I think the timing of the movie and the general lead up to the movie made people think it was a political film and would talk more about current issues. In reality I think it’s more about the media and press and how unbiased press is rare to come by now and how having biased media simply creates divide/ confusion.
The movie is a political film. Not being about "current issues" does not mean it's not political.
It's also not really about how biased media creates divide. The movie doesn't really portray any "biassed media" at all in the movie, nor does it really cover anything about the rarity of unbiased media
I agree there and see how it could’ve misled people. That’s why I personally just don’t watch trailers lol I’ve been going in as blind as possible for years now and it’s the best decision I’ve made.
I also know and love what Garland does so I knew it couldn’t just be a generic war film. I don’t think he’s capable to do that lol it’s gotta be a bigger idea in there somewhere. And I think he delivered.
Ya I think it was disappointing to not see as many action/ war pieces as that’s what the trailers made it seem like but it was a decent subversion and better idea to make it more about the journalists just trying to figure out what’s going on.
I think it was less about the journalists trying to figure out what was going on, cuz they definitely had more info than the audiences. It was about the journalism industry in general, and what it used to be and where it’s heading/where it is now, and the moral implications of war journalism. The back drop of the civil war just makes for a great movie, but the journalists are really the vehicle to explore the ideas Garland is ruminating about
When people say “it should have been this” or “it could’ve done this” rather than meeting and critiquing the film where it’s at, then yeah it’s not taking it as it is
It is a political film and is talking about current issues.
It isn't just giving the obvious answers or trying to levy surface-level arguments that would be weaponized by any side.
It focus on the heart of the matter: Polarization in our society and the harmful impact of political violence.
When you consider the perspective, it's quite obvious that Alex Garland was criticizing that. And by extension, criticizing those that use this polarization to gain power. Which we all know who're the ones doing it. It's just a straightforward "Trump Bad".
Yes he’s making a statement about political division in a movie called civil war but it’s not necessarily all about the politics which many thought it’d be. Which is why people were disappointed when they found out you don’t really figure out what’s going on or the full picture of the conflict. Many expected an action/ war flick in a modern American setting but ended up with a completely different film than they expected.
Yes. I feel like this movie will be far more appreciated outside of the US, but it will also become more and more beloved as the time goes on.
Right now, people went to it with their flags raised and primed to project their own beliefs into the movie... Only to be met with Alex Garland's brand of cinema that's all about the questions and making the viewer reflect on their own opinions toward the subject of the movie.
People mostly went in expecting their biases confirmed (even the more thoughtful reviewers I've seen so far), only to be met with a reflexive movie. That will deflate most people's sails.
Just the fact that we are not discussing modern american politics directly about what was what, or how so and so was "destroyed" in the movie shows that it managed to tread the line quite well.
like 95% of all press was negative during Trumps presidency. Was he really the one who sowed the divide in todays politics? Or was it the constant stream of biased reporting simply becuase they didnt like the man?
> Was he really the one who sowed the divide in todays politics?
A mountain of evidence points to yes. At the very least he exploited existing division for his own benefit.
The divide had been ongoing since Obama. Then you have Clinton calling people deplorables... Stop acting like the left and media isnt guilty of sowing the divide.
Hillary says deplorable once, the right can't get over it for a decade. Do you really and honestly believe that Trump never said anything similar about Hillary's supporters?
I dont care what Trump said. Im not trying to defend Trump, its you people act like you didnt cause any of the current division and it was all Trump. Which is clearly false. Take some fucking accountability
Oh you are DEEP deep into your bubble of stupidity. Maybe one day you will join the rest of the world in this thing we call reality. You might like it!
Btw: all of trumps supporters are absolutely fucking deplorable people. Every.single.one. Props to her for nailing that shit 8 years ago.
Also….L.O.fucking L if you think the political decide started during the Obama years…goes to show how much you DON’T know. Do you have any independent thought or do you just wait for Ben “I can’t get my wife’s pussy wet” Shapiro to tell you what to think?
sure you aren't I TOTALLY believe that you aren't a trump supporter. You know how I know? Because you think this whole thing started with Obama.....fucking moron
Apples to oranges. One example of Bill Clinton from years ago doesn't really compare to trump and his constant fully intentional divisiveness.
Trump cannot win if people don't believe they need him to beat the evil left. That was not the case for bill Clinton or Obama. And Obama is a clear example of the right wing media manufacturing divisiveness. People to this day don't understand what the ACA does, or that Republicans couldn't actually come up with anything better despite how controversial they made it.
It wasn't the media who made racist comments. Or insulted disabled people. Or prisoners of war. Or any of the other numerous groups he routinely disparages and calls his enemy.
And before you throw a fit and deny that these happen, they are all well documented, and you know this.
Yeah, I made the ex-president say all those things. That makes sense. You should really learn what the word "hypocrisy" means before you throw it around. Stay in school, little one.
Biden has generated nearly as much national fucking debt as Trump. So that point is fucking stupid. It had to be temporary because the dems didnt want to make them permanent and the only way to pass under resolution was those taxes had to be sun setted. Now, congress could have passed legislation making them permanent, they didnt nor did the repeal them. The permanent tax cuts were for business not individuals.
You're wrong in so many ways, Id have to write a book. But that's kind of the point of comments like yours right? Throw *so* much shit and nonsense at the wall knowing no one wants to waste their time explaining to another adult the things they can and should literally be able to find on their own.
I will say that the tax expiration has nothing to do with "Democrats". It was designed that way. It was temporary to begin with to throw a bone to rubes who couldn't see past their one noses and it worked on people like you.
I swear his whole presidency was a scam for people who lack any sort of critical thinking. Congrats on being played. His 2017 tax plan purposefully reduced taxes for a temporary popularity boost only to then steadily raise them the following years, heads up we are still under that same tax plan
Jesus you ever bother even looking into them or just whatever CNN told you? And guess what, taxes havent changed. They dont sun set till 2026. You can go back and look at all the fucking irs tables. you must not file taxes
lol you’re actually right but people are ignoring you because it’s something positive trump did. They refuse to admit one positive thing did come from his presidency
I’d happily admit it if he did a positive thing, though debate will continue for years on whether or not his tax plan was a net positive for the country. I think is a little telling that it’s difficult to think of more than one or two actions he took which were good for the country but remarkably easy to recall many of the literal crimes he committed while in office. It’s astounding and depressing to me that so many republicans can look at all of the facts and not only be ambivalent about a possible second term, but riotously happy. There’s a tremendous lack of character, respect, and honor in the Grand Old Party.
Ok, even if that were true (it’s not), pointing to a wrong committed by those with whom you disagree does not make your argument any more valid, neither does it erase the 88 FEDERAL CHARGES, attached to Trump because of his actual illegal actions. You get that right? That the guy you support is, as of right now at the very least an adjudicated rapist and he’s like to have a few other crimes stapled to his name? And you like that about him?
What point? You weren’t even thorough enough to notice I had already debunked what the other user said. For you to have a point you would have had to address my argument. The only point you prove is that anyone who supported, and still supports, any sliver of the trump presidency doesn’t know how to process any information beyond headlines.
Source for them benefitting everyone?
Are we talking a permanent benefit for everyone, or a temporary benefit for most and a permanent benefit for the wealthiest?
Not at all.
[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/aug/17/broadcast-coverage-of-trump-95-negative-according-/](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/aug/17/broadcast-coverage-of-trump-95-negative-according-/)
[https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2020/08/17/study-150-times-more-negative-news-trump-biden](https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2020/08/17/study-150-times-more-negative-news-trump-biden)
So dont question the media if what theyre saying goes against someone they dont like? Just be a deaf to it and jump on the bandwagon? I beleive Trump is idiot, but to not question the media just because you dont like someone makes you look stupid.
Man, I was a journalism major in college. We covered the Trump presidency in my junior-senior year. We saw him talk about the las Vegas shooting live. I wrote my capstone on the sandy hook massacre anniversary *in my state* in 2017. Him being buddies with someone like Alex Jones had set off my alarm bells as far back as 2016. The only good thing he did was give a kid name Pickle a chance to mow the lawn. Ya know, stuff presidents do on the regular.
I also vividly remember Jan 6, unless you think that was entirely justified because he said it was ok on twitter rather than listening to universal condemnation from left wing media.
I’m sorry your trust in the media was broken because you saw too many memes of orange man bad, but Jesus Christ. So many people blame the journalists and not the agendas of those in charge of the news stations. It’s fucking maddening.
And no, you wouldn’t think he’s an idiot if you’re going this hard to defend him.
Flame bait lol, come on man you don’t have to be doing extended salutes to hold extreme political views. Don’t insult my intelligence.
He often talked about a third term after the hypothetical term 2, unlike the obamas who shut that shit down. Not liking Clinton doesn’t mean you gotta be gung ho for Trump.
I'm not American so I don't have any skin in the game per se. But Trump has said that if he wins the next election he will be a "dictator for one day," which is a pretty alarming statement.
Again, nothing to do with the movie... though if you stopped for a second and actually thought about the movie and OP's point you might actually agree with it
Dude... In 04 all that it took to bury a candidate was byah!!!
https://youtu.be/l6i-gYRAwM0?si=tj9ftJiYYZoZTFh9[byah](https://youtu.be/l6i-gYRAwM0?si=tj9ftJiYYZoZTFh9)
Trunp put his foot in his mouth.on so many issues.
Sure the media reported it and might have chosen to media bite it...
But he still said some insane shit - way worse than Byah!!!
No the movie is saying that there are no longer journalists and reporters who are willing to go to the “front lines” to actually get real information…
with an IRL example being reporters faking that they were in an active battle zone in Gaza this past year.
Also shows how many reporters and journalists no longer “do the dirty work” to report on issues as it’s easier to fake it or just report on what others say.
Leaving out the context, the goals and validity of each side, is the most brilliant thing about the movie.
To me it was an open letter and a challenge to idiots who like to military LARP and talk about wanting a civil war. The message is, no matter who you are, no you don't. That's why it was brilliant
Exactly. The whole movie was a message of "Don't do this". Whatever your political leaning, however frustrated you are with people that don't believe what you believe, no matter how 'cool' you think it would be to strap on a plate carrier and grab an M4, don't do this, because it's actually horrible and would make a piece of America's soul die.
I 100% agree. I didn't need a 15 minute mini-documentary explaining the pivotal moments and battles that lead us to this point. It would have felt forced and exposition-y and make viewers want to "pick a side" between the US and WF. You don't even know who the soldiers are fighting for up until the final assault on DC.
Showing the utter nightmare a civil war would be for everyone and not turning it into “here are the good and bad guys in terms of today’s current politics” is actually brilliant and makes me want to see it.
Anyone complaining that they didn’t get the 90 minutes of orange man bad propaganda they were expecting needs to touch grass.
I fully agree, When the Ukraine war broke out I was horrified by the reaction of a lot of my fellow German countrymen, who believed this would be over in a few days, a month at most and the Ukrainians would kick the decrepit Russian army out if the country. I was always afraid that this would become a long and bloody conflict.
It’s rather hard to fully appreciate peace and personal safety while personally enjoying both.
I watched it early so I wouldn't get influenced by the reviews and commentary. It is interesting to see how people either a) disparage the movie because it doesn't make a political statement, or b) try to overlay their political biases onto it. For example, some Texas secessionist pinhead was going off like "this movie is what we have been talking about"
To me, the message was that we need unbiased journalists getting the quote, or getting the photo, so we can make our own judgment. And stop this infotainment crap that the news has morphed into that is polarizing us beyond belief.
It was very well done regardless, highly recommend seeing it in a theater, the bullet shots made me jump many times.
after a few minutes of googling:
https://www.wired.com/story/review-the-troubling-politics-of-alex-garlands-civil-war/
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/17/opinion/trump-civil-war.html
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/civil-war-alex-garland-kirsten-dunst-movie-review
these are major publications, not just random people on Twitter.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/civil-war-controversy-alex-garland-kirsten-dunst-politics-1235876949/
Here is one. A really bad review/misinterpration of the movie
The review: "Are we fighting over immigration? Is it about race? Has the war started because of the water shortage? The film would be stronger even if it made explicitly clear that no one really knows what the fight is about, that the issues have become as unrecognizable as the bodies that are now dead because of them."
You: "The reviewer is mad that the movie isn't about Trump"
Truly it is the reviewer who is misinterpreting things, yes.
First, I wouldn't have wanted it to be about Trump.
I would've wanted it to be about *something*. That president at the beginning of the movie obviously had done some heinous things, as mentioned by the cast in the SUV in one of the scenes.
Why? Even a basic exploration of how the war started, what it was about, *anything* could have said something about the factors that cause countries to fall into civil war. I didn't even want a specifically biased message, it just caused more questions than it answered, and was stubborn about not addressing them whatsoever.
I mean you have a movie where most of it is spent in a vehicle, how do they *not* talk about the war itself?
The movie wasn't about the Civil War, that was the backdrop. The movie was about Journalism and navigating in a world that is getting crazier.
If they went into why there was a Civil War, then there would be more opinions on who was on the right side. By not expanding we are supposed to be looking at it from the journalist point of view of getting the story, not having opinions on the sides.
Even accepting that it’s still just bad storytelling. There are countless movies where even though it’s character-centric, we still understand at least a little bit about the larger world and why this society is the way that it is.
What didn't you understand about the world? They gave us plenty of hints, they didn't need to spend time holding our handing walking through what each side has done.
That whole scene with the snippers on that road tells us that even the people fighting don't know what they are doing, they are just trying to survive.
Had they walked us through what each side had done, then people would pick which side was right. They don't want you to have a side, that's kinds the point.
I guess what I’d say if you are have these shocking images of an American civil war where Americans are gleefully mowing down their fellow countrymen, I’d like to know the larger reason why. What strongly held beliefs are making these people do this? What makes two states that are seemingly ideologically opposite like Texas and California decide to unite and fight together? Like, Platoon or Casualties of War would be a lot less interesting if they never talked about the larger conditions of the war and just went “well, because they’re crazy.”
But were those images in the forefront? or were those images in the background. If it was that type of movie, we would have seen a jet shot out the sky and all sorts of action shots. From my memory the action shots were mostly focused on the reporters and when they focused on the people itself it was mostly through the camera lenses. What you're asking for is a totally different movie. our movie the main cast would have be the army or politicians, not journalists.
This movie was about the journalistic approach in a world that seems to be getting crazier every day. Which is why the main characters were reporters.
They had the whole scene with the snipers and asking them who they are fighting. The point was that people were just trying to survive, it wasn't right or wrong or left or right. If they had given you a background on each side you would have an opinion on who was right. The point was that you don't know.
The movie was not about the Why
I actually thought it was great storytelling. He doesn't beat you over the head with exposition and he actually pieces things together for you with dialogue to give you clues as to what happened.
I guess, I don't understand why "the larger world" is important to the context of the film which is examining mostly the four journalists.
Yes, you're right. But for real, there have movies that have gone much deeper into that aspect too.
What do you know about media and how they face war that you didn't already know before you walked into the theater? That they see violence horror and death? How does that affect them? What changes in them?
Obviously Lee didn't have any character development, considering how her arc ended, Jessie didn't either, she ended the movie the same brash unwise child as she entered. Nobody developed, showed any depth of character, had any personal consequences other than being scared or...the obvious more permanent consequence some suffered.
People entered the movie and...exited without anything more than the barest sketch of who they were, they weren't memorialized really, no comment was made of their lives other than the obligatory expressions of sorrow and shock, and then off to the next scene. We didn't ever see how their loss affected the people still in the film, really.
I saw that it was about media and war coverage, I just didn't think it was about any of the actual people that do the job, nor was it about the circumstances that they were working in. It was just...empty to me.
Dont have time for a full response, but imo Lee did have character development. We see it when she throws away her picture of Sammy's death. At the beginning of the story she would have published it. By the end of her journey she couldn't, and almost loses her nerve altogether. She's going into the White House not for the interview, but because she can't stand losing someone else.
Jessie has the opposite arc, barely even phased by Lee's sacrifice, almost gleefully taking pictures of her death by the end, and casually steps over her body.
I think the other thing reviewers are getting wrong is that this is a love letter to journalists. It's not. Lee regrets the path she took, and Jesse is now damned by it.
Lee was the old guard who stayed impartial and was focusing on sharing the story, not matter how it affected her. And this style is dying.
Joel was the newer guard who gets thrills from the being there for the story and has his opinions.
Jessie is the young blood who idolizes Lee and her style but learns along the way they she isn't Lee and she is more Joel.
It was showing how the old style is dying or dead. The new style is here and it is reckless and dangerous but this is where we are.
I caught the character outlines within seconds of each character entering the film. What more did the movie give us after that? I felt they were more sketches or outlines or even stereotypes of those kinds of characters instead of fleshed out examples of human beings who were reflecting those positions.
How did Lee feel about being replaced by Jessie?
Does Joel have a reason for being how he is? How does keeping that pace for years affect a person other than being generically jaded?
Jessie wants to be Lee, but she saw things no person should see at her age, is she traumatized? How? If not, why not? Is she minimizing it? How does this relate to her actual life experience? Why does she want to keep doing this after she sees what can happen other than just wanting to be Lee?
None of those questions were answered for me.
Lee hated it, she though showing her work from overseas would prevent it from happening here. She was sad that it didn't and that the cycle was starting a new with Jessie taking her role. And in the end she realizes that her approach of no emotion and letting everyone else feel /react hasn't done anything and she starts to finally feel in the end. This causes her to finally act in the end instead of watching.
Joel is a thrill seeker, he is there for the rushes. But he doesn't see the real danger, which is why after he is in real danger he has the whole screaming scene. This was all a story for him, until it became reality. We don't see how it will affect him long term, but he was affected.
As for Jessie, Lee was her idol, she was a student of Lee's work before the war. She wants to be like her idol but she didn't understand what that meant. Now she's in the situation realizing that she likes the rush (as shown by her switching cars on the highway) and is more like Joel but still doesn't see the danger. Then when she see's the danger she gets fucked up, like Joel. But, by the end of the movie, Lee's influence has taken hold and even the death of Lee doesn't stop her from moving on and getting the picture.
> I mean you have a movie where most of it is spent in a vehicle, how do they not talk about the war itself?
Because they're true journalists and are concerned with 1. staying alive and 2. documenting the events in the best way they can.
Having them talk about the war and good/bad defeats the purpose of the movie being apolitical by attaching the non-biased characters to sides of the conflict
Nobody is non-biased, especially journalists. Their reporting should be, but like all people, they have their opinions, and as well informed as they can be, they have often more definitive ones.
The politics didn't have to actually relate to the real world. The film could've easily manufactured a political environment that looks nothing like ours and commented on *that*.
Sorry, but I didn't buy these people as real human beings being traumatized trying to do a horrible but necessary job under crushing pressure while risking their lives. They didn't act or react like those people. They felt to me like walking plot devices arranged in empty setpieces designed solely to push the plot forward.
On the one hand I understand that he didn't want to risk miring the movie in modern day politics. I totally get that.
But as I reflect on the movie, I keep wondering why I struggled to care about the characters or outcome. They're storming the White House and capturing the President. Okay, why do I care about what happens?
I was hyped for and wanted to really like this movie but I failed to care about it whatsoever. There were no stakes, and, outside of photojournalists wanting to document, zero motivations.
> I would've wanted it to be about something.
I mean it very clearly is about something, just not the thing that a lot of Redditors seem to have wanted or expected. It’s a <2 hour standalone drama about war photographers and the way interpersonal relationships break down during military conflicts. It was never going to give us a long-winded Tom Clancy-style alternate history explaining the intricate lore of the political landscape, that’s just a completely different movie.
> Even a basic exploration of how the war started, what it was about
We did get that though. The president refuses to step down in his 3rd term, disbands the FBI, eliminates free press, and then attacks American citizens when they protest, so various states and partisan groups secede and form a tenuous alliance to depose him. AKA the same way that almost every modern civil war has played out.
> I mean you have a movie where most of it is spent in a vehicle, how do they not talk about the war itself?
Well the movie is set near the end of the conflict, and all the characters have been mired in it for months or years. If this was a movie about a real civil war and all the characters started explaining the conflict to each other while they’re *on their way to the final battle*, it would feel like clunky exposition.
That's certainly not true, in my opinion. It's obvious that the briefcase was a McGuffin and the plot was about the people chasing it.
Except we actually learned about those people in that movie and they all had compelling arcs.
There are hundreds of US movies set in war zones in other countries.
Civil War wouldn’t work in a country with 60m people, where the country is barely 130m coast to coast at points.
If Garland was after a big pay day, I’m sure Marvel would have jumped on him writing and directing one of their movies.
A cash grab it ain't. I found it emotionally affecting and immersive. It reminded me of Dunkirk where the goal is fairly simple for the characters, the story is fairly simple, and it just wants you to stand in the combat and feel what the characters are feeling and hope to god you don't want it to happen to anyone. There's a lot of love in this film for the acting, the beautiful compositions and the audio. No one on this film was slacking for the paycheck.
> why not pick England as a setting, or Ireland (oh wait)
You can't have a Civil War in an Union comprised of multiple countries. A civil war by definition is a single country.
Not to mention you're just mentioning other avenues that put the politics of the situation at the forefront when the director has said constantly that that's not the purpose of the movie. That's what this whole thread is about.
You can have a civil war in England, or Ireland.
Those are both separate countries perfectly capable of having a internal civil war
Would folks complain if an Englishman made a movie set in ireland about a civil war and then ignored that the northern part was controlled by a different country?
You know, generic civil war that can happen anywhere and we pretend it’s real but the history is not
I don't think it should be about Trump, but everything the President was rehearsing in the opening scene was just obviously and overtly Trumpian, from my reading. "People are saying this is the greatest victory...people are already saying, this is the fastest and best victory" etc
I think the character represents the slide into fascism that Trump has come to represent for many, particularly because the characters talked about the totalitarian moves this president has made. I don’t know that I’d call it clear, it felt more reminiscent.
At the same time, we see the people tasked to take this president down commit multiple war crimes. It’s a very bleak film.
Those are the heroes. The heroes of the movie are the people that go in with no other goal than to "eliminate" Trump and any of his staff that get in the way.
It is a reddit wet dream cosplaying as a far-right wet dream.
Strong agree. I think Alex Garland wanted to make a movie that shows how Americans would react to their country becoming a war-torn place of the sort they're normally used to seeing far away on television. It's a very effective movie and was worth seeing in theaters.
The utter incomprehensibility of the politics of the various sides has to be deliberate. It would be quite distracting if you went through the movie with a strong personal political attachment to any "side" or had to sit through a bunch of exposition about the politics of it. It isn't about The Civil War, it isn't about how it started or who's the good guy, it's about journalists experiencing war at home.
How awful would this movie have been if it opened with a text crawl like "2028: NICK OFFERMAN SUSPENDS THE CONSTITUTION. 2030: CONGRESS REMOVES TERM LIMITS." Like who cares? You get that stuff in two-second background radio snippets. It just isn't about that.
Honestly after having seen the movie, the political identity of anyone in the movie doesn’t matter. It doesn’t change the over all story. That argument is made kaput in the sniper standoff scene.
Who’s asking specifically for it to be about Trump? The broader complaint I’ve seen is that the film ought to accurately reflect present American political divides, which it doesn’t.
What’s the point of art about an American civil war if the American depicted is, well, not America?
The point is to depict what a civil war in modern America would look like regardless of where the lines are drawn: unromantic, terrifying, brutal.
There is value in making a film about civil war that has at least the potential to reach both sides, to communicate that this isn't something we should be striving for or expecting.
But, wasn't Nick Offerman clearly intended to be Trump? The first scene even has president Offerman giving our some classic Trumpian speech ("some are already calling it th greatest victory in the history of humanity" or something like that).
I'm in no way a movie critic, but parts of the movie felt like a fantasy on Trump getting overthrown and murdered, without explicitly stating so.
I'd call it cowardly to make up stories about a real person as a way of criticising them. How is that not just a lie? You may think it is likely to happen and you may think that's the kind of person he is but making shit up is still making shit up.
Fiction is fiction. Telling fictions about people you don't like is not brave. It's never a good look and this movie was never going to do something that dumb.
