When a divisive film likeCivil Warcomes along, it is worth appreciating, as the passionate discourse among the film community serves as a reminder that films are essential forms of media in a rapidly changing media and cultural climate. For a provocative filmmaker likeAlex Garland, apathy is the enemy of artistic success. If his recently released dystopian war thriller failed to trigger anger and frustration among a cohort of critics, then something went awry. However, a large sector of negative criticism aimed atCivil Wargravely misses the point of Garland’s film. Even worse, many critics have refused to engage with the text of the film due to Garland’s decision to take an apolitical stance on the film’s subject. You’re not supposed to be aware of Garland’s politics, as the nature of thefilm’s dystopianpolitical climate is abstractly eerie.If anything, fixating on broad politics instead of the photojournalists on the battlefield who are coming into direct contact with the hellish backdrop of war is an absurd proposition.
The fanfare surroundingCivil Waris two-pronged. The film’s subject evokes a toxic political climate that has affected contemporary society. It’s understood thatthe content of Garland’s filmcould feasibly be from a future not too far from the present day. Being a Presidential Election year,any film concerned with the national divide will call attention to itself.From a cinematic perspective,Civil Warrepresents a major leap in scale for the acclaimed independent studio,A24. With a $50 million budget,Civil Waris the studio’s most expensive project to date. The studio, often celebrated as a luxury brand of films by cinephiles, is not known for grand, operatic war epics, but Garland, an A24 staple, keeps the film grounded.Civil Warfollows a team of reporters, veteran photojournalists Lee (Kirsten Dunst) and Joel (Wagner Moura), senior journalist Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson), and plucky newcomer Jessie (Cailee Spaeney), traveling across the United States during a rapidly escalating Second American Civil War tearing the nation to shreds.
In a near-future United States on the verge of civil war, a group of war journalists faces the challenge of surviving and reporting the truth. Navigating dangerous territories and conflicting agendas, they strive to reveal the complex realities of a nation divided while questioning their roles in the unfolding conflict.
Alex Garland Does Not Wear His Politics on His Sleeve in ‘Civil War’
The inherent nature of a civil war is that two parties are divided to such a degree that they are left with no other option besides disputing their differences through warfare. In such a divisive period, individuals are forced to take one side or the other. When viewers discovered that Alex Garland chose to tell the story from a neutral and apolitical perspective, some believed he was taking the easy way out — avoiding a hardline political statement to appease a mass audience. The writer-director’s neutral voice drew the ire of critics, chalking up this decision as an act of cowardice by Garland. Critics' frustration with Garland not explicitly wearing his politics on his sleeveclouded them from engaging with the text. It’s one thing tofail to connect with Garland’s vision, but to suggest thatCivil Waris an empty reflection on the horrors of war and our turbulent political climate is unwarranted.
A film that brushes on thorny political topics isexpected to be an active work of political commentary— think ofOliver Stone’sleft-leaning confrontational rebukes of American foreign policyand the military-industrial complex inPlatoonandJFK. In the case ofexplosive blockbusters that fetishize military combatand express unabashed jingoism, notably films byMichael Bay, they evoke the spirit of right-wing philosophy. There’s nothing innately wrong with using the film medium to convey a message, but when a filmmaker solely relies on didactic storytelling, afilm becomes less of an art form and more of a soapbox. In relation toCivil War, reprimanding Garland for not being explicitly political in his storytelling comes across as a misread of the purpose of film as an art form. Considering that the film’s subject loosely parallels recent events, including civilian unrest in the streets, abuse of executive power, and the January 6th insurrection, one’s personal politics interfering with the text interpretation is understandable, but it undermines Garland’s vision.
‘Civil War’ Engages With the Emotional Complex of Living In an Apocalyptic Setting
In an interview with The Atlantic, Garland said that demanding a film be explicit in its political ideology is “unethical.“Civil Waroperates as acomment on the psychological complex of polar extremism in everyday life, citing that his film “comes out of anger.” The film is refreshingly devoid of hand-wringing and exhausting political theory. Instead,Garland focuses on the mood and tenorof a nation pulled apart. The abandoned parking lots, empty streets, and ravaged stadiums operate as liminal spaces for the characters and the audience. Thesefamiliar-looking places being afflicted by combat emphasize the jarring existenceof a civil war. Despite Garland’s “anger” comments, and the series of white-knuckled set pieces, the crown jewel scene beingJesse Plemonsasking “What kind of American are you?",Civil Wardemonstrates an unexpected serenity against the backdrop of all-out conflict. The most resonant sequences occur when the principal characters camp out in the middle of the country at night. As gunfire echoes through the night, Lee and Jessie look for comfort amid the hellish reality. In a scene where Jessie buys Lee a dress at a local shop obliviously unaffected by the war, the film manages to reflect on the loss of simplistic innocence just through a shot of Lee gazing into a mirror.
War, as the most dangerous and barbaric form of competition, comes down to one regimented side versus another — like a sports match in that sense.Civil War, however,distorts which party is on what side, and it is ambivalent toward identifying the righteous side. Anecdotally speaking, as I was leaving my screening, a couple inquired about my thoughts on the film, and their main point of concern was that they couldn’t comprehend the details of the war. This is another throughline in criticism ofCivil War—no one knows who is fighting who.Anything that is hinted at, such as a unification between Texas and California, states with diametrically opposed political ideologies, left some viewers incredulous. Many critics have cited the vagueness of the machinations of the war as another sign of Garland’s cowardