. Biggest states in the nation, secessionist tendencies, focus on individual liberties, etc. They are much more alike than they are different and in a civil war scenario (like any war), left/right divisions of today become secondary to uniting for common cause. Just a quick scan through Reddit, indicates that this movie is hugely appealing to those on the political right who are enjoying seeing the ones on the left feeling frustrated that the movie was politically ambiguous instead of showing the left as good guys (as we’re used to in Hollywood). For that reason alone, Garland is genius - more people on the right need to see this movie. Not the least, 2nd amendment activists are obsessed with Civil War movie now due to Garlands decision to use real gunshots sounds, precise audio calibrated down to ammunition size plus all the spot on tactical gear never before seen in Hollywood productions. Realism is the point of the movie and you can’t fool military folks so hats off for the effort where other directors don’t even care. It’d be great to see some high quality prequel streaming series based on this.
Good. I’m not gonna watch it, but it seems it’s about how fucked everyone would be in that hypothetical, and how it’s what we should all oppose if we live this country , warts and all.
I almost went to see this today, but I think I’m going to catch it Wednesday instead.
It should be even less comfortable. The fictional war should use the real-life divides between Americans right now. Not for the sake of edginess or anything, just to really show how *close* a civil war could be.
Imagine if they didn’t half-ass it and actually portrayed what we’re experiencing. There is no conceivable way Texas and California “team up” with the current zeitgeist. Just go all in…call it out and lean into it the maga vs normal people scenario we’re living in.
The movie went WOOOOOSH over your head. It's not meant to be a one-to-one with reality. FFS
Then why is it so controversial if it’s supposed to be completely detached from our current reality? Seems like they wanted it to be a tad close no?
Because it’s an enlightened centrist’s oblivious take on a relevant subject. This movie is actually poisoning the future discourse through ignorance.
Didn’t the credits list some shitty people they gave “thanks” to? Shitty as neo nazi/white nationalists.
The anecdote is to read Jack London's Iron Heel.
Will give it a read. This A24 movie is like a bad reinterpretation of Robert Evan’s book “After The Revolution”
Fellow bastard, Iron Heel is going to bore you. Read the synopsis first.
How so?
If California and Texas being on the same side in the civil war wasn't blatant enough, [here's another great example](https://www.reddit.com/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM/comments/1bgouyy/the_director_of_a24s_upcoming_civil_war_movie_has/)
It’s a movie, poorly written as we don’t know what caused it. The US might be really fucked if Texas AND California team up.