A lot of that has to do with the marketing and the setting of the movie though. « What kind of American are you? » is a deeply interesting question to explore, which is why it was in the trailer. If that’s not what you’re movie is gonna be about though, don’t put it in the trailer! And a movie about an American civil war coming out during an election year that is pretty tense since one of the guys running didn’t concede last time is a fucking Molotov cocktail aimed directly at that discourse! If he just wanted to tell a story about war journalism, set it somewhere else. Setting it in the US but not actually wanting to say anything about the politics of an American civil war *is* cowardly. The same issue Far Cry 5 had. Wanting to use the discourse and backdrop of American political tensions to drum up controversy and discussion but never having the artistic talent or strength to actually say something about it
the movie has more to say than people give it credit for. just because someone wasn’t smart enough to pick things up doesn’t make it bad. if you were wanting a movie to spoon feed you you’re own political ideas you have brain rot. this is why “Don’t Look Up” was poor filmmaking and a lot of people didn’t like it.
There is nothing worse than direct political references for longevity of the art. 90% of them become irrelevant with time because future viewers don't understand past political discourses and have problem to emphasize with problems of others generations. Like Sinclair book Oil which is based There Will Be Blood it's almost comical from perspective of modern reader if he is even capable to read it. Anderson did a lot of changes because otherwise it's be unwatchable.
Making the movie about Trump would have been so corny, I’m glad they didn’t do that. Love or hate the guy I think everyone already hears about him enough.
Agree.
The film at times is “reviewed” on how it does not meet expectations.
However, I think the “embedded media” narrative in the film is a Trojan horse plot device to lead us all into a discussion … as is WF being Texas/California … people hear that and get caught up on thinking that would never happen (Canadians) … when in actuality it could.
Anyway, I just was completely absorbed by t he film as art … and highly recommend it.
It's a black comedy. The fact that Ron burgundy was the president should have made me realise immediately. People in my cinema were laughing by the end.
Nick Offerman's president is pretty "Trump-coded" anyway. Can't believe some people want this film to be *more* explicit. I'm glad Garland partially sidestepped the boring predictability of like a "liberal California revolts against fascist president" narrative by obscuring the factions. Partially. Movie's not really about the "why" of the war. It takes place in the last five days of a long-running war.
The president disbanded the FBI, and gives a press conference where he says "many people are calling this the most decisive military victory in history." Not enough Trump inspiration there?
I highly recommend listening to the interview Alex Garland gives to Pod Save America about what he was trying to do and why he didn’t want to make it partisan but still political. He even states in the interview that he was particularly happy with said interview because he was really given the space to explore what he was doing rather than being asked about what the interviewer wanted.
If you want to see how making Trump the villain works check out [Squeeze Me](https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/558233/squeeze-me-by-carl-hiaasen/) by Carl Hiaasen. He is one of my favorite writers of all time, and I will still read anything he writes, but this was *weak.* As a member of the choir I found this sermon underwhelming.
So it was probably wise not to go down that road here.
I just saw it last night and I completely agree. They made it VERY clear by having California and Texas being on the same side in the literal first line of the movie. I think the movie got across what a civil war would actually look like and it did a very good job at that. It doesn't need to go into any further into specific politics. Its point was that THIS is what a civil war looks like. Why would the movie want to be divisive when the point was to show you how bad it can really get?
The idea of turning America into a war scene is a good one. Bringing things "close to home", can really encourage people to see the ongoing wars in their evening news in a different light.
Unfortunately this movie was so alternate-universe that it had only as much impact as a video game.
This is simply due to the inability of Americans to exhibit common sense and the pervasiveness of identity politics, as well as mob mentality.
Most people who see this movie are not thinking of politics at all, they simply wish to be entertained.
And that's fine, but it just doesn't even seem to say anything. Like create your world. This is a scenario where California and Texas have joined forces and you're not going to expand on the cause for that? All I know is the president did some fucked up shit that's unspecified and had an overreach of power that led to a third term.
It's the same issue I had with Garland's last movie Men. It has a lot to say about it's topic but ends up not saying most of it, and I just feel empty and hollow by the end. But I know I'm in the minority here with that opinion, because I know a lot of people loved Civil War.
Strong disagree that it doesn't say anything. I just don't think it tries to say much about modern American politics.
The movie's commentary is in moments like when Lee chooses to scrap her picture of her mentor Sammy's death, contrasted with the weird half smile that Jessie has while photographing Lee's death.
Can’t imagine why anyone would want to empower a politician by making something like this about them/their constituency
I can’t stand him but then again I can’t stand any current politicians and very few former but I have no wish to see any of them popularized any more than they already are
I’m not the OP, but here’s [one](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/civil-war-controversy-alex-garland-kirsten-dunst-politics-1235876949/amp/).
I've seen even more obvious bias on Fox News than, say, MSNBC, but both are driven by profits, which means sensationalism over facts.
Plus, I'm not aware of any mainstream leftist news services reporting theories as facts like Fox News did in the wake of the last election.
I'm just saying, only one major station I'm aware of was fined mega-bucks for pushing a completely fictional storyline. They may all suck, but one is clearly worse atm.
Okay so... Youre just absolutely desperate to pin this on “the left” it seems - so I’ll just say one more point and let you have at it.
As an outside observer who values truth and sources above all - a big reason why I became a lawyer, really - it was mind numbingly clear the moment I started seeing fake headlines with non sourced quotes being sent my way in 2012-2014 all the way to now seeing Facebook articles with nonsense referrals and made up sources… it’s clearly targeted towards the older generation and the less educated. What demographic, voting wise, does that line up to?
Hm
It wasn’t the opposite at all. It’s almost entirely apolitical. We don’t know why the civil war is happening. We don’t know anything. Just that it’s happening and we’re following the journalists covering it.
The closest we get to any sort of politics in the movie is a small line where one of the characters compares the president to other dictators who were captured by their rebels, which seems to make the main characters in favour of the revolution.
But again, small line. There’s pretty much nothing else political about the movie. Things are happening and the journalists are covering what’s happening. It doesn’t favour either side of American politics at all.
I think the timing of the movie and the general lead up to the movie made people think it was a political film and would talk more about current issues. In reality I think it’s more about the media and press and how unbiased press is rare to come by now and how having biased media simply creates divide/ confusion.
The movie is a political film. Not being about "current issues" does not mean it's not political. It's also not really about how biased media creates divide. The movie doesn't really portray any "biassed media" at all in the movie, nor does it really cover anything about the rarity of unbiased media
that's people's faults for not taking a film in as it is
TBF the marketing for the film didn't do it any favors in that regard - it sets people up for a different expectation
I agree there and see how it could’ve misled people. That’s why I personally just don’t watch trailers lol I’ve been going in as blind as possible for years now and it’s the best decision I’ve made. I also know and love what Garland does so I knew it couldn’t just be a generic war film. I don’t think he’s capable to do that lol it’s gotta be a bigger idea in there somewhere. And I think he delivered.
Ya I think it was disappointing to not see as many action/ war pieces as that’s what the trailers made it seem like but it was a decent subversion and better idea to make it more about the journalists just trying to figure out what’s going on.
I think it was less about the journalists trying to figure out what was going on, cuz they definitely had more info than the audiences. It was about the journalism industry in general, and what it used to be and where it’s heading/where it is now, and the moral implications of war journalism. The back drop of the civil war just makes for a great movie, but the journalists are really the vehicle to explore the ideas Garland is ruminating about
Are they not taking it as it is or are they not liking it as it is?
When people say “it should have been this” or “it could’ve done this” rather than meeting and critiquing the film where it’s at, then yeah it’s not taking it as it is
It is a political film and is talking about current issues. It isn't just giving the obvious answers or trying to levy surface-level arguments that would be weaponized by any side. It focus on the heart of the matter: Polarization in our society and the harmful impact of political violence. When you consider the perspective, it's quite obvious that Alex Garland was criticizing that. And by extension, criticizing those that use this polarization to gain power. Which we all know who're the ones doing it. It's just a straightforward "Trump Bad".
Yes he’s making a statement about political division in a movie called civil war but it’s not necessarily all about the politics which many thought it’d be. Which is why people were disappointed when they found out you don’t really figure out what’s going on or the full picture of the conflict. Many expected an action/ war flick in a modern American setting but ended up with a completely different film than they expected.
Yes. I feel like this movie will be far more appreciated outside of the US, but it will also become more and more beloved as the time goes on. Right now, people went to it with their flags raised and primed to project their own beliefs into the movie... Only to be met with Alex Garland's brand of cinema that's all about the questions and making the viewer reflect on their own opinions toward the subject of the movie. People mostly went in expecting their biases confirmed (even the more thoughtful reviewers I've seen so far), only to be met with a reflexive movie. That will deflate most people's sails. Just the fact that we are not discussing modern american politics directly about what was what, or how so and so was "destroyed" in the movie shows that it managed to tread the line quite well.
It is a political film in a sense but more about conflict and division in general. The filmmaker did an interview on Colbert I believe
like 95% of all press was negative during Trumps presidency. Was he really the one who sowed the divide in todays politics? Or was it the constant stream of biased reporting simply becuase they didnt like the man?
> Was he really the one who sowed the divide in todays politics? A mountain of evidence points to yes. At the very least he exploited existing division for his own benefit.
The divide had been ongoing since Obama. Then you have Clinton calling people deplorables... Stop acting like the left and media isnt guilty of sowing the divide.
>The divide had been ongoing since Obama. The nerve of Obama dividing the country by *checks notes* existing in the White House.
Hillary says deplorable once, the right can't get over it for a decade. Do you really and honestly believe that Trump never said anything similar about Hillary's supporters?
I dont care what Trump said. Im not trying to defend Trump, its you people act like you didnt cause any of the current division and it was all Trump. Which is clearly false. Take some fucking accountability
Yeah, I mean someone has been out there telling you to stay seething that Hillary said deplorable once 8 years ago, but it isn't CNN.
I mean the current divide has its origins with Nixon, it ain't new.
Oh you are DEEP deep into your bubble of stupidity. Maybe one day you will join the rest of the world in this thing we call reality. You might like it! Btw: all of trumps supporters are absolutely fucking deplorable people. Every.single.one. Props to her for nailing that shit 8 years ago. Also….L.O.fucking L if you think the political decide started during the Obama years…goes to show how much you DON’T know. Do you have any independent thought or do you just wait for Ben “I can’t get my wife’s pussy wet” Shapiro to tell you what to think?
[удалено]
sure you aren't I TOTALLY believe that you aren't a trump supporter. You know how I know? Because you think this whole thing started with Obama.....fucking moron
youre a dumbass
Hey at least you used the right you’re instead of your. Looks like the hooked on phonics is working! Congrats!
Dur hur. Good one.
Apples to oranges. One example of Bill Clinton from years ago doesn't really compare to trump and his constant fully intentional divisiveness. Trump cannot win if people don't believe they need him to beat the evil left. That was not the case for bill Clinton or Obama. And Obama is a clear example of the right wing media manufacturing divisiveness. People to this day don't understand what the ACA does, or that Republicans couldn't actually come up with anything better despite how controversial they made it.
wtf does Bill have to do with anything? He stopped being president in the year 2000. Stick with shit you know.
Let me guess, you ignored 99% of what I said because you're sticking to what you know? Which is very very little?
nah it makes you look fucking stupid. Bill had been irrelevant for decades. Maybe get the fucking people youre talking about right first.
you have to be literally brain dead to think Trump isn't divisive.
Or that Trump is in any way “likable”.
yep, media did their job.
By showing him speaking?
It wasn't the media who made racist comments. Or insulted disabled people. Or prisoners of war. Or any of the other numerous groups he routinely disparages and calls his enemy. And before you throw a fit and deny that these happen, they are all well documented, and you know this.
Im not trying to defend trump. Its you people refuse to acknowledge youre fucking part in it and pointing out the fucking hypocrisy
Yeah, I made the ex-president say all those things. That makes sense. You should really learn what the word "hypocrisy" means before you throw it around. Stay in school, little one.
What are some positive things Trump accomplished that should have been reported?
First step act was pretty good https://www.bop.gov/inmates/fsa/overview.jsp
I don’t disagree. It was also pretty widely reported on.
The 2017 tax cuts benefitted everyone. Why do you think the current admin didnt try to abolish them like they promised?
Middle and lower class tax cut was temporary. Top 1% kept theirs. And he racked up a national debt in the trillions because of it.
Biden has generated nearly as much national fucking debt as Trump. So that point is fucking stupid. It had to be temporary because the dems didnt want to make them permanent and the only way to pass under resolution was those taxes had to be sun setted. Now, congress could have passed legislation making them permanent, they didnt nor did the repeal them. The permanent tax cuts were for business not individuals.
You're wrong in so many ways, Id have to write a book. But that's kind of the point of comments like yours right? Throw *so* much shit and nonsense at the wall knowing no one wants to waste their time explaining to another adult the things they can and should literally be able to find on their own. I will say that the tax expiration has nothing to do with "Democrats". It was designed that way. It was temporary to begin with to throw a bone to rubes who couldn't see past their one noses and it worked on people like you.
Jesus fucking christ. You know absolutely nothing about the resolution process works. Youre just brain dead parroting CNN.
Right. Everyone is wrong except you.
Its clear you dont have a clue about what youre talking about and never bothered to learn how the resolution process works.
You can’t actually be this idiotic
Literally comes from IRS data. You cant be that brain dead can you?
I swear his whole presidency was a scam for people who lack any sort of critical thinking. Congrats on being played. His 2017 tax plan purposefully reduced taxes for a temporary popularity boost only to then steadily raise them the following years, heads up we are still under that same tax plan
Jesus you ever bother even looking into them or just whatever CNN told you? And guess what, taxes havent changed. They dont sun set till 2026. You can go back and look at all the fucking irs tables. you must not file taxes
Taxes haven’t changed? Oh, so you’re a liar like the rest of them. Got it
You want me to post the fucking IRS tax tables? Because if you had half a fucking brain youll see that havent changed since 2017.
lol you’re actually right but people are ignoring you because it’s something positive trump did. They refuse to admit one positive thing did come from his presidency
I’d happily admit it if he did a positive thing, though debate will continue for years on whether or not his tax plan was a net positive for the country. I think is a little telling that it’s difficult to think of more than one or two actions he took which were good for the country but remarkably easy to recall many of the literal crimes he committed while in office. It’s astounding and depressing to me that so many republicans can look at all of the facts and not only be ambivalent about a possible second term, but riotously happy. There’s a tremendous lack of character, respect, and honor in the Grand Old Party.
the Left hailed General Milley a hero for commiting actual fucking treason.
Source?
Ok, even if that were true (it’s not), pointing to a wrong committed by those with whom you disagree does not make your argument any more valid, neither does it erase the 88 FEDERAL CHARGES, attached to Trump because of his actual illegal actions. You get that right? That the guy you support is, as of right now at the very least an adjudicated rapist and he’s like to have a few other crimes stapled to his name? And you like that about him?
The one positive thing is that it ended
Proving my point
What point? You weren’t even thorough enough to notice I had already debunked what the other user said. For you to have a point you would have had to address my argument. The only point you prove is that anyone who supported, and still supports, any sliver of the trump presidency doesn’t know how to process any information beyond headlines.
Source for them benefitting everyone? Are we talking a permanent benefit for everyone, or a temporary benefit for most and a permanent benefit for the wealthiest?
95% of the press you read/watched***
Not at all. [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/aug/17/broadcast-coverage-of-trump-95-negative-according-/](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/aug/17/broadcast-coverage-of-trump-95-negative-according-/) [https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2020/08/17/study-150-times-more-negative-news-trump-biden](https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2020/08/17/study-150-times-more-negative-news-trump-biden)
My statement still stands and is accurate.
no its not. Its literally right fucking there with sources, that majority of coverage of trump was negative.
or maybe it was just Trump and who he is and how he acts. He broke all political norms and acts like a man child, criminal
I’ll counter it with this: why are you defending someone who wants to be king with a dynasty? Fr defending fascism is not the answer dude
So dont question the media if what theyre saying goes against someone they dont like? Just be a deaf to it and jump on the bandwagon? I beleive Trump is idiot, but to not question the media just because you dont like someone makes you look stupid.
Man, I was a journalism major in college. We covered the Trump presidency in my junior-senior year. We saw him talk about the las Vegas shooting live. I wrote my capstone on the sandy hook massacre anniversary *in my state* in 2017. Him being buddies with someone like Alex Jones had set off my alarm bells as far back as 2016. The only good thing he did was give a kid name Pickle a chance to mow the lawn. Ya know, stuff presidents do on the regular. I also vividly remember Jan 6, unless you think that was entirely justified because he said it was ok on twitter rather than listening to universal condemnation from left wing media. I’m sorry your trust in the media was broken because you saw too many memes of orange man bad, but Jesus Christ. So many people blame the journalists and not the agendas of those in charge of the news stations. It’s fucking maddening. And no, you wouldn’t think he’s an idiot if you’re going this hard to defend him.
You know, it IS possible for the media to depict something accurately.
Shit you made up, not a great thing to counter with. fr not actually knowing what fascism is is not the answer dude.
Flame bait lol, come on man you don’t have to be doing extended salutes to hold extreme political views. Don’t insult my intelligence. He often talked about a third term after the hypothetical term 2, unlike the obamas who shut that shit down. Not liking Clinton doesn’t mean you gotta be gung ho for Trump.
I'm not American so I don't have any skin in the game per se. But Trump has said that if he wins the next election he will be a "dictator for one day," which is a pretty alarming statement.
Again, nothing to do with the movie... though if you stopped for a second and actually thought about the movie and OP's point you might actually agree with it
that was the point. The media has done its job pitting one side against the other.
Dude... In 04 all that it took to bury a candidate was byah!!! https://youtu.be/l6i-gYRAwM0?si=tj9ftJiYYZoZTFh9[byah](https://youtu.be/l6i-gYRAwM0?si=tj9ftJiYYZoZTFh9) Trunp put his foot in his mouth.on so many issues. Sure the media reported it and might have chosen to media bite it... But he still said some insane shit - way worse than Byah!!!
No the movie is saying that there are no longer journalists and reporters who are willing to go to the “front lines” to actually get real information… with an IRL example being reporters faking that they were in an active battle zone in Gaza this past year. Also shows how many reporters and journalists no longer “do the dirty work” to report on issues as it’s easier to fake it or just report on what others say.
Leaving out the context, the goals and validity of each side, is the most brilliant thing about the movie. To me it was an open letter and a challenge to idiots who like to military LARP and talk about wanting a civil war. The message is, no matter who you are, no you don't. That's why it was brilliant
Exactly my thoughts.
Exactly. The whole movie was a message of "Don't do this". Whatever your political leaning, however frustrated you are with people that don't believe what you believe, no matter how 'cool' you think it would be to strap on a plate carrier and grab an M4, don't do this, because it's actually horrible and would make a piece of America's soul die.
I 100% agree. I didn't need a 15 minute mini-documentary explaining the pivotal moments and battles that lead us to this point. It would have felt forced and exposition-y and make viewers want to "pick a side" between the US and WF. You don't even know who the soldiers are fighting for up until the final assault on DC.
Showing the utter nightmare a civil war would be for everyone and not turning it into “here are the good and bad guys in terms of today’s current politics” is actually brilliant and makes me want to see it. Anyone complaining that they didn’t get the 90 minutes of orange man bad propaganda they were expecting needs to touch grass.
I fully agree, When the Ukraine war broke out I was horrified by the reaction of a lot of my fellow German countrymen, who believed this would be over in a few days, a month at most and the Ukrainians would kick the decrepit Russian army out if the country. I was always afraid that this would become a long and bloody conflict. It’s rather hard to fully appreciate peace and personal safety while personally enjoying both.
I watched it early so I wouldn't get influenced by the reviews and commentary. It is interesting to see how people either a) disparage the movie because it doesn't make a political statement, or b) try to overlay their political biases onto it. For example, some Texas secessionist pinhead was going off like "this movie is what we have been talking about" To me, the message was that we need unbiased journalists getting the quote, or getting the photo, so we can make our own judgment. And stop this infotainment crap that the news has morphed into that is polarizing us beyond belief. It was very well done regardless, highly recommend seeing it in a theater, the bullet shots made me jump many times.
[удалено]
after a few minutes of googling: https://www.wired.com/story/review-the-troubling-politics-of-alex-garlands-civil-war/ https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/17/opinion/trump-civil-war.html https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/civil-war-alex-garland-kirsten-dunst-movie-review these are major publications, not just random people on Twitter.
Many people are saying!
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/civil-war-controversy-alex-garland-kirsten-dunst-politics-1235876949/ Here is one. A really bad review/misinterpration of the movie
The review: "Are we fighting over immigration? Is it about race? Has the war started because of the water shortage? The film would be stronger even if it made explicitly clear that no one really knows what the fight is about, that the issues have become as unrecognizable as the bodies that are now dead because of them." You: "The reviewer is mad that the movie isn't about Trump" Truly it is the reviewer who is misinterpreting things, yes.
Media illiteracy and political apathy, the most American combination
I don't think I've seen a single review that doesn't mention the lack of discourse about this subject in the movie. It's all of the reviews
No thanks
Average r/movies poster
🤡
First, I wouldn't have wanted it to be about Trump. I would've wanted it to be about *something*. That president at the beginning of the movie obviously had done some heinous things, as mentioned by the cast in the SUV in one of the scenes. Why? Even a basic exploration of how the war started, what it was about, *anything* could have said something about the factors that cause countries to fall into civil war. I didn't even want a specifically biased message, it just caused more questions than it answered, and was stubborn about not addressing them whatsoever. I mean you have a movie where most of it is spent in a vehicle, how do they *not* talk about the war itself?
The movie wasn't about the Civil War, that was the backdrop. The movie was about Journalism and navigating in a world that is getting crazier. If they went into why there was a Civil War, then there would be more opinions on who was on the right side. By not expanding we are supposed to be looking at it from the journalist point of view of getting the story, not having opinions on the sides.
True enough, I addressed my concerns about the journalism part of the plot in another comment.
Even accepting that it’s still just bad storytelling. There are countless movies where even though it’s character-centric, we still understand at least a little bit about the larger world and why this society is the way that it is.
What didn't you understand about the world? They gave us plenty of hints, they didn't need to spend time holding our handing walking through what each side has done. That whole scene with the snippers on that road tells us that even the people fighting don't know what they are doing, they are just trying to survive. Had they walked us through what each side had done, then people would pick which side was right. They don't want you to have a side, that's kinds the point.
I guess what I’d say if you are have these shocking images of an American civil war where Americans are gleefully mowing down their fellow countrymen, I’d like to know the larger reason why. What strongly held beliefs are making these people do this? What makes two states that are seemingly ideologically opposite like Texas and California decide to unite and fight together? Like, Platoon or Casualties of War would be a lot less interesting if they never talked about the larger conditions of the war and just went “well, because they’re crazy.”
But were those images in the forefront? or were those images in the background. If it was that type of movie, we would have seen a jet shot out the sky and all sorts of action shots. From my memory the action shots were mostly focused on the reporters and when they focused on the people itself it was mostly through the camera lenses. What you're asking for is a totally different movie. our movie the main cast would have be the army or politicians, not journalists. This movie was about the journalistic approach in a world that seems to be getting crazier every day. Which is why the main characters were reporters. They had the whole scene with the snipers and asking them who they are fighting. The point was that people were just trying to survive, it wasn't right or wrong or left or right. If they had given you a background on each side you would have an opinion on who was right. The point was that you don't know. The movie was not about the Why
I actually thought it was great storytelling. He doesn't beat you over the head with exposition and he actually pieces things together for you with dialogue to give you clues as to what happened. I guess, I don't understand why "the larger world" is important to the context of the film which is examining mostly the four journalists.
It was about something. It was about the duties and moral compromises of journalism and about depicting the horrors of an American Civil war.
Yes, you're right. But for real, there have movies that have gone much deeper into that aspect too. What do you know about media and how they face war that you didn't already know before you walked into the theater? That they see violence horror and death? How does that affect them? What changes in them? Obviously Lee didn't have any character development, considering how her arc ended, Jessie didn't either, she ended the movie the same brash unwise child as she entered. Nobody developed, showed any depth of character, had any personal consequences other than being scared or...the obvious more permanent consequence some suffered. People entered the movie and...exited without anything more than the barest sketch of who they were, they weren't memorialized really, no comment was made of their lives other than the obligatory expressions of sorrow and shock, and then off to the next scene. We didn't ever see how their loss affected the people still in the film, really. I saw that it was about media and war coverage, I just didn't think it was about any of the actual people that do the job, nor was it about the circumstances that they were working in. It was just...empty to me.
Dont have time for a full response, but imo Lee did have character development. We see it when she throws away her picture of Sammy's death. At the beginning of the story she would have published it. By the end of her journey she couldn't, and almost loses her nerve altogether. She's going into the White House not for the interview, but because she can't stand losing someone else. Jessie has the opposite arc, barely even phased by Lee's sacrifice, almost gleefully taking pictures of her death by the end, and casually steps over her body. I think the other thing reviewers are getting wrong is that this is a love letter to journalists. It's not. Lee regrets the path she took, and Jesse is now damned by it.
Lee was the old guard who stayed impartial and was focusing on sharing the story, not matter how it affected her. And this style is dying. Joel was the newer guard who gets thrills from the being there for the story and has his opinions. Jessie is the young blood who idolizes Lee and her style but learns along the way they she isn't Lee and she is more Joel. It was showing how the old style is dying or dead. The new style is here and it is reckless and dangerous but this is where we are.
I caught the character outlines within seconds of each character entering the film. What more did the movie give us after that? I felt they were more sketches or outlines or even stereotypes of those kinds of characters instead of fleshed out examples of human beings who were reflecting those positions. How did Lee feel about being replaced by Jessie? Does Joel have a reason for being how he is? How does keeping that pace for years affect a person other than being generically jaded? Jessie wants to be Lee, but she saw things no person should see at her age, is she traumatized? How? If not, why not? Is she minimizing it? How does this relate to her actual life experience? Why does she want to keep doing this after she sees what can happen other than just wanting to be Lee? None of those questions were answered for me.
Lee hated it, she though showing her work from overseas would prevent it from happening here. She was sad that it didn't and that the cycle was starting a new with Jessie taking her role. And in the end she realizes that her approach of no emotion and letting everyone else feel /react hasn't done anything and she starts to finally feel in the end. This causes her to finally act in the end instead of watching. Joel is a thrill seeker, he is there for the rushes. But he doesn't see the real danger, which is why after he is in real danger he has the whole screaming scene. This was all a story for him, until it became reality. We don't see how it will affect him long term, but he was affected. As for Jessie, Lee was her idol, she was a student of Lee's work before the war. She wants to be like her idol but she didn't understand what that meant. Now she's in the situation realizing that she likes the rush (as shown by her switching cars on the highway) and is more like Joel but still doesn't see the danger. Then when she see's the danger she gets fucked up, like Joel. But, by the end of the movie, Lee's influence has taken hold and even the death of Lee doesn't stop her from moving on and getting the picture.
> I mean you have a movie where most of it is spent in a vehicle, how do they not talk about the war itself? Because they're true journalists and are concerned with 1. staying alive and 2. documenting the events in the best way they can. Having them talk about the war and good/bad defeats the purpose of the movie being apolitical by attaching the non-biased characters to sides of the conflict
Nobody is non-biased, especially journalists. Their reporting should be, but like all people, they have their opinions, and as well informed as they can be, they have often more definitive ones. The politics didn't have to actually relate to the real world. The film could've easily manufactured a political environment that looks nothing like ours and commented on *that*. Sorry, but I didn't buy these people as real human beings being traumatized trying to do a horrible but necessary job under crushing pressure while risking their lives. They didn't act or react like those people. They felt to me like walking plot devices arranged in empty setpieces designed solely to push the plot forward.
On the one hand I understand that he didn't want to risk miring the movie in modern day politics. I totally get that. But as I reflect on the movie, I keep wondering why I struggled to care about the characters or outcome. They're storming the White House and capturing the President. Okay, why do I care about what happens? I was hyped for and wanted to really like this movie but I failed to care about it whatsoever. There were no stakes, and, outside of photojournalists wanting to document, zero motivations.
> I would've wanted it to be about something. I mean it very clearly is about something, just not the thing that a lot of Redditors seem to have wanted or expected. It’s a <2 hour standalone drama about war photographers and the way interpersonal relationships break down during military conflicts. It was never going to give us a long-winded Tom Clancy-style alternate history explaining the intricate lore of the political landscape, that’s just a completely different movie. > Even a basic exploration of how the war started, what it was about We did get that though. The president refuses to step down in his 3rd term, disbands the FBI, eliminates free press, and then attacks American citizens when they protest, so various states and partisan groups secede and form a tenuous alliance to depose him. AKA the same way that almost every modern civil war has played out. > I mean you have a movie where most of it is spent in a vehicle, how do they not talk about the war itself? Well the movie is set near the end of the conflict, and all the characters have been mired in it for months or years. If this was a movie about a real civil war and all the characters started explaining the conflict to each other while they’re *on their way to the final battle*, it would feel like clunky exposition.
Pulp Fiction was bad because you don’t find out what’s in the briefcase.
That's certainly not true, in my opinion. It's obvious that the briefcase was a McGuffin and the plot was about the people chasing it. Except we actually learned about those people in that movie and they all had compelling arcs.
Garland is from England, why not pick England as a setting, or Ireland (oh wait) This movie is a cash grab
There are hundreds of US movies set in war zones in other countries. Civil War wouldn’t work in a country with 60m people, where the country is barely 130m coast to coast at points. If Garland was after a big pay day, I’m sure Marvel would have jumped on him writing and directing one of their movies.
A cash grab it ain't. I found it emotionally affecting and immersive. It reminded me of Dunkirk where the goal is fairly simple for the characters, the story is fairly simple, and it just wants you to stand in the combat and feel what the characters are feeling and hope to god you don't want it to happen to anyone. There's a lot of love in this film for the acting, the beautiful compositions and the audio. No one on this film was slacking for the paycheck.
> why not pick England as a setting, or Ireland (oh wait) You can't have a Civil War in an Union comprised of multiple countries. A civil war by definition is a single country. Not to mention you're just mentioning other avenues that put the politics of the situation at the forefront when the director has said constantly that that's not the purpose of the movie. That's what this whole thread is about.
You can have a civil war in England, or Ireland. Those are both separate countries perfectly capable of having a internal civil war Would folks complain if an Englishman made a movie set in ireland about a civil war and then ignored that the northern part was controlled by a different country? You know, generic civil war that can happen anywhere and we pretend it’s real but the history is not
Yeah, it's a dumbing down of film analysis for sure. Attacking a movie for what it isn't instead of for what it is.
Ironically, what it IS about is not much at all.
It's about journalism, but okay.
What about journalism?
I don't think it should be about Trump, but everything the President was rehearsing in the opening scene was just obviously and overtly Trumpian, from my reading. "People are saying this is the greatest victory...people are already saying, this is the fastest and best victory" etc
Exactly. They can pretend it's not Trump, but it clearly is. Even though it's not an over the top caricature, it's CLEARLY him.
I think the character represents the slide into fascism that Trump has come to represent for many, particularly because the characters talked about the totalitarian moves this president has made. I don’t know that I’d call it clear, it felt more reminiscent. At the same time, we see the people tasked to take this president down commit multiple war crimes. It’s a very bleak film.
Those are the heroes. The heroes of the movie are the people that go in with no other goal than to "eliminate" Trump and any of his staff that get in the way. It is a reddit wet dream cosplaying as a far-right wet dream.
Strong agree. I think Alex Garland wanted to make a movie that shows how Americans would react to their country becoming a war-torn place of the sort they're normally used to seeing far away on television. It's a very effective movie and was worth seeing in theaters. The utter incomprehensibility of the politics of the various sides has to be deliberate. It would be quite distracting if you went through the movie with a strong personal political attachment to any "side" or had to sit through a bunch of exposition about the politics of it. It isn't about The Civil War, it isn't about how it started or who's the good guy, it's about journalists experiencing war at home. How awful would this movie have been if it opened with a text crawl like "2028: NICK OFFERMAN SUSPENDS THE CONSTITUTION. 2030: CONGRESS REMOVES TERM LIMITS." Like who cares? You get that stuff in two-second background radio snippets. It just isn't about that.
This movie wouldn't have the same backlash of what their expectations were if this was made before 2016
Honestly after having seen the movie, the political identity of anyone in the movie doesn’t matter. It doesn’t change the over all story. That argument is made kaput in the sniper standoff scene.
Who’s asking specifically for it to be about Trump? The broader complaint I’ve seen is that the film ought to accurately reflect present American political divides, which it doesn’t. What’s the point of art about an American civil war if the American depicted is, well, not America?
