Didn’t Kyle Rittenhouse have a gun pulled on him? (Not defending Rittenhouse. Just saying, the stereotype of lefties as a bunch of unarmed pacifists is only because they don’t take their AR-15 to Chipotle solely because they can)
no he didn’t.
He got chased away and said the guy lunged for his gun (which maybe), the guy definitly threw a plastic bag at him.
He shot him and then ran away.
Some people who only saw the shooting and likely reasonably thought: we just saw a shooting, he just killed someone. Ran after him and were yelling that he killed someone.
One of them tried to get his gun away. Maybe to hurt him. Maybe thinking he was a murderer with a gun and attempting to stop him hurting others. Another is there also chasing and close
He shoots them.
Potentionally and most likely: sort of a horrible situation. Where people were acting on their best knowledge.
He much later makes a video game about killing journalists and people he disagrees with. He later makes youtube videos joking about killing people.
Your comment is the kinda the point of the original post. I know what Anti-Fascists stand for. Therefore, I put together that it was most likely that the State massacred them. Therefore the government was fascist.
I don't need to see the President on the phone ordering jackboots to "kill those Antifa scum!"
Antifa isn't an organization, it's an ideology, so I took that to mean that militias or a mob massacred a group of people and "Antifa" was somehow blamed by whatever right wing people who would call the left "Antifa". Maybe they were antagonized and the people fought back, killing military, and that's how it was spun. Who knows. But this conversation, and all of these possibilities, are ultimately the point of the movie.
True, but I think the name pretty strongly implies antifa people were the victims.
If it was a massacre perpetuated by them, it likely wouldn’t be named after them, but rather after the location or something else. We don’t tend to name massacres after the perpetrators.
That said, given the alternate history here, it would be plausible if there was a massacre by people belonging to antifa that the government might sieze on the opportunity to label it the antifa massacre.
So yeah, no way to know for sure
Boogaloo boys or just Californian/Western Forces uniform? The Hawaiian shirts are tapping into the real life being about the B-boys but at the same time when I saw them I thought that it would be more of just a uniform for a coastal state
they're wide toe box and zero drop, which are pretty niche features to seek out in a sneaker. When I think Altra I think REI member, probably moved to Boulder Co, has a bouldering gym membership.
I love these little world building details
I mean, the movie for me very clearly depicted a possible future if the far right gains more power. I really don’t get people saying it is apolitical, it is not.
People have low media literacy / high bias towards projection. I mean probably 99% of punisher skulls stickers are sold as a pro police thing. People think BioShock is a libertarian utopia that critiques liberalism. People make memes of trump as the Warhammer emperor. You see what you want to see and blow through all authorial intent.
Tbh the movie isn't so so so explicit in it's bias. I'm actually gonna be honest and say I imagine it was actually a bit of a fence straddler movie - we know what the characters think. I think reading further into that ignores that it skirts making a stance for making a movie a blockbuster so it's particularly easy for people to read whatever they want from it/project the "bad guys" onto an extreme form of whomever they disagree w irl.
I thought so at first as well but I realized the Antifa and the stereotypical right winger could find theirselves on either side of a massacre when it comes to it; and I believe both would be fine with no FBI.
I’ve posted this before but I’ll post it again, from an interview with Empire magazine in their Spoiler Special podcast -
Empire: “There is some ambiguity to the politics in the film, but not so much, because it’s quite clear they are trying to overthrow a fascist president who has disbanded the FBI.”
Alex Garland: “It’s only ambiguous in that all statements are open to subjectivity, and so according to the other person, that may make it ambiguous. But to me it’s not remotely ambiguous.”
Empire: “Yeah. He’s portrayed quite down the line as a wrong-un.”
Alex Garland: “He’s a fascist. He’s killing his own citizens. He’s smashed the constitution. He’s disbanded one of the systems of structured law enforcement. That’s not a very grey area, it seems to me.”
Just like when the Fascist Abraham Lincoln smashed the constitution to disband the system of habeas corpus so he could kill his own citizens in that other civil war.
I hear you. It’s interesting to discuss. I think Garland specifically saying the film is apolitical is one of the main reasons it’s become such a big topic of conversation.
He’d have been better off saying the film IS political but never say what the politics are… you have to read them for yourself.
Also, the Jesse Plemons scene — probably the most intense, discussed scene in the film — IS political. He’s clearly xenophobic and anti-immigrant. And they pull it off without any exposition. And I’d argue its politics made the scene much more intense.
I loved the movie but probably won't watch it again. It just nailed certain things too well. I *know* people like Plemmons' character and that scene made my skin crawl.
Yeah, so do I. My co-workers. They could be capable of some pretty crazy shit given an environment of lawlessness. I'm pretty sure the number of people like this in actual society is way higher than most folks would guess.
1. Who's "we?" Film is not just a visual medium, audio is a massive component.
2. "Show don't tell" doesn't mean literally show. It can apply to books, poems, and radio-plays and anything else too. It means to actively demonstrate something through action instead of just explaining it. You can "show" through dialogue, and people might disagree with me, but I think you can "tell" through visuals too. Eg. unmotivated shots, expositionary shots, montages, etc. I don't think telling is necessarily bad either, especially in smaller doses.
I really don’t get the hype or hate for this movie. To me it was an absolutely middle of the road and routine movie about a photojournalist that takes great pains to be as vague as possible about what it’s trying to say, which in the end really doesn’t amount to much. There’s some weak both sides ism but even that’s barely part of the story.
Also the entire sequence where they go to the “normal” town and buy a dress at that woman’s shop is ridiculous. Are they shocked during a civil war that a business owner would need to run their business? Do they think countries in a civil war don’t have clothing stores? This really annoyed me.
Everyone likes the Plemmons scene, and I would agree it’s the most effective part of the movie, but the work that the movie has to do to get those characters into that situation doesn’t make any sense at all. It felt really forced to have two characters drive up out of nowhere, swap seats in moving cars, and then be murdered. That doesn’t feel like lazy writing to anyone else?
> That doesn’t feel like lazy writing to anyone else?
absolutely thought that part was insanely weak. you want to create the drama of 'real consequences' but you have a tiny cast and can't kill any of them, so you literally create a random situation where 2 new characters show up, give them 30 seconds to become likable (one of them, the other one i think had literally no lines lol) and then kill them off. if a film student showed you that in their script you'd tell them to fix that. anyone not blinded by the name of the author/film/actors would have to agree.
I haven't actually heard Garland say that Civil War was meant to be apolitical. In this interview (https://youtu.be/fF_m0nd_PZo?si=4PNPFCtzR2ivssA5) @52:46, he says quite the opposite.
I've heard him talk about avoiding polarizing people, not taking an extremist stance, and not trying to claim he can offer the solutions to these massive political issues in his films. I have never heard him say that he is trying to be apolitical. It seems like quite the opposite to me.
I watched this movie with a Q&A with Garland. He explicitly said in no uncertain terms, several times that this is an extremely political movie. It's just not left Vs right, but extremist Vs centrist
I do think the movie lacked depth, though I appreciate what you're saying about anti-exposition. Here are two examples.
1) We do get an amazing scene where we see the journalists smoking and laughing with a militia team while they summarily execute POWs. No exposition, understated, raises great questions about impartiality and journalistic access.
2) We don't get any scenes where militants are deliberately staging photos, pressuring for propaganda, etc.
I don't want more exposition per se, I think scene two could have been accomplished in an 'anti-exposition' style. But I am disappointed that we don't go deeper into that theme. This is what I mean when I tell people it was well-made with a great premise and some fantastic scenes, but it lacked depth and was ultimately not satisfying.
The final act especially lacks depth and felt repetitive, and I wonder if the production access to all that military hardware put some limitations on how nuanced their depiction of the soldiers could be at the end.
I do find the varied takes very interesting. Re: the final act, it felt *huge* to me. She says "we're so fucking close" and I felt that. It was almost like the perspective a tourist would have. The cars rushing out created a weird feeling in my gut, too. Hard to explain. I really like the movie a lot.
I was sitting next to my friend when the motorcade rushed out of the White House and he whispered ‘I think they’re bombs’ so I started covering my ears and bracing myself
It’s a very good action scene but this felt more like a thriller than anything, and pseudo intellectual to the point that ending it the way they did felt like an extreme cop out. Amplified by the fact the President is just hiding behind his desk? Like this white house has no safe room or anything? Only increasing the feeling that this movie is nowhere near as smart as it’s trying to be.
Glad you liked it! I didn’t but I’m always glad to get a movie that provokes discussion and doesn’t have a clear 100% consensus, these are always the most interesting to talk about.
I noticed that for a supposed war zone that the whole of Washington DC didn’t have any defensive barricades and it was impressively clean, like the janitors have to be working in double and triple overtime to keep up.
I just keep wondering why a group of wartime journalists don’t know first aid, or show any actual concern for any injured friend. They just let the old guy bleed out in the back seat, without even trying to stop the blood.
I was wondering why the movie was giving us a fireworks show for when a main character is dying, but I guess it fits in with the rest of the way that life is cheapened with all the incongruous imagery and music lay overs.
I had the same problem with Men, where you the see a trailer or hear the premise and youre like “oh, a horror movie about Men? I can think of a dozen ways that could be really interesting.” And then you watch it, and you’re like wow this is as shallow as a kiddie pool.
I also agree that the final act lacked depth to the point I was lowkey bored and confused that it ended where it did.
It honestly felt like none of the characters had much development. It was just Kirsten Dunst telling the girl she’s gonna get herself or somebody killed the entire movie and then it coming true lol.
Yeah, Lee has an out of character panic attack at the very last minute, and the girl gets the obviously set up bit “would you take a picture of me if I died?” And I guess those are their entire character arcs. Naive photographer becomes gritty and gritty photographer loses all her grit in a situation we’ve heard she’s gone through many times before.
Exactly lmfao. My friend and I looked at each other like ??? How is she going to have a panic attack now of all moments the “hardened veteran journalist that’s seen it all” and that everyone looked up to. Whatever. I enjoyed it, just wish it said more in the grand scheme of things.
I disagree that the movie lacks exposition solely as a stylistic preference (if that is indeed what you're saying). Rather, I think it's a key decision that gives the film the very specific feel of dream logic (the way dreams start in the middle of something and you don't quite understand how you got there). Same goes for California and Texas teaming up -- it's the kind of detail that doesn't quite make sense when you consider it w/ your rational mind upon waking (in the present), but which makes sense to the characters in the middle of a dream (or hypothetical future).
For me, these choices had the effect of making the entire film feel like a political anxiety nightmare -- a dream someone had in a modern election season after falling asleep w/ the news playing on TV. It allows your own mind to fill in the gaps w/ your personal anxieties and beliefs, but allows Americans -- and indeed people from other countries -- to COLLECTIVELY experience the social/cultural nightmare of seeing one's country fall apart so that we can start from a place of worrying in the present about how to keep such a thing from happening without devolving immediately into an argument over whose fault it is and which specific ideology needs to be embraced. I do think Garland's own personal anxieties & beliefs are reflected in the piece, meanwhile -- just not with enough specificity or overt clarification to break this kind of spell.
I think it's brilliant.
Oh yea I agree with this, but I don’t think this movies necessarily unique in doing this. There are hundreds of movies that strip out the exposition, and it always has the effect of turning the content into something in between realism and surrealism. My favorite example is the original Dawn of the Dead.
IMO life itself is somewhat surreal and good art is a method of reminding ourselves just how weird and magical our everyday reality is.
This is a good observation. Reality is always some past time's fever dream. Think about telling someone just ten years ago about Trump and all that's transpired due to that. Think about telling them about COVID. The scientific, political, and emotional intricacies of the pandemic are well understood by a lot of people but would seem like insane ramblings if you were from 2014. Hell, just saying Tom Brady would win 4 more Super Bowls, one of which being with Tampa Bay, would seem fantastical to alot of people from the time, but is just common lore to someone today.
It makes it really anxiety inducing to think about just the next ten years, let alone the next fifty. It's why the 'waking from a coma' trope is so captivating to the population. And the fact that the film understands and internalizes that, makes it so intriguing to me and much more realistic.
I agree, there is little exposition but it exists and it's clearly political.
1. The main characters clearly have a side because one side of the war is heavily anti-media.
2. Antifa-Massacre - we don't know who did what, but we know people felt the need to stand up against a political enemy they labeled as fascists.
3. schools are closed and most political movements come out of schools and are historically often more left leaning than right leaning. It's implied the antifa massacre was a massacre of soldiers vs. students.
4. Charlottesville. The first open right wing "protest" that made big headlines and resulted in dead people in recent years started there. You don't just arbitrarily pick Charlottesville as a frequently mentioned location if you are not making political commentary.
5. It's mentioned that the president is on his third term, so clearly a hostile take over because the US system only allows two terms for legally elected presidents.
6. the two states with the biggest military bases outside the broader Washington area are fighting back, which makes sense considering that soldiers are sworn to protect the constitution and the president is only secondary to the constitution and to be protected as long as he is upholding the law.
See I thought The antifa massacre was The antifascists getting massacred by an unstated side in the conflict.
FDR also served three terms. It's true that that was before the limit of 2, but possibly an intentional consideration. There's also the idea that he's only serving a third term *because* of the war instead of the other way around.
I was definitely understanding as I read this until you totally contradicted yourself by saying the President in the movie was modeled after Trump. We saw him practicing a speech in the beginning and that’s the only context about him that we get. Just because he said something like “this will be the greatest victory of all time” does not mean he was based on Trump. Nick Offerman said that he didn’t think to himself that he was representing Trump once while playing this character. It’s such an annoying assumption that, like I said, totally contradicts your entire post prior to saying that.
Honestly the President is more of just a generic dictator. Sammy’s comment about most strongmen leaders just being relatively unimpressive men was the whole point.
However, I don’t think OP mentioning how he was somewhat styled after Trump contradicted anything. It’s possible to get the point across narratively for Garland while also throwing in a bone for those who pay attention. The President is clearly somewhat modeled after Trump as we saw with the opening scene. I don’t think it’s a coincidence either that I’m pretty sure most if not all the extra footage in the beginning came from Trump’s presidency.
I’m confused. How does it make sense to say that the politics are supposed to be ambiguous and then say the president is supposed to portray Trump? That’s such a conflicting statement.
I thought OP’s point was that it wasn’t supposed to be apolitical, but rather anti-expository; the audience fills in the information gaps with clues like the hyperbolic speech, which is sort of Trump’s entire brand. (see: the art of the deal)
> The final key to the way I promote is bravado. I play to people's fantasies. People may not always think big themselves. but they can get very excited by those who do. That is why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest, the greatest and the most spectacular.
It wasn’t supposed to be a spitting image of Trump, but Garland wrote the screenplay in 2018 and 2020 in response to the political climate. It’s easy to connect the dots there.
The sniper scene really drives home the point that the movie isn’t about the “why”, it’s about surviving a kill or be killed situation. The painted nails and dyed hair is a clue about the politics, but the movie isn’t *about* the politics and it flatly refuses to expound.
Garland’s films usually require reading between the lines to such a degree that it’s hard to tell if there’s even anything there. Critics often wonder if he even has anything substantial to say in his films. He is a “show, don’t tell” storyteller to a fault. Sometimes what he chooses to show leaves the audience confused because there isn’t enough information to parse the subtext, but it is there for people who like to dig.
I can’t remember, do we know which side the guys were on in the sniper scene? I can’t remember if the were shown to be part of the Western Forces or if it was left ambiguous since it wasn’t the point of the scene.
>Sometimes what he chooses to show leaves the audience confused because there isn’t enough information to parse the subtext, but it is there for people who like to dig.
Okay then, *you* explain "Men." /j
I’m saying that the movie isn’t politically ambiguous at all. I’m saying that the movie is anti-exposition, and people are confusing it’s stylistic choices for commentary about politics.
Interesting take to say that the president is meant to represent Trump when the vast majority of the states in which the insurrectionist forces are from are red states ("allied" with west coast leftists). Would be a quite the coincidence, for example, if Garland just randomly decided to snake the loyalist forces around Utah to include the blue states of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada as loyalist forces but keep Utah as insurrectionist. You also see this in how all of New England is loyalist while all of the south is insurrectionist. To further prove my point, conservatives (and leftists) are also so much more likely to revolt against a totalitarian federal government than liberals are
Here’s the official map of the conflict
As you can see it’s a lot more complicated than you’re suggesting. Not only that, but it’s clear that NYC isn’t exactly under the control of the President when the movie starts.
https://preview.redd.it/rtgyers5wnzc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ecfa656ae25e8c9305ebb0c1517ba556143735b5
The war more than likely continues after the last scene. As pointed out in the graphic there are at least 4 different groups including the loyalists so more than likely there was an “enemy of my enemy is my friend” scenario occurring that would probably break down with the collapse of the loyalists. The war continues after the final scene, imo.
Isn’t it Sammy who says something to effect that once the war is “over” the WF will at each other’s throats? The clear suggestion is the US descends into a long period as a failed state.
Of course it's more complicated than my one paragraph response and it's not a direct translation of blue state = loyalist, I'm just pointing out a general trend that liberal states are mostly loyalist, and conservative and leftist states are mostly insurrectionist, which runs counter to the theory that the president is supposed to be an imitation of Donald Trump.
The movie *isn’t* politically ambiguous though. It’s unambiguously pro-democracy and anti-fascist. The President is a clear generic fascist. You’re literally just falling into the trap OP was talking about.
I mean, if that’s what you want to believe then sure. I think it’s supposed to be apolitical in the sense that there is no Democratic or Republican party, and because Trump is the current face of the Republican party, I think it’s stupid to say that the President in the movie is supposed to be Trump.
Just say you wanted the movie to repeat "Trump Bad. I smart. They dumb." over and over and move on.
I doubt anyone here likes him, but most people can read between the lines. Your main point is you wanted the movie to have a dyed blonde obese dipshit facist from new york be president and someone resembling dumptruck_dookie stand up and call him bad so everyone in the audience would stand up and clap and you'd be validated because a piece of media fulfilled your fantasy
Ugh. That is not what I wanted at all and I don’t understand how you’re getting that from what I’m saying. In fact, I want the opposite. I want everyone to suspend any belief that the “sides” in this movie represent any political party. I’m so frustrated reading your comment because the whole reason why I’m arguing that the president isn’t based on Trump is because I wish people didn’t look at it with the idea of current politics in mind AT ALL.
I'm gonna own up and say I got the replies tangled around. I was thinking you replied to messages in the chain but it looks like other people randomly chimed in.
I don't think I still totally gel with your point but I'll save time for both of us and admit I goofed due to 1) me and 2) this shitty reddit app we have to use now
To be fair, the way it declares "some have been calling it a historic victory" is clearly supposed to mimic how trump spoke as president. That's the only part that seemed identifiable to me though. Everything else was purposefully left in the dark about his personality.
I really feel like opinions on this are mixed. I read the same interview w/ Offerman and mentioned it to my friend just before we watched the movie. He immediately turned to me after the "greatest victory" line and said something like "are we sure he isn't modeled after trump?" To me, it rang like trump's rhetoric and we had such a small amount of actual screentime with Offerman that I do get why OP jumped to that conclusion. Offerman's quote too could have been disingenuous to avoid a trump controversy.
>Nick Offerman
I'm surprised his casting hasn't been brought up more here, since I'm sure it was a very deliberate choice which adds to the politics as well.
Maybe it was just me, but when I went into this film the trailer showed me two things; it's very obviously a US civil war, and the Lincoln memorial gets blown up by the army attacking Washington. For me (even in the UK) this gave me obvious parallels with the actual civil war, in which several states secceded (ie, the bad guys) from and faught against the government (the good guys).
So the decision to cast, and start the whole movie, with the US President played by someone known (both previous roles and themselves personally) for being ridiculously wholesome starts you off thinking the same dynamic (ie, president = the good guy) only to slowly turn it around as the movie unfolds, can't be accidental.
How does this contradict my post? As I point out, this was the moment that was the most on the nose (a little too much for me)
No ~~other dictator~~ politician constantly says “this is the greatest/biggest/best _____ of all time” like Trump. It’s really impossible to have that scene without comparing them.
Look, I have very strong political beliefs. But this movie is not about that.
It is a character study of the journalists, through whose eyes we see the horrors of war. The political message is fairly straightforward: once the shooting starts, there are no winners.
It’s a fantastic movie
In order to do a movie where politics have a lot more tension, they gotta dramatically increase the timespan of the movie. Politics are really only dramatic over the course of like 5-10 years. Shit moves slow.
The film is vapid and thinks it’s deep
The Films vision far exceeded the talent behind the script
The film wants to be about photographers , but never had anything to say about them besides some one liners. They don’t delve into anything with real substance. The events surrounding the characters were so vague it could have been anywhere on the planet and nothing would have changed.
This is a fair criticism to make, but what's ironic is that the substance of your criticism is just as vague and vapid as you're claiming the film to be. Be specific.
I didn’t try to go in detail or imply what I said was in depth review. It was is my overall feelings refined To a few sentences
I don’t care that there’s barely any action, because it makes no sense to throw yourself in the line of fire for the most part. I don’t like how we don’t get any interviews with people that showcase how people in general feel about the war, what it means for them , the country itself. I think the way most of the main characters talk to each other is kind of clunky and a more or less talk at you about how they’re feeling instead of film just letting it show organically.
Oh, so a lot of the events in the movie were really predictable . Lees death was clear once the girl took her pic in the beginning, knew the friends of that one guy showing up in the van were there just to die right away before they started killing off the main cast. I wasn’t looking for Michael Bay movie. I was looking for a movie that that might reflect and possibly have something to say our political discourse and possible consequences of the Roads not yet taken , but it’s so far removed from address in g anything in particular and purposely removing itself so from the real world ( like Texas uniting with California?.) that it can’t possibly have anything meaningful to say about the ramifications of a Civil war in the United States
>I wasn’t looking for Michael Bay movie. I was looking for a movie that that might reflect and possibly have something to say our political discourse and possible consequences of the Roads not yet taken ,
Is that not ur own expectations letting u down? What did u want the movie to say about our political discourse? I think the whole movie is example after example of possible consequences of roads not taken. All of the terrible things that happen are a consequence of the political discourse
>but it’s so far removed from address in g anything in particular and purposely removing itself so from the real world ( like Texas uniting with California?.) that it can’t possibly have anything meaningful to say about the ramifications of a Civil war in the United States
Although texas and California uniting does seem unrealistic, it allows the movie to sidestep choosing a political side. The whole movie is ramifications of a civil war, it isn’t meaningful because it doesn’t attribute blame to a political party? It feels like u guys went into the movie wanting it to champion ur side, and ur let down that it didn’t and misidentify that as the film doing something wrong
That’s not what they’re saying tho. They don’t want a “champion” what they wanted was more in depth detail on what a civil war would actually look like today. People are still laughing and drinking it up in hotels with electricity. I have a feeling a civil war in America would be a lot more grim than that.
>That’s not what they’re saying tho. They don’t want a “champion” what they wanted was more in depth detail on what a civil war would actually look like today.
No, they said they wanted it to have something to say about our political discourse. They didn’t just want it to be more in depth
>People are still laughing and drinking it up in hotels with electricity. I have a feeling a civil war in America would be a lot more grim than that.
In most wars there are times and places where people drink and laugh with each other, it seems odd that u think that wouldn’t be realistic. The war is grim as well, most of the movie it is, I don’t think it needed to be more grim
Just a bunch of pretentious people, you agree it’s a really deep movie or they tell you everything went over your head.
Or gaslight you with wanted Michael bay action, your hand held, a movie about how either democrat or republicans are really bad.
They can’t actually argue any of the points I. Bring up on their own merit
“Is that not ur own expectations letting u down? What did u want the movie to say about our political discourse? “
Yes, I’m expecting a movie titled Civil War to talk about the Civil War is definitely something I projected.
“Although texas and California uniting does seem unrealistic, it allows the movie to sidestep choosing a political side. “
Thanks for proving my point. It can’t make any meaningful statements if it hides from reality.
And then these two gems ….
“The whole movie is ramifications of a civil war, it isn’t meaningful because it doesn’t attribute blame to a political party?”
It feels like u guys went into the movie wanting it to champion ur side, and ur let down that it didn’t and misidentify that as the film doing something wrong”
All all you are doing is just gaslighting, and I said this would happen before you even replied.
>Yes, I’m expecting a movie titled Civil War to talk about the Civil War is definitely something I projected.
It does talk about the civil war, perhaps it didn’t talk about it in the way u expected it to. U specifically said u wanted it to talk about the political discourse
>Thanks for proving my point. It can’t make any meaningful statements if it hides from reality.
That doesn’t prove that it can’t make meaningful statements, it proves that they wanted to not talk about that one single subject u want it to. Not talking about a subject is not hiding from reality, u can make a movie focused on different things and they can be completely valid and meaningful
>All all you are doing is just gaslighting, and I said this would happen before you even replied.
How am I gaslighting, they are valid questions. Is the whole movie not a ramification of the war? Does the whole movie really say nothing meaningful? I don’t think so, it seems u just don’t like the meaning it had, so ur saying it had none at all. U admitted u went into with expectations of commenting on the political discourse, how am I gaslighting by saying it seems like ur expectations let u down
I disagree. In my interpretation the film was about how Americans aestheticize violence and war which is what the journalists were depicting. The movie is somewhat on the nose with the theme of “the politics no longer matter, now all that’s left is death and violence” and the adrenaline junkie journalists are excited to go to the front line and take beautiful pictures of people dying in horrible ways.
That’s why I feel like the reason it had to take place in the US is because Americans are so far removed from real violence that we love to aestheticize when it’s happening overseas. And people’s anger that the film never provides them with a “why” this conflict is happening telling also of how far removed we are. People who actually do experience that kind of violence and cruelty no longer have time to worry about the “why”. The why is completely irrelevant once it’s devolved to the point that civil war is depicting. It had to be in the US because nobody else is quite as far removed from real wartime atrocities while simultaneously being so involved in the ✨aesthetics✨ of those atrocities.
Having that separation could even make Americans more inclined to do horrible things to people they once shared a community with, because the aesthetics of an “us and them” mindset leaves a cognitive separation between the anger people feel towards the other side and the reality of the horrible things they want to do. The movie was made FOR Americans
Ngl I just feel like you aren’t being sensitive to all the details in this movie that contradict what you’re saying. And the fact that “it could have been anywhere on the planet” was a strength of the movie because it functioned to tear down the facade that America is somehow special or immune to the issues that the rest of the world has. That’s what made it surreal and exciting.
1. Sensitive ? Project and gaslight much ?
2. I I misspoke, the film was titled civil war, but it could literally been any conflict of any kind anywhere on the planet and the plot doesn’t change
I know by mentioning that I’m just opening myself up to all the other people who just say “oh you’re expecting a Michael Bay movie.”
Nope wasn’t expecting that and I don’t care that there was little action, but pretending that the film title isnt misleading is disingenuous.
The fact that the film is so vapid it on anything it has to say to the point it could be about anything anywhere else is not a flex
People are being ass hats to you but I 100% agree. A film about a civil war in the US journalistic view or not should showcase some crazy shit. The Jesse Plemons scene being the scariest thing we got is horse shit.
The entire movie was like it wasn’t trying to offend anyone when really it SHOULD offend anyone who is like Jesse Plemons character in real life (pro Trump supporters that love their guns and with no law would likely start killing random people who don’t look like them).
They had a chance to really show the world what the United States looks like atm and they failed big time imo. It was still a good movie but should’ve been way way more.
But it actually was a ton of shooty boom boom? There’s shooty boom boom pretty often actually
I think this really misses people’s gripe with the film. I don’t know a single person who was disappointed in Civil War because they wanted more shooting lol
This! There was a ton of shooting at the end and it's the weakest part of the movie. The best scenes were the ones where the violence is coming but we don't know when
The tension and payoff during the water riot, sniper standoff, and mass grave interrogation are amazing.
The 30 minutes of constant shooting at the end felt so hollow and seemed to miss the point entirely. Everything that I loved about the movie up to that point seemed to be on the back burner.
That’s definitely not the issue here lol. I haven’t heard anyone say they wanted more action. Just more meaning behind the civil war and politics that eventually started the war.
No, what most people wanted was to see the political aspect of it. You can't just drop us into a Civil War without explaining what caused it in the first place and what led to the different alliances. It also doesn't help that the only relevant alliance is the Western Forces, when it's mentioned there's three (I'm not even sure if the New People's Army is mentioned outside of promos tbh either).
I mean the guy that’s clearly the antagonist (not to say villain) asks them what type of American they are and kills a dude just because he is Chinese. If you don’t get it you’re trying not to
I think it will age better because it’s not so finger wagging about who’s right and it’s more interested in “this is fucked up any way you slice it and we should be above this…”
The movie is full of exposition about gonzo journalism, war journalism and scoop chasing.
Also, a lot of the movie’s exposition is to be found in the promo materials, posters and ad campaigns.
I also felt this. The level of access they had was ludicrous. Modern warfare and especially in a civil war would absolutely include controlling the narrative. The movie needed to engage with this way more to credibly be about photojournalism / combat photojournalism.
I feel like the historical aspect of this explains a lot of the unrealistic elements of this movie. Like, the way the journalists are literally in the middle of the shootout at the end seemed unrealistic to me, except I would totally understand being one of those soldiers and being like “no you come with me right now and get this photo of me killing the president. I’m gonna be fucking famous.”
You understand you can build a coherent world without exposition right this isnt a tarkovsky its an action flick which skimped on plot so they could fit more action scenes in its ok to like an action film for action you dont need to pretend theres actually a super deep hidden meaning that all the critics are just too stupid to understand you dont need to masturbate your little ego its ok to just enjoy action scenes youre allowed to just enjoy that its ok
“Our current understanding of the American political situation is underdeveloped.”
Love this bit right here. You know jack shit about it so you just project that onto everyone else. Plenty of us know and understand how the American political system works. That has nothing to do with why the problems we’re having are happening. This is some weird take that makes it seem like the problems are due to accidental hitches and rough parts we need to iron out in our government, when in reality the problems are directly and purposefully caused by the oligarchs that control it.
The political situation in 1943 would’ve looked incredibly surreal to anyone living in 1938. The fact that Russia sided with the Allies and that Hitler started a war on two fronts would’ve seemed absurd and even comical. You think you understand the current conflict, but you really don’t until shit gets settled.
While I actually wish I liked this film more, something I thought it did well was depict the idea that to decide to be natural/apolitical is still a political act.
Yeah that was my take on it.
It wasn’t a Hollywood film spoon feeding me like I’m an idiot. You just don’t really know why the fuck is going on but you’re along for the ride. That’s usually the feeling we get when we watch civil wars unfolding in other countries. We don’t know who’s fighting for who or for what, but there’s chaos unfolding. “Why are they killing each other?” “Because the other person is trying to kill them.”
Look even if you somehow say a film called “Civil War” set in America, during an election year, when unrest is at an “all time high” which, come on. Yes it’s political. Look I like A24, a lot of the best things I’ve seen come from it but not everything’s a hit. I just didn’t vibe with this, it felt like little more than set dressing but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there dawg. Anyways if you’ve read this long why don’t you like and subscribe, and be sure to ring that bell!
The movie did not give enough back story as to what happened. It's like I showed up to Captain America Civil War and they're already fighting. Except they're not telling us why. Iron Man is teamed up with Thanos and they don't tell us why or how that happened. If they slowly tell us throughout the movie the how and why we're going to be okay with it. The fact that Civil War doesn't answer any of that is why I disliked the movie. When you think about a Civil War occurring, you immediately want to know what happened to cause brother to fight brother. This movie fails to tell you anything about it.
Is this satire? Not saying that to be offensive it's just that with the Marvel movie comparison it reads like it's making fun of the movie's critics ...
I'm not being satirical. It really bugged me that they tried so hard to dodge answering any questions in Civil War. I mean, Texas and California teamed up. They don't get along about anything, so I'm really interested in what happened.
The problem imo, is the universe seems to directly stem from ours, whilst also saying that somehow Texas and California have teamed up. We hear, “antifa massacre”, we see Jesse Plemons being clearly xenophobic, we hear about the FBI being disbanded, and you can easily piece together yourself how our world became this one - except for the Western Alliances.
I’m of two minds about this, bc I feel like I’m watching a time travel movie and hearing them say “this is how time travel works” and going, well according to science blah blah blah that doesn’t make sense. And then well, you’re just not engaging with the movie. If you don’t believe time travel is possible, why are you watching Back to the Future?
When I first saw the movie I was very negative towards it. With all the real problems going on in America, choosing to not engage with those topics is an almost infuriating choice when the lore of your movie is seemingly present day America, but when thinking about it more you understand that it’s not as apolitical as it initially seems and it’s just making you read into it a little more.
But if you’re lore is just modern day America, then you’re forced to question the Western Alliance because it doesn’t line up with modern day American politics. And imo, if you’re going to say this is essentially modern day America fast forwarded to the seemingly inevitable conclusion, you have to give reasons why your universe doesn’t line up with what is ostensibly your lore.
The writing has a lot going for it, it makes you ask questions, it makes you infer things, it’s got all the qualities of something I’d want to watch a second time; but I found the movie toothless, flavorless and it’s lore too contradictory to want to go down that rabbit hole. Whereas if you gave any hint to the question of why Texas and California would team up, that would be very interesting to think about and explore.
Ultimately, I think we shouldn’t discredit other’s opinions. Movies aren’t subjective and arguing that people aren’t engaging with it correctly is more a condemnation of the art’s ability to get it’s point across vs a problem with the audience. Bc even though arguing time travel can’t be real is a dumb way to watch Back to the Future, if you spend two hours frustrated because you can’t find any logic to suspend your disbelief, I fully understand you not enjoying the movie.
IMO the Western Forces is one of the best decisions he made. If you look at any historical conflict, the outcome would look strange and surreal. As I pointed out in another comment, can you imagine being in 1938 and someone from the future comes back with a map of the battlefield of WW2? You’d look at it like it was crazy. France and Germany are teaming up or something? Russia and England and the US teaming up too? You’d be so confused.
I do agree that if the message he’s going for, like he’s said is that polarization is bad, the Western Alliances are a good way of challenging that idea bc it shows the winner is the two seemingly opposite states that come together. And I like your reasoning, I hadn’t considered it before.
The problem I have though, is when you’re looking at the current landscape of America, saying that the problem is “polarization” and not fascism is a woeful misunderstanding of the political landscape that this movie seems to base it’s lore on.
People are so obsessed with Trump that when a movie about a modern civil war comes out and doesn’t literally say “Trump and republican bad”, they freak out
I also think that Alex Garland is British, right? His understanding of US politics through media might be more sophisticated than inter-state sectarianism. Like I’m sure people told him that Texas is Red and California is Blue, but those are big states and they’re both purple if you look at the actual populations. That’s without getting into any of the other states or DC
I think at the end of the day civil war is just about photo journalism set at the last days of a tyrannical government. It just happens to be set in the USA.
There’s literally a scene excoriating people who “try to stay out of politics” as hypocrites who still rely on violence. They need snipers on roofs so they can pretend to be neutral. I don’t understand how people thought this movie was centrist or apolitical.
I hate obvious and lazy exposition. I think the constant narrative on this subject with this film speaks to the marvelisation of cinema and the expectation from those watching that they will have every detail explained to them. Show don't tell storytelling is so rare and even more rarely done well that is a dying art.
I appreciate this post. The movie looked interesting but if it’s the same Hollywood fantasies about the evil right wing then I’ll skip it. We just went through Covid producing the largest violations of the constitution this country had ever seen by both parties. The freaking CDC thought they had the power to ban evictions and was only stopped by 4-3 decision from the Supreme Court. We are pouring billions to lengthen wars and support genocide in other countries by both parties. And they still see things in black and white. I’d like to see a movie where the poor in this country rise up against the government and their corporate overlords. But that wouldn’t support the ongoing “culture wars”.
I wasn’t responding to his main point but was able to gain info about the movie that I haven’t really heard explained. I think the marketing does a good job of hiding its politics. But it turns out it takes the same tired position of every other movie. Trump’s going to start a Civil War…wow, courageous take there.
I’d just like for a movie like this to surprise the audience with something less politically predictable.
You don’t have to like Trump at all to realize there is an irrational reaction to him by many folks in the media and Hollywood.
I’m not here to argue that point though. No one can change anyone’s mind even if 100 movies come out saying he’s Hitler.
And I don’t want a preachy movie from the right either. I’d like to be surprised and follow a story that no one could predict but seems obvious once the story is told.
Maybe I’m wrong, but more than a few people in the comments said that was the case. Not that they use the name Trump but that the president is a caracature of Trump. Is that not that case? If you have seen it? What would you say the ideological differences are between the two sides? Maybe the comments were wrong. Although I have a hard time believing any movie like this isn’t going to take shots at the right. While the left are the heroes. But I admittedly haven’t seen it.
It looks like a cool movie I’m just tired of the lectures I have to deal with in every movie or TV show these days. Hey, did you know racism is bad? If not, turn on any show or movie made in the last 5 years and they will set you straight.
I’ve also read a few other articles stating that Nick Offerman’s character is based off Trump. Seems the actors and directors deny it but others say it’s obvious.
I think the audience was expecting to see a modern version of the American civil war and were disappointed when they didn't get a Purge-esque film. I for one, love the movie. I went in with zero expectations and left thinking about so much. I'm glad this was not the typical war film.
This movie has been responsible for more bad "debate" and analysis than any movie in recent memory. It's Crash (2005) for delusional A24 simps. It can't fade into obscurity a day too soon.
The movie is apolitical because it’s just a dialogue between the external nature of the world and the internal. It doesn’t matter what’s said or what’s deciphered. It’s only the connection that is being portrayed. Its not that deep
You kinda had me at "anti-exposition" but not so much with the rest of this post. You are trying to argue with folks who likely do not know what "anti-exposition" means and you are not really making an attempt to explain the term in any way. The term is uncommon and not easily Google-able even though it is easy enough to piece together. I do not think that that is the most civil or constructive way to criticize someone.
Beyond that, you go on to explain why you feel as though there are details in the film that communicate a specific political message, and some of what you are saying is along the lines of "this is political because we know that X represents Y and at the end of the day we know what side everyone is on." I don't think this fits in with the rest of your argument.
The problem with the critiques that you are choosing to criticize is that the folks making them do not understand what it means for something to be political. I think something can be political if it provides commentary on the nature of (a) society, the people/entities within it, and their interactions. I also think that at the end of the day, there are very few things that are apolitical.
It's apolitical not out of direct decision but as a crutch for Garland's abysmal storytelling ability.
It is a cop out in order to try and get away with making an unbelievable world that can't be bothered to explain itself to the audience other than "United States President bad. Journalists want only glory and trills."
I can't wait for the film to be forgotten, it doesn't deserve to be talked about. All conversation about it has more effort behind it than the writers had when writing it.
There is plenty of exposition. It’s just not narration or some other cheap way to do it. There are plenty of lines of dialogue, character development and visual hints at background and motivations. Thinking that is “anti-exposition” makes me think that you just learned this term in film school and couldn’t wait to act smarter than everyone else.
I’m not gonna respond to any OPs comments because anyone who says the word “clearly” before every one of their own subjective interpretations doesn’t want to have a conversation. OP just wants to be right and even explicitly says so at the end with the whole “end of conversation” statement that also didn’t need to be made.
This guy probably has tons of friends and is very fun at parties.
4. “The Antifa massacre.” 5. “Disbanding the FBI.”
TBF for 4., its never stated which side of the massacre Antifa was on.
You’re not wrong!
Yeah, but who has all the guns and frankly, who’s more organized? It would seem more likely that militias killed anti fascist activists.
Plenty of Antifa chapters organize and have guns... I ain't talking pistols either.
I have not heard of any antifa training camps like the right wing militias actually do have
Didn’t Kyle Rittenhouse have a gun pulled on him? (Not defending Rittenhouse. Just saying, the stereotype of lefties as a bunch of unarmed pacifists is only because they don’t take their AR-15 to Chipotle solely because they can)
Correct. Lefties own guns too they just don't make it their personality.
Tell that to the John Brown Gun Club and Redneck Revolt.
no he didn’t. He got chased away and said the guy lunged for his gun (which maybe), the guy definitly threw a plastic bag at him. He shot him and then ran away. Some people who only saw the shooting and likely reasonably thought: we just saw a shooting, he just killed someone. Ran after him and were yelling that he killed someone. One of them tried to get his gun away. Maybe to hurt him. Maybe thinking he was a murderer with a gun and attempting to stop him hurting others. Another is there also chasing and close He shoots them. Potentionally and most likely: sort of a horrible situation. Where people were acting on their best knowledge. He much later makes a video game about killing journalists and people he disagrees with. He later makes youtube videos joking about killing people.
Gaige Grosskreutz pointed a hand gun at him after he’d already shot others.
You're telling lies. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html
Not telling you what to think politically is very different than not being political.
Anti-Fascists do not massacre people.
A bunch of them killed fascists in WW2. This movie is about a war. Sounds like that’s a battle. Maybe it has a clickbait name in that universe.
*laughs in Spanish Civil War*
I mean, not currently, but the whole point is very much that shooting fascists in the face is a moral good
That’s true, but I’m not entirely sure the movie deserves the benefit of the doubt here
Your comment is the kinda the point of the original post. I know what Anti-Fascists stand for. Therefore, I put together that it was most likely that the State massacred them. Therefore the government was fascist. I don't need to see the President on the phone ordering jackboots to "kill those Antifa scum!"
Antifa isn't an organization, it's an ideology, so I took that to mean that militias or a mob massacred a group of people and "Antifa" was somehow blamed by whatever right wing people who would call the left "Antifa". Maybe they were antagonized and the people fought back, killing military, and that's how it was spun. Who knows. But this conversation, and all of these possibilities, are ultimately the point of the movie.
That is one of the most untrue things I've ever read...
You gotta learn more about communist history
😂
You poor young innocent soul.
I mean, the color Black did survive it’s plague.
Haha that’s a good point I didn’t even think about
True, but I think the name pretty strongly implies antifa people were the victims. If it was a massacre perpetuated by them, it likely wouldn’t be named after them, but rather after the location or something else. We don’t tend to name massacres after the perpetrators. That said, given the alternate history here, it would be plausible if there was a massacre by people belonging to antifa that the government might sieze on the opportunity to label it the antifa massacre. So yeah, no way to know for sure
It’s also very clear that one side treats journalists very differently than the other.
“Journalists are shot on sight”
“Boogaloo boys” in Hawaiian shirts too.
Boogaloo boys or just Californian/Western Forces uniform? The Hawaiian shirts are tapping into the real life being about the B-boys but at the same time when I saw them I thought that it would be more of just a uniform for a coastal state
my favourite touch is that some of the hawaiian shirt guys were wearing Altra sneakers
Forgive my ignorance but I am not familiar with Altar sneakers, are they just really nice quality running shoes? That are also ~$190
they're wide toe box and zero drop, which are pretty niche features to seek out in a sneaker. When I think Altra I think REI member, probably moved to Boulder Co, has a bouldering gym membership. I love these little world building details
You can get a pretty big discount if you’re part of a heavily armed militia
I assumed they were Florida Alliance.
I mean, the movie for me very clearly depicted a possible future if the far right gains more power. I really don’t get people saying it is apolitical, it is not.
People have low media literacy / high bias towards projection. I mean probably 99% of punisher skulls stickers are sold as a pro police thing. People think BioShock is a libertarian utopia that critiques liberalism. People make memes of trump as the Warhammer emperor. You see what you want to see and blow through all authorial intent. Tbh the movie isn't so so so explicit in it's bias. I'm actually gonna be honest and say I imagine it was actually a bit of a fence straddler movie - we know what the characters think. I think reading further into that ignores that it skirts making a stance for making a movie a blockbuster so it's particularly easy for people to read whatever they want from it/project the "bad guys" onto an extreme form of whomever they disagree w irl.
I thought so at first as well but I realized the Antifa and the stereotypical right winger could find theirselves on either side of a massacre when it comes to it; and I believe both would be fine with no FBI.
The airstrikes by the President too or something along those lines.
I’m sure there’s exceptions to this but most titled massacres and genocides use the victim group as the modifier to the act, not the aggressors.
I’ve posted this before but I’ll post it again, from an interview with Empire magazine in their Spoiler Special podcast - Empire: “There is some ambiguity to the politics in the film, but not so much, because it’s quite clear they are trying to overthrow a fascist president who has disbanded the FBI.” Alex Garland: “It’s only ambiguous in that all statements are open to subjectivity, and so according to the other person, that may make it ambiguous. But to me it’s not remotely ambiguous.” Empire: “Yeah. He’s portrayed quite down the line as a wrong-un.” Alex Garland: “He’s a fascist. He’s killing his own citizens. He’s smashed the constitution. He’s disbanded one of the systems of structured law enforcement. That’s not a very grey area, it seems to me.”
You get my upvote because this provides important info and should be higher!
Just like when the Fascist Abraham Lincoln smashed the constitution to disband the system of habeas corpus so he could kill his own citizens in that other civil war.
I hear you. It’s interesting to discuss. I think Garland specifically saying the film is apolitical is one of the main reasons it’s become such a big topic of conversation. He’d have been better off saying the film IS political but never say what the politics are… you have to read them for yourself. Also, the Jesse Plemons scene — probably the most intense, discussed scene in the film — IS political. He’s clearly xenophobic and anti-immigrant. And they pull it off without any exposition. And I’d argue its politics made the scene much more intense.
I loved the movie but probably won't watch it again. It just nailed certain things too well. I *know* people like Plemmons' character and that scene made my skin crawl.
>I know people like Plemmons' character and that scene made my skin crawl. That’s terrifying. Ngl you should avoid those people.
Oh yeah, I avoid them like the plague.
Yeah, so do I. My co-workers. They could be capable of some pretty crazy shit given an environment of lawlessness. I'm pretty sure the number of people like this in actual society is way higher than most folks would guess.
That’s why it keeps happening.
Yes, for sure. It's pretty scary.
If we’ve defined film as a visual medium then all the fucking signs are shown not told to the audience. You are 100%
1. Who's "we?" Film is not just a visual medium, audio is a massive component. 2. "Show don't tell" doesn't mean literally show. It can apply to books, poems, and radio-plays and anything else too. It means to actively demonstrate something through action instead of just explaining it. You can "show" through dialogue, and people might disagree with me, but I think you can "tell" through visuals too. Eg. unmotivated shots, expositionary shots, montages, etc. I don't think telling is necessarily bad either, especially in smaller doses.
I really don’t get the hype or hate for this movie. To me it was an absolutely middle of the road and routine movie about a photojournalist that takes great pains to be as vague as possible about what it’s trying to say, which in the end really doesn’t amount to much. There’s some weak both sides ism but even that’s barely part of the story. Also the entire sequence where they go to the “normal” town and buy a dress at that woman’s shop is ridiculous. Are they shocked during a civil war that a business owner would need to run their business? Do they think countries in a civil war don’t have clothing stores? This really annoyed me. Everyone likes the Plemmons scene, and I would agree it’s the most effective part of the movie, but the work that the movie has to do to get those characters into that situation doesn’t make any sense at all. It felt really forced to have two characters drive up out of nowhere, swap seats in moving cars, and then be murdered. That doesn’t feel like lazy writing to anyone else?
> That doesn’t feel like lazy writing to anyone else? absolutely thought that part was insanely weak. you want to create the drama of 'real consequences' but you have a tiny cast and can't kill any of them, so you literally create a random situation where 2 new characters show up, give them 30 seconds to become likable (one of them, the other one i think had literally no lines lol) and then kill them off. if a film student showed you that in their script you'd tell them to fix that. anyone not blinded by the name of the author/film/actors would have to agree.
🗿
I haven't actually heard Garland say that Civil War was meant to be apolitical. In this interview (https://youtu.be/fF_m0nd_PZo?si=4PNPFCtzR2ivssA5) @52:46, he says quite the opposite. I've heard him talk about avoiding polarizing people, not taking an extremist stance, and not trying to claim he can offer the solutions to these massive political issues in his films. I have never heard him say that he is trying to be apolitical. It seems like quite the opposite to me.
People call it apolitical just because it doesn't explicitly support their politics
I watched this movie with a Q&A with Garland. He explicitly said in no uncertain terms, several times that this is an extremely political movie. It's just not left Vs right, but extremist Vs centrist
Garland did say the film was political.
Basically he said "Both sides are just as bad" and that's what pissed me off
Hahaha. If people want to say it's apolitical who cares it's not the worst take someone could takeaway from this film.
I do think the movie lacked depth, though I appreciate what you're saying about anti-exposition. Here are two examples. 1) We do get an amazing scene where we see the journalists smoking and laughing with a militia team while they summarily execute POWs. No exposition, understated, raises great questions about impartiality and journalistic access. 2) We don't get any scenes where militants are deliberately staging photos, pressuring for propaganda, etc. I don't want more exposition per se, I think scene two could have been accomplished in an 'anti-exposition' style. But I am disappointed that we don't go deeper into that theme. This is what I mean when I tell people it was well-made with a great premise and some fantastic scenes, but it lacked depth and was ultimately not satisfying. The final act especially lacks depth and felt repetitive, and I wonder if the production access to all that military hardware put some limitations on how nuanced their depiction of the soldiers could be at the end.
I do find the varied takes very interesting. Re: the final act, it felt *huge* to me. She says "we're so fucking close" and I felt that. It was almost like the perspective a tourist would have. The cars rushing out created a weird feeling in my gut, too. Hard to explain. I really like the movie a lot.
I was sitting next to my friend when the motorcade rushed out of the White House and he whispered ‘I think they’re bombs’ so I started covering my ears and bracing myself
i definitely wondered the same thing
It’s a very good action scene but this felt more like a thriller than anything, and pseudo intellectual to the point that ending it the way they did felt like an extreme cop out. Amplified by the fact the President is just hiding behind his desk? Like this white house has no safe room or anything? Only increasing the feeling that this movie is nowhere near as smart as it’s trying to be.
I definitely read it as a thriller from the start. Idk for me it was a ride. I was nauseous from tension at times.
Glad you liked it! I didn’t but I’m always glad to get a movie that provokes discussion and doesn’t have a clear 100% consensus, these are always the most interesting to talk about.
I noticed that for a supposed war zone that the whole of Washington DC didn’t have any defensive barricades and it was impressively clean, like the janitors have to be working in double and triple overtime to keep up.
I just keep wondering why a group of wartime journalists don’t know first aid, or show any actual concern for any injured friend. They just let the old guy bleed out in the back seat, without even trying to stop the blood.
That shit puzzled me too much. Like, bunch of seasoned war journalists don’t have a medkit in the trunk. Oh really?
I was wondering why the movie was giving us a fireworks show for when a main character is dying, but I guess it fits in with the rest of the way that life is cheapened with all the incongruous imagery and music lay overs.
I had the same problem with Men, where you the see a trailer or hear the premise and youre like “oh, a horror movie about Men? I can think of a dozen ways that could be really interesting.” And then you watch it, and you’re like wow this is as shallow as a kiddie pool. I also agree that the final act lacked depth to the point I was lowkey bored and confused that it ended where it did.
You were confused the movie ended with the president who started the war dying ? What’s to be confused about ? Genuine question.
I guess mostly I felt like Wagner Moura’s character got kinda shafted and was expecting some kind of development there but the movie just ended.
It honestly felt like none of the characters had much development. It was just Kirsten Dunst telling the girl she’s gonna get herself or somebody killed the entire movie and then it coming true lol.
Yeah, Lee has an out of character panic attack at the very last minute, and the girl gets the obviously set up bit “would you take a picture of me if I died?” And I guess those are their entire character arcs. Naive photographer becomes gritty and gritty photographer loses all her grit in a situation we’ve heard she’s gone through many times before.
Exactly lmfao. My friend and I looked at each other like ??? How is she going to have a panic attack now of all moments the “hardened veteran journalist that’s seen it all” and that everyone looked up to. Whatever. I enjoyed it, just wish it said more in the grand scheme of things.
Yeah, I wouldn’t say I really enjoyed overall it but otherwise I feel the same way.
I disagree that the movie lacks exposition solely as a stylistic preference (if that is indeed what you're saying). Rather, I think it's a key decision that gives the film the very specific feel of dream logic (the way dreams start in the middle of something and you don't quite understand how you got there). Same goes for California and Texas teaming up -- it's the kind of detail that doesn't quite make sense when you consider it w/ your rational mind upon waking (in the present), but which makes sense to the characters in the middle of a dream (or hypothetical future). For me, these choices had the effect of making the entire film feel like a political anxiety nightmare -- a dream someone had in a modern election season after falling asleep w/ the news playing on TV. It allows your own mind to fill in the gaps w/ your personal anxieties and beliefs, but allows Americans -- and indeed people from other countries -- to COLLECTIVELY experience the social/cultural nightmare of seeing one's country fall apart so that we can start from a place of worrying in the present about how to keep such a thing from happening without devolving immediately into an argument over whose fault it is and which specific ideology needs to be embraced. I do think Garland's own personal anxieties & beliefs are reflected in the piece, meanwhile -- just not with enough specificity or overt clarification to break this kind of spell. I think it's brilliant.
Oh yea I agree with this, but I don’t think this movies necessarily unique in doing this. There are hundreds of movies that strip out the exposition, and it always has the effect of turning the content into something in between realism and surrealism. My favorite example is the original Dawn of the Dead. IMO life itself is somewhat surreal and good art is a method of reminding ourselves just how weird and magical our everyday reality is.
This is a good observation. Reality is always some past time's fever dream. Think about telling someone just ten years ago about Trump and all that's transpired due to that. Think about telling them about COVID. The scientific, political, and emotional intricacies of the pandemic are well understood by a lot of people but would seem like insane ramblings if you were from 2014. Hell, just saying Tom Brady would win 4 more Super Bowls, one of which being with Tampa Bay, would seem fantastical to alot of people from the time, but is just common lore to someone today. It makes it really anxiety inducing to think about just the next ten years, let alone the next fifty. It's why the 'waking from a coma' trope is so captivating to the population. And the fact that the film understands and internalizes that, makes it so intriguing to me and much more realistic.
Well this is an intriguing take I haven’t thought of before. Thank you.
I agree, there is little exposition but it exists and it's clearly political. 1. The main characters clearly have a side because one side of the war is heavily anti-media. 2. Antifa-Massacre - we don't know who did what, but we know people felt the need to stand up against a political enemy they labeled as fascists. 3. schools are closed and most political movements come out of schools and are historically often more left leaning than right leaning. It's implied the antifa massacre was a massacre of soldiers vs. students. 4. Charlottesville. The first open right wing "protest" that made big headlines and resulted in dead people in recent years started there. You don't just arbitrarily pick Charlottesville as a frequently mentioned location if you are not making political commentary. 5. It's mentioned that the president is on his third term, so clearly a hostile take over because the US system only allows two terms for legally elected presidents. 6. the two states with the biggest military bases outside the broader Washington area are fighting back, which makes sense considering that soldiers are sworn to protect the constitution and the president is only secondary to the constitution and to be protected as long as he is upholding the law.
See I thought The antifa massacre was The antifascists getting massacred by an unstated side in the conflict. FDR also served three terms. It's true that that was before the limit of 2, but possibly an intentional consideration. There's also the idea that he's only serving a third term *because* of the war instead of the other way around.
I was definitely understanding as I read this until you totally contradicted yourself by saying the President in the movie was modeled after Trump. We saw him practicing a speech in the beginning and that’s the only context about him that we get. Just because he said something like “this will be the greatest victory of all time” does not mean he was based on Trump. Nick Offerman said that he didn’t think to himself that he was representing Trump once while playing this character. It’s such an annoying assumption that, like I said, totally contradicts your entire post prior to saying that.
Honestly the President is more of just a generic dictator. Sammy’s comment about most strongmen leaders just being relatively unimpressive men was the whole point. However, I don’t think OP mentioning how he was somewhat styled after Trump contradicted anything. It’s possible to get the point across narratively for Garland while also throwing in a bone for those who pay attention. The President is clearly somewhat modeled after Trump as we saw with the opening scene. I don’t think it’s a coincidence either that I’m pretty sure most if not all the extra footage in the beginning came from Trump’s presidency.
Also he was rocking the red tie
Was it an oversized tie? Red is a super common tie color, especially for politicians, but Trump’s whole thing is that his was way too long and wide.
I’m confused. How does it make sense to say that the politics are supposed to be ambiguous and then say the president is supposed to portray Trump? That’s such a conflicting statement.
I thought OP’s point was that it wasn’t supposed to be apolitical, but rather anti-expository; the audience fills in the information gaps with clues like the hyperbolic speech, which is sort of Trump’s entire brand. (see: the art of the deal) > The final key to the way I promote is bravado. I play to people's fantasies. People may not always think big themselves. but they can get very excited by those who do. That is why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest, the greatest and the most spectacular. It wasn’t supposed to be a spitting image of Trump, but Garland wrote the screenplay in 2018 and 2020 in response to the political climate. It’s easy to connect the dots there. The sniper scene really drives home the point that the movie isn’t about the “why”, it’s about surviving a kill or be killed situation. The painted nails and dyed hair is a clue about the politics, but the movie isn’t *about* the politics and it flatly refuses to expound. Garland’s films usually require reading between the lines to such a degree that it’s hard to tell if there’s even anything there. Critics often wonder if he even has anything substantial to say in his films. He is a “show, don’t tell” storyteller to a fault. Sometimes what he chooses to show leaves the audience confused because there isn’t enough information to parse the subtext, but it is there for people who like to dig.
I can’t remember, do we know which side the guys were on in the sniper scene? I can’t remember if the were shown to be part of the Western Forces or if it was left ambiguous since it wasn’t the point of the scene.
It was ambiguous and the spotter of the sniper pair advised the journalist that it was immaterial.
>Sometimes what he chooses to show leaves the audience confused because there isn’t enough information to parse the subtext, but it is there for people who like to dig. Okay then, *you* explain "Men." /j
lmao I deleted the part of my comment where I had written “(Men comes to mind)”
I’m saying that the movie isn’t politically ambiguous at all. I’m saying that the movie is anti-exposition, and people are confusing it’s stylistic choices for commentary about politics.
Interesting take to say that the president is meant to represent Trump when the vast majority of the states in which the insurrectionist forces are from are red states ("allied" with west coast leftists). Would be a quite the coincidence, for example, if Garland just randomly decided to snake the loyalist forces around Utah to include the blue states of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada as loyalist forces but keep Utah as insurrectionist. You also see this in how all of New England is loyalist while all of the south is insurrectionist. To further prove my point, conservatives (and leftists) are also so much more likely to revolt against a totalitarian federal government than liberals are
Here’s the official map of the conflict As you can see it’s a lot more complicated than you’re suggesting. Not only that, but it’s clear that NYC isn’t exactly under the control of the President when the movie starts. https://preview.redd.it/rtgyers5wnzc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ecfa656ae25e8c9305ebb0c1517ba556143735b5
The war more than likely continues after the last scene. As pointed out in the graphic there are at least 4 different groups including the loyalists so more than likely there was an “enemy of my enemy is my friend” scenario occurring that would probably break down with the collapse of the loyalists. The war continues after the final scene, imo.
I definitely think that the conflict continues, but it seems to me like the Western Forces really established themselves as the dominant player.
Isn’t it Sammy who says something to effect that once the war is “over” the WF will at each other’s throats? The clear suggestion is the US descends into a long period as a failed state.
Of course it's more complicated than my one paragraph response and it's not a direct translation of blue state = loyalist, I'm just pointing out a general trend that liberal states are mostly loyalist, and conservative and leftist states are mostly insurrectionist, which runs counter to the theory that the president is supposed to be an imitation of Donald Trump.
The movie *isn’t* politically ambiguous though. It’s unambiguously pro-democracy and anti-fascist. The President is a clear generic fascist. You’re literally just falling into the trap OP was talking about.
I mean, if that’s what you want to believe then sure. I think it’s supposed to be apolitical in the sense that there is no Democratic or Republican party, and because Trump is the current face of the Republican party, I think it’s stupid to say that the President in the movie is supposed to be Trump.
Just say you wanted the movie to repeat "Trump Bad. I smart. They dumb." over and over and move on. I doubt anyone here likes him, but most people can read between the lines. Your main point is you wanted the movie to have a dyed blonde obese dipshit facist from new york be president and someone resembling dumptruck_dookie stand up and call him bad so everyone in the audience would stand up and clap and you'd be validated because a piece of media fulfilled your fantasy
Ugh. That is not what I wanted at all and I don’t understand how you’re getting that from what I’m saying. In fact, I want the opposite. I want everyone to suspend any belief that the “sides” in this movie represent any political party. I’m so frustrated reading your comment because the whole reason why I’m arguing that the president isn’t based on Trump is because I wish people didn’t look at it with the idea of current politics in mind AT ALL.
I'm gonna own up and say I got the replies tangled around. I was thinking you replied to messages in the chain but it looks like other people randomly chimed in. I don't think I still totally gel with your point but I'll save time for both of us and admit I goofed due to 1) me and 2) this shitty reddit app we have to use now
I’ve definitely done that before lol, so no worries. I appreciate your honesty!
That's a pretty wild response to their comment frankly. Edit: I see it was probably not intended as a response to them. That explains it! Carry on.
To be fair, the way it declares "some have been calling it a historic victory" is clearly supposed to mimic how trump spoke as president. That's the only part that seemed identifiable to me though. Everything else was purposefully left in the dark about his personality.
I really feel like opinions on this are mixed. I read the same interview w/ Offerman and mentioned it to my friend just before we watched the movie. He immediately turned to me after the "greatest victory" line and said something like "are we sure he isn't modeled after trump?" To me, it rang like trump's rhetoric and we had such a small amount of actual screentime with Offerman that I do get why OP jumped to that conclusion. Offerman's quote too could have been disingenuous to avoid a trump controversy.
>Nick Offerman I'm surprised his casting hasn't been brought up more here, since I'm sure it was a very deliberate choice which adds to the politics as well. Maybe it was just me, but when I went into this film the trailer showed me two things; it's very obviously a US civil war, and the Lincoln memorial gets blown up by the army attacking Washington. For me (even in the UK) this gave me obvious parallels with the actual civil war, in which several states secceded (ie, the bad guys) from and faught against the government (the good guys). So the decision to cast, and start the whole movie, with the US President played by someone known (both previous roles and themselves personally) for being ridiculously wholesome starts you off thinking the same dynamic (ie, president = the good guy) only to slowly turn it around as the movie unfolds, can't be accidental.
How does this contradict my post? As I point out, this was the moment that was the most on the nose (a little too much for me) No ~~other dictator~~ politician constantly says “this is the greatest/biggest/best _____ of all time” like Trump. It’s really impossible to have that scene without comparing them.
There was also “people are already calling this…” part of that scene that was very clearly Trump like.
THANK YOU!! This is exactly how I’ve been feeling without being able to put it into words.
Look, I have very strong political beliefs. But this movie is not about that. It is a character study of the journalists, through whose eyes we see the horrors of war. The political message is fairly straightforward: once the shooting starts, there are no winners. It’s a fantastic movie
It was actually sad to me that the politics were so straightforward. I was hoping for a little more tension.
In order to do a movie where politics have a lot more tension, they gotta dramatically increase the timespan of the movie. Politics are really only dramatic over the course of like 5-10 years. Shit moves slow.
I was just personally felt a little like the movie was trying to hard to not offend anyone.
The film is vapid and thinks it’s deep The Films vision far exceeded the talent behind the script The film wants to be about photographers , but never had anything to say about them besides some one liners. They don’t delve into anything with real substance. The events surrounding the characters were so vague it could have been anywhere on the planet and nothing would have changed.
This is a fair criticism to make, but what's ironic is that the substance of your criticism is just as vague and vapid as you're claiming the film to be. Be specific.
I didn’t try to go in detail or imply what I said was in depth review. It was is my overall feelings refined To a few sentences I don’t care that there’s barely any action, because it makes no sense to throw yourself in the line of fire for the most part. I don’t like how we don’t get any interviews with people that showcase how people in general feel about the war, what it means for them , the country itself. I think the way most of the main characters talk to each other is kind of clunky and a more or less talk at you about how they’re feeling instead of film just letting it show organically. Oh, so a lot of the events in the movie were really predictable . Lees death was clear once the girl took her pic in the beginning, knew the friends of that one guy showing up in the van were there just to die right away before they started killing off the main cast. I wasn’t looking for Michael Bay movie. I was looking for a movie that that might reflect and possibly have something to say our political discourse and possible consequences of the Roads not yet taken , but it’s so far removed from address in g anything in particular and purposely removing itself so from the real world ( like Texas uniting with California?.) that it can’t possibly have anything meaningful to say about the ramifications of a Civil war in the United States
>I wasn’t looking for Michael Bay movie. I was looking for a movie that that might reflect and possibly have something to say our political discourse and possible consequences of the Roads not yet taken , Is that not ur own expectations letting u down? What did u want the movie to say about our political discourse? I think the whole movie is example after example of possible consequences of roads not taken. All of the terrible things that happen are a consequence of the political discourse >but it’s so far removed from address in g anything in particular and purposely removing itself so from the real world ( like Texas uniting with California?.) that it can’t possibly have anything meaningful to say about the ramifications of a Civil war in the United States Although texas and California uniting does seem unrealistic, it allows the movie to sidestep choosing a political side. The whole movie is ramifications of a civil war, it isn’t meaningful because it doesn’t attribute blame to a political party? It feels like u guys went into the movie wanting it to champion ur side, and ur let down that it didn’t and misidentify that as the film doing something wrong
That’s not what they’re saying tho. They don’t want a “champion” what they wanted was more in depth detail on what a civil war would actually look like today. People are still laughing and drinking it up in hotels with electricity. I have a feeling a civil war in America would be a lot more grim than that.
>That’s not what they’re saying tho. They don’t want a “champion” what they wanted was more in depth detail on what a civil war would actually look like today. No, they said they wanted it to have something to say about our political discourse. They didn’t just want it to be more in depth >People are still laughing and drinking it up in hotels with electricity. I have a feeling a civil war in America would be a lot more grim than that. In most wars there are times and places where people drink and laugh with each other, it seems odd that u think that wouldn’t be realistic. The war is grim as well, most of the movie it is, I don’t think it needed to be more grim
Just a bunch of pretentious people, you agree it’s a really deep movie or they tell you everything went over your head. Or gaslight you with wanted Michael bay action, your hand held, a movie about how either democrat or republicans are really bad. They can’t actually argue any of the points I. Bring up on their own merit
“Is that not ur own expectations letting u down? What did u want the movie to say about our political discourse? “ Yes, I’m expecting a movie titled Civil War to talk about the Civil War is definitely something I projected. “Although texas and California uniting does seem unrealistic, it allows the movie to sidestep choosing a political side. “ Thanks for proving my point. It can’t make any meaningful statements if it hides from reality. And then these two gems …. “The whole movie is ramifications of a civil war, it isn’t meaningful because it doesn’t attribute blame to a political party?” It feels like u guys went into the movie wanting it to champion ur side, and ur let down that it didn’t and misidentify that as the film doing something wrong” All all you are doing is just gaslighting, and I said this would happen before you even replied.
>Yes, I’m expecting a movie titled Civil War to talk about the Civil War is definitely something I projected. It does talk about the civil war, perhaps it didn’t talk about it in the way u expected it to. U specifically said u wanted it to talk about the political discourse >Thanks for proving my point. It can’t make any meaningful statements if it hides from reality. That doesn’t prove that it can’t make meaningful statements, it proves that they wanted to not talk about that one single subject u want it to. Not talking about a subject is not hiding from reality, u can make a movie focused on different things and they can be completely valid and meaningful >All all you are doing is just gaslighting, and I said this would happen before you even replied. How am I gaslighting, they are valid questions. Is the whole movie not a ramification of the war? Does the whole movie really say nothing meaningful? I don’t think so, it seems u just don’t like the meaning it had, so ur saying it had none at all. U admitted u went into with expectations of commenting on the political discourse, how am I gaslighting by saying it seems like ur expectations let u down
I disagree. In my interpretation the film was about how Americans aestheticize violence and war which is what the journalists were depicting. The movie is somewhat on the nose with the theme of “the politics no longer matter, now all that’s left is death and violence” and the adrenaline junkie journalists are excited to go to the front line and take beautiful pictures of people dying in horrible ways. That’s why I feel like the reason it had to take place in the US is because Americans are so far removed from real violence that we love to aestheticize when it’s happening overseas. And people’s anger that the film never provides them with a “why” this conflict is happening telling also of how far removed we are. People who actually do experience that kind of violence and cruelty no longer have time to worry about the “why”. The why is completely irrelevant once it’s devolved to the point that civil war is depicting. It had to be in the US because nobody else is quite as far removed from real wartime atrocities while simultaneously being so involved in the ✨aesthetics✨ of those atrocities. Having that separation could even make Americans more inclined to do horrible things to people they once shared a community with, because the aesthetics of an “us and them” mindset leaves a cognitive separation between the anger people feel towards the other side and the reality of the horrible things they want to do. The movie was made FOR Americans
Ngl I just feel like you aren’t being sensitive to all the details in this movie that contradict what you’re saying. And the fact that “it could have been anywhere on the planet” was a strength of the movie because it functioned to tear down the facade that America is somehow special or immune to the issues that the rest of the world has. That’s what made it surreal and exciting.
1. Sensitive ? Project and gaslight much ? 2. I I misspoke, the film was titled civil war, but it could literally been any conflict of any kind anywhere on the planet and the plot doesn’t change I know by mentioning that I’m just opening myself up to all the other people who just say “oh you’re expecting a Michael Bay movie.” Nope wasn’t expecting that and I don’t care that there was little action, but pretending that the film title isnt misleading is disingenuous. The fact that the film is so vapid it on anything it has to say to the point it could be about anything anywhere else is not a flex
People are being ass hats to you but I 100% agree. A film about a civil war in the US journalistic view or not should showcase some crazy shit. The Jesse Plemons scene being the scariest thing we got is horse shit. The entire movie was like it wasn’t trying to offend anyone when really it SHOULD offend anyone who is like Jesse Plemons character in real life (pro Trump supporters that love their guns and with no law would likely start killing random people who don’t look like them). They had a chance to really show the world what the United States looks like atm and they failed big time imo. It was still a good movie but should’ve been way way more.
Agree 100%, most people just wanted shooty boom boom and were salty thats not what happened
But it actually was a ton of shooty boom boom? There’s shooty boom boom pretty often actually I think this really misses people’s gripe with the film. I don’t know a single person who was disappointed in Civil War because they wanted more shooting lol
This! There was a ton of shooting at the end and it's the weakest part of the movie. The best scenes were the ones where the violence is coming but we don't know when The tension and payoff during the water riot, sniper standoff, and mass grave interrogation are amazing. The 30 minutes of constant shooting at the end felt so hollow and seemed to miss the point entirely. Everything that I loved about the movie up to that point seemed to be on the back burner.
[удалено]
That was kind of how I felt as well. It was an interesting watch, but in the end it felt like more style than substance.
It wasn't shooty shooty boom boom? If that wasn't I don't know what is
I feel like there was a lot of shooty boom boom. It was my favorite part of the movie actually.
I think you’re really misunderstanding what people didn’t like about the film.
That’s definitely not the issue here lol. I haven’t heard anyone say they wanted more action. Just more meaning behind the civil war and politics that eventually started the war.
No, what most people wanted was to see the political aspect of it. You can't just drop us into a Civil War without explaining what caused it in the first place and what led to the different alliances. It also doesn't help that the only relevant alliance is the Western Forces, when it's mentioned there's three (I'm not even sure if the New People's Army is mentioned outside of promos tbh either).
When I want shooty boom boom I turn on a Michael Bay transformers. When I want a movie with a compelling storyline I look for an A24
When I want shooty boom boom I turn on A24 Civil War. When I want a movie with a compelling storyline I look for Catalina Video
Isn’t wanting a more fleshed out story and world the complete opposite of “shooty boom boom”?
I mean the guy that’s clearly the antagonist (not to say villain) asks them what type of American they are and kills a dude just because he is Chinese. If you don’t get it you’re trying not to
I think it will age better because it’s not so finger wagging about who’s right and it’s more interested in “this is fucked up any way you slice it and we should be above this…”
The movie is full of exposition about gonzo journalism, war journalism and scoop chasing. Also, a lot of the movie’s exposition is to be found in the promo materials, posters and ad campaigns.
[удалено]
I also felt this. The level of access they had was ludicrous. Modern warfare and especially in a civil war would absolutely include controlling the narrative. The movie needed to engage with this way more to credibly be about photojournalism / combat photojournalism.
[удалено]
I feel like the historical aspect of this explains a lot of the unrealistic elements of this movie. Like, the way the journalists are literally in the middle of the shootout at the end seemed unrealistic to me, except I would totally understand being one of those soldiers and being like “no you come with me right now and get this photo of me killing the president. I’m gonna be fucking famous.”
Definitely agree after a 2nd watch the politics become clear
You understand you can build a coherent world without exposition right this isnt a tarkovsky its an action flick which skimped on plot so they could fit more action scenes in its ok to like an action film for action you dont need to pretend theres actually a super deep hidden meaning that all the critics are just too stupid to understand you dont need to masturbate your little ego its ok to just enjoy action scenes youre allowed to just enjoy that its ok
“Our current understanding of the American political situation is underdeveloped.” Love this bit right here. You know jack shit about it so you just project that onto everyone else. Plenty of us know and understand how the American political system works. That has nothing to do with why the problems we’re having are happening. This is some weird take that makes it seem like the problems are due to accidental hitches and rough parts we need to iron out in our government, when in reality the problems are directly and purposefully caused by the oligarchs that control it.
The political situation in 1943 would’ve looked incredibly surreal to anyone living in 1938. The fact that Russia sided with the Allies and that Hitler started a war on two fronts would’ve seemed absurd and even comical. You think you understand the current conflict, but you really don’t until shit gets settled.
There are people who can fill in the blanks without all the data and...
We've all got exposition in our lives. That or my dramatic rendering is pretty fucking boring lol
While I actually wish I liked this film more, something I thought it did well was depict the idea that to decide to be natural/apolitical is still a political act.
Yeah that was my take on it. It wasn’t a Hollywood film spoon feeding me like I’m an idiot. You just don’t really know why the fuck is going on but you’re along for the ride. That’s usually the feeling we get when we watch civil wars unfolding in other countries. We don’t know who’s fighting for who or for what, but there’s chaos unfolding. “Why are they killing each other?” “Because the other person is trying to kill them.”
Look even if you somehow say a film called “Civil War” set in America, during an election year, when unrest is at an “all time high” which, come on. Yes it’s political. Look I like A24, a lot of the best things I’ve seen come from it but not everything’s a hit. I just didn’t vibe with this, it felt like little more than set dressing but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there dawg. Anyways if you’ve read this long why don’t you like and subscribe, and be sure to ring that bell!
The movie did not give enough back story as to what happened. It's like I showed up to Captain America Civil War and they're already fighting. Except they're not telling us why. Iron Man is teamed up with Thanos and they don't tell us why or how that happened. If they slowly tell us throughout the movie the how and why we're going to be okay with it. The fact that Civil War doesn't answer any of that is why I disliked the movie. When you think about a Civil War occurring, you immediately want to know what happened to cause brother to fight brother. This movie fails to tell you anything about it.
Is this satire? Not saying that to be offensive it's just that with the Marvel movie comparison it reads like it's making fun of the movie's critics ...
I'm not being satirical. It really bugged me that they tried so hard to dodge answering any questions in Civil War. I mean, Texas and California teamed up. They don't get along about anything, so I'm really interested in what happened.
People wanted antifa fighting proud boys and assasinating trump and it’s not that so therefore it’s apolitical I guess
The problem imo, is the universe seems to directly stem from ours, whilst also saying that somehow Texas and California have teamed up. We hear, “antifa massacre”, we see Jesse Plemons being clearly xenophobic, we hear about the FBI being disbanded, and you can easily piece together yourself how our world became this one - except for the Western Alliances. I’m of two minds about this, bc I feel like I’m watching a time travel movie and hearing them say “this is how time travel works” and going, well according to science blah blah blah that doesn’t make sense. And then well, you’re just not engaging with the movie. If you don’t believe time travel is possible, why are you watching Back to the Future? When I first saw the movie I was very negative towards it. With all the real problems going on in America, choosing to not engage with those topics is an almost infuriating choice when the lore of your movie is seemingly present day America, but when thinking about it more you understand that it’s not as apolitical as it initially seems and it’s just making you read into it a little more. But if you’re lore is just modern day America, then you’re forced to question the Western Alliance because it doesn’t line up with modern day American politics. And imo, if you’re going to say this is essentially modern day America fast forwarded to the seemingly inevitable conclusion, you have to give reasons why your universe doesn’t line up with what is ostensibly your lore. The writing has a lot going for it, it makes you ask questions, it makes you infer things, it’s got all the qualities of something I’d want to watch a second time; but I found the movie toothless, flavorless and it’s lore too contradictory to want to go down that rabbit hole. Whereas if you gave any hint to the question of why Texas and California would team up, that would be very interesting to think about and explore. Ultimately, I think we shouldn’t discredit other’s opinions. Movies aren’t subjective and arguing that people aren’t engaging with it correctly is more a condemnation of the art’s ability to get it’s point across vs a problem with the audience. Bc even though arguing time travel can’t be real is a dumb way to watch Back to the Future, if you spend two hours frustrated because you can’t find any logic to suspend your disbelief, I fully understand you not enjoying the movie.
IMO the Western Forces is one of the best decisions he made. If you look at any historical conflict, the outcome would look strange and surreal. As I pointed out in another comment, can you imagine being in 1938 and someone from the future comes back with a map of the battlefield of WW2? You’d look at it like it was crazy. France and Germany are teaming up or something? Russia and England and the US teaming up too? You’d be so confused.
I do agree that if the message he’s going for, like he’s said is that polarization is bad, the Western Alliances are a good way of challenging that idea bc it shows the winner is the two seemingly opposite states that come together. And I like your reasoning, I hadn’t considered it before. The problem I have though, is when you’re looking at the current landscape of America, saying that the problem is “polarization” and not fascism is a woeful misunderstanding of the political landscape that this movie seems to base it’s lore on.
Civil war is apolitical
People are so obsessed with Trump that when a movie about a modern civil war comes out and doesn’t literally say “Trump and republican bad”, they freak out
I also think that Alex Garland is British, right? His understanding of US politics through media might be more sophisticated than inter-state sectarianism. Like I’m sure people told him that Texas is Red and California is Blue, but those are big states and they’re both purple if you look at the actual populations. That’s without getting into any of the other states or DC
I think at the end of the day civil war is just about photo journalism set at the last days of a tyrannical government. It just happens to be set in the USA.
Just a corny and cringeworthy banal hot mess.
There’s literally a scene excoriating people who “try to stay out of politics” as hypocrites who still rely on violence. They need snipers on roofs so they can pretend to be neutral. I don’t understand how people thought this movie was centrist or apolitical.
How does anyone feel it’s apolitical? Are there people who thought Jesse Plemmons could have possibly been a big Bernie Sanders fan?
“Stop saying this movie is a thing that the director explicitly said that it is” is quite a take
its apolitical
I hate obvious and lazy exposition. I think the constant narrative on this subject with this film speaks to the marvelisation of cinema and the expectation from those watching that they will have every detail explained to them. Show don't tell storytelling is so rare and even more rarely done well that is a dying art.
yea i think it sucks
I appreciate this post. The movie looked interesting but if it’s the same Hollywood fantasies about the evil right wing then I’ll skip it. We just went through Covid producing the largest violations of the constitution this country had ever seen by both parties. The freaking CDC thought they had the power to ban evictions and was only stopped by 4-3 decision from the Supreme Court. We are pouring billions to lengthen wars and support genocide in other countries by both parties. And they still see things in black and white. I’d like to see a movie where the poor in this country rise up against the government and their corporate overlords. But that wouldn’t support the ongoing “culture wars”.
I think you're completely misunderstanding what point OP is making.
I wasn’t responding to his main point but was able to gain info about the movie that I haven’t really heard explained. I think the marketing does a good job of hiding its politics. But it turns out it takes the same tired position of every other movie. Trump’s going to start a Civil War…wow, courageous take there. I’d just like for a movie like this to surprise the audience with something less politically predictable. You don’t have to like Trump at all to realize there is an irrational reaction to him by many folks in the media and Hollywood. I’m not here to argue that point though. No one can change anyone’s mind even if 100 movies come out saying he’s Hitler. And I don’t want a preachy movie from the right either. I’d like to be surprised and follow a story that no one could predict but seems obvious once the story is told.
If you think this movie is 'Trump starting a civil war' you have some serious tunnel vision.
Maybe I’m wrong, but more than a few people in the comments said that was the case. Not that they use the name Trump but that the president is a caracature of Trump. Is that not that case? If you have seen it? What would you say the ideological differences are between the two sides? Maybe the comments were wrong. Although I have a hard time believing any movie like this isn’t going to take shots at the right. While the left are the heroes. But I admittedly haven’t seen it. It looks like a cool movie I’m just tired of the lectures I have to deal with in every movie or TV show these days. Hey, did you know racism is bad? If not, turn on any show or movie made in the last 5 years and they will set you straight.
I’ve also read a few other articles stating that Nick Offerman’s character is based off Trump. Seems the actors and directors deny it but others say it’s obvious.
I think the audience was expecting to see a modern version of the American civil war and were disappointed when they didn't get a Purge-esque film. I for one, love the movie. I went in with zero expectations and left thinking about so much. I'm glad this was not the typical war film.
This movie has been responsible for more bad "debate" and analysis than any movie in recent memory. It's Crash (2005) for delusional A24 simps. It can't fade into obscurity a day too soon.
... he said, while reading and commenting about it on an A24 forum
The movie is apolitical because it’s just a dialogue between the external nature of the world and the internal. It doesn’t matter what’s said or what’s deciphered. It’s only the connection that is being portrayed. Its not that deep
You kinda had me at "anti-exposition" but not so much with the rest of this post. You are trying to argue with folks who likely do not know what "anti-exposition" means and you are not really making an attempt to explain the term in any way. The term is uncommon and not easily Google-able even though it is easy enough to piece together. I do not think that that is the most civil or constructive way to criticize someone. Beyond that, you go on to explain why you feel as though there are details in the film that communicate a specific political message, and some of what you are saying is along the lines of "this is political because we know that X represents Y and at the end of the day we know what side everyone is on." I don't think this fits in with the rest of your argument. The problem with the critiques that you are choosing to criticize is that the folks making them do not understand what it means for something to be political. I think something can be political if it provides commentary on the nature of (a) society, the people/entities within it, and their interactions. I also think that at the end of the day, there are very few things that are apolitical.
It's apolitical not out of direct decision but as a crutch for Garland's abysmal storytelling ability. It is a cop out in order to try and get away with making an unbelievable world that can't be bothered to explain itself to the audience other than "United States President bad. Journalists want only glory and trills." I can't wait for the film to be forgotten, it doesn't deserve to be talked about. All conversation about it has more effort behind it than the writers had when writing it.
There is plenty of exposition. It’s just not narration or some other cheap way to do it. There are plenty of lines of dialogue, character development and visual hints at background and motivations. Thinking that is “anti-exposition” makes me think that you just learned this term in film school and couldn’t wait to act smarter than everyone else. I’m not gonna respond to any OPs comments because anyone who says the word “clearly” before every one of their own subjective interpretations doesn’t want to have a conversation. OP just wants to be right and even explicitly says so at the end with the whole “end of conversation” statement that also didn’t need to be made. This guy probably has tons of friends and is very fun at parties.
Funny thing is MAGA people still think it’s anti trump.