Alex Garland’s newest film, ‘Civil War’, about a hypothetical civil war that engulfs The United States in the near future, is one of the most talked about and socially relevant movies I have seen in recent memory. The conversation around this movie is largely about how feasible such a conflict could be and I have read and seen countless articles from every major and minor news source breaking down every political and societal move shown in the film. Focusing on a team of journalists making the long, winding drive from New York City to the besieged Washington D.C, it makes sense for so many writers and journalists to speculate. Its box office dominance over the past few weekends also speaks to its significance. It is the highest budget movie to be distributed by indie-giant A24 and its audience and appeal spans the political divide. As an increasing fan of speculative realistic fiction I had to check it out.
As much as I was more interested in the discourse surrounding this movie than the piece itself, to take a look at the work on its own merits wasn’t as hard a challenge as I assumed it would be. I was surprised by how engaging it was. Most critics of Civil War can be divided into two camps: Those who dwell on the details and feasibility of the concept, critiquing the fact that an allied Texas and California, going up against the rest of the US could never be a political reality, and those happy to see the ambiguous background of the conflict as a positive, necessary to avoid alienating the audience and helpful as a vessel for the film’s uncomplicated anti war message. I would probably fit within the second camp. I didn’t feel like it was bogged down by the ambiguity surrounding the premise and quickly lost myself in the action and perils of the core group of characters. As I had hoped, I actually didn’t find myself breaking down the backstory once but I am still conflicted as to whether that enhanced the experience or made for a blander movie.
The action in ‘Civil War’ is some of the most immersive and troubling. Part of the gimmick of the film is seeing the kind of guerilla conflict that we’ve seen countless times in other movies and pieces of media happening continents away, instead happening with the background of average suburban America. Such a presentation stuck with me, as I presume I stuck with most of the viewers. Seeing people hanging in front of what looks like your neighborhood Sheetz, and downed helicopters in front of abandoned big box stores are unique and distinctly American images. One of my favorite choices the movie makes is periodically showing the pictures aspiring war photographers and audience surrogate Jessie takes on the trip. Her black and white photography grounds the movie and provides a moment to focus on the most impactful scenes. Civil War also has some of the most visceral gunshots and deaths of anything I can remember seeing in theaters recently. There’s no cartoonish violence and everything seems intentional. You feel every bullet.
More than a definite message, Civil War leaves you feeling both that there’s no way anything could ever get this bad in this country but also that given the scenario, it’s probably realistic to how such a conflict would actually play out. While I really appreciate the focus on journalism (this semester has been very “journalism themed for me” and I have found myself thinking a lot about the ethics and behaviors of this societal role as much as the characters do), I will say however that never have I wanted more civilian perspectives. The bits and pieces dropped throughout the movie that show how people are either engaging or disengaging from the war leave a lot to the imagination and I wish more of that could have been discovered along the way. But the movie sticks its landing and sticks its messaging. In that respect, I think this movie is quite necessary, a moment of clarity where this war is flat out a bad thing and just about everyone except the inevitable gun toting, very unsubtly racist militias agree to that. I love this country.