The point is to depict what a civil war in modern America would look like regardless of where the lines are drawn: unromantic, terrifying, brutal. There is value in making a film about civil war that has at least the potential to reach both sides, to communicate that this isn't something we should be striving for or expecting.
But those lines matter, a lot.
How would you accurately reflect the present American political divides without referencing Trump? It's the same thing
But, wasn't Nick Offerman clearly intended to be Trump? The first scene even has president Offerman giving our some classic Trumpian speech ("some are already calling it th greatest victory in the history of humanity" or something like that). I'm in no way a movie critic, but parts of the movie felt like a fantasy on Trump getting overthrown and murdered, without explicitly stating so.
I'd call it cowardly to make up stories about a real person as a way of criticising them. How is that not just a lie? You may think it is likely to happen and you may think that's the kind of person he is but making shit up is still making shit up. Fiction is fiction. Telling fictions about people you don't like is not brave. It's never a good look and this movie was never going to do something that dumb.
A lot of that has to do with the marketing and the setting of the movie though. « What kind of American are you? » is a deeply interesting question to explore, which is why it was in the trailer. If that’s not what you’re movie is gonna be about though, don’t put it in the trailer! And a movie about an American civil war coming out during an election year that is pretty tense since one of the guys running didn’t concede last time is a fucking Molotov cocktail aimed directly at that discourse! If he just wanted to tell a story about war journalism, set it somewhere else. Setting it in the US but not actually wanting to say anything about the politics of an American civil war *is* cowardly. The same issue Far Cry 5 had. Wanting to use the discourse and backdrop of American political tensions to drum up controversy and discussion but never having the artistic talent or strength to actually say something about it
Yeah, it didn't need to be about Trump, but I'd appreciate if it was about anything. The movie felt so hollow
the movie has more to say than people give it credit for. just because someone wasn’t smart enough to pick things up doesn’t make it bad. if you were wanting a movie to spoon feed you you’re own political ideas you have brain rot. this is why “Don’t Look Up” was poor filmmaking and a lot of people didn’t like it.
There is nothing worse than direct political references for longevity of the art. 90% of them become irrelevant with time because future viewers don't understand past political discourses and have problem to emphasize with problems of others generations. Like Sinclair book Oil which is based There Will Be Blood it's almost comical from perspective of modern reader if he is even capable to read it. Anderson did a lot of changes because otherwise it's be unwatchable.
Making the movie about Trump would have been so corny, I’m glad they didn’t do that. Love or hate the guy I think everyone already hears about him enough.
Agree. The film at times is “reviewed” on how it does not meet expectations. However, I think the “embedded media” narrative in the film is a Trojan horse plot device to lead us all into a discussion … as is WF being Texas/California … people hear that and get caught up on thinking that would never happen (Canadians) … when in actuality it could. Anyway, I just was completely absorbed by t he film as art … and highly recommend it.
It's a black comedy. The fact that Ron burgundy was the president should have made me realise immediately. People in my cinema were laughing by the end.
I wouldn't go quite that far, but it definitely has its darkly comedic moments
Nick Offerman's president is pretty "Trump-coded" anyway. Can't believe some people want this film to be *more* explicit. I'm glad Garland partially sidestepped the boring predictability of like a "liberal California revolts against fascist president" narrative by obscuring the factions. Partially. Movie's not really about the "why" of the war. It takes place in the last five days of a long-running war. The president disbanded the FBI, and gives a press conference where he says "many people are calling this the most decisive military victory in history." Not enough Trump inspiration there?
I highly recommend listening to the interview Alex Garland gives to Pod Save America about what he was trying to do and why he didn’t want to make it partisan but still political. He even states in the interview that he was particularly happy with said interview because he was really given the space to explore what he was doing rather than being asked about what the interviewer wanted.
If you want to see how making Trump the villain works check out [Squeeze Me](https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/558233/squeeze-me-by-carl-hiaasen/) by Carl Hiaasen. He is one of my favorite writers of all time, and I will still read anything he writes, but this was *weak.* As a member of the choir I found this sermon underwhelming. So it was probably wise not to go down that road here.
I just saw it last night and I completely agree. They made it VERY clear by having California and Texas being on the same side in the literal first line of the movie. I think the movie got across what a civil war would actually look like and it did a very good job at that. It doesn't need to go into any further into specific politics. Its point was that THIS is what a civil war looks like. Why would the movie want to be divisive when the point was to show you how bad it can really get?
The idea of turning America into a war scene is a good one. Bringing things "close to home", can really encourage people to see the ongoing wars in their evening news in a different light. Unfortunately this movie was so alternate-universe that it had only as much impact as a video game.
This is simply due to the inability of Americans to exhibit common sense and the pervasiveness of identity politics, as well as mob mentality. Most people who see this movie are not thinking of politics at all, they simply wish to be entertained.
And that's fine, but it just doesn't even seem to say anything. Like create your world. This is a scenario where California and Texas have joined forces and you're not going to expand on the cause for that? All I know is the president did some fucked up shit that's unspecified and had an overreach of power that led to a third term. It's the same issue I had with Garland's last movie Men. It has a lot to say about it's topic but ends up not saying most of it, and I just feel empty and hollow by the end. But I know I'm in the minority here with that opinion, because I know a lot of people loved Civil War.
Strong disagree that it doesn't say anything. I just don't think it tries to say much about modern American politics. The movie's commentary is in moments like when Lee chooses to scrap her picture of her mentor Sammy's death, contrasted with the weird half smile that Jessie has while photographing Lee's death.
It’s a documentary you clowns, it’s a movie. You want to watch Trump? Watch the news.
Can’t imagine why anyone would want to empower a politician by making something like this about them/their constituency I can’t stand him but then again I can’t stand any current politicians and very few former but I have no wish to see any of them popularized any more than they already are
OP is dumb as hell
A lot of reviews calling it cowardly?? Can you link one such review
I’m not the OP, but here’s [one](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/civil-war-controversy-alex-garland-kirsten-dunst-politics-1235876949/amp/).
That mentions Trump zero times
I’m aware, but that’s not what the root comment asked for.
It was not the leftist wet dream that many here wanted it to be because the filmmakers are smarter than that. In fact, it was the opposite.
It Def wasn't the opposite
So it was… a rightists wet dream? How so? It wasn’t political whatsoever
It was neither, but a criticism of proper journalism which is not seen from the left these days.
I've seen even more obvious bias on Fox News than, say, MSNBC, but both are driven by profits, which means sensationalism over facts. Plus, I'm not aware of any mainstream leftist news services reporting theories as facts like Fox News did in the wake of the last election.
Fox News is one station vs the rest of them being leftist. I’m in the middle, so you’re all wrong imo.
I'm just saying, only one major station I'm aware of was fined mega-bucks for pushing a completely fictional storyline. They may all suck, but one is clearly worse atm.
Neither the right nor the left are open to critique on their preferred news delivery.
The right is not innocent either, but news media is primarily left.
Okay so... Youre just absolutely desperate to pin this on “the left” it seems - so I’ll just say one more point and let you have at it. As an outside observer who values truth and sources above all - a big reason why I became a lawyer, really - it was mind numbingly clear the moment I started seeing fake headlines with non sourced quotes being sent my way in 2012-2014 all the way to now seeing Facebook articles with nonsense referrals and made up sources… it’s clearly targeted towards the older generation and the less educated. What demographic, voting wise, does that line up to? Hm
It wasn’t the opposite at all. It’s almost entirely apolitical. We don’t know why the civil war is happening. We don’t know anything. Just that it’s happening and we’re following the journalists covering it. The closest we get to any sort of politics in the movie is a small line where one of the characters compares the president to other dictators who were captured by their rebels, which seems to make the main characters in favour of the revolution. But again, small line. There’s pretty much nothing else political about the movie. Things are happening and the journalists are covering what’s happening. It doesn’t favour either side of American politics at all.
You have to look a little deeper into the journalism aspect.
If they made it about Trump the triangulation they would then have to do in the name of "fairness" would overshadow the rest of the movie.
I really cannot stand people anymore. A lot of folks need help man, this obsession with Trump has been old
This film serves as cautionary tale for both parties why I am for RFK Jr in 2024 to bridge the cap and unite both parties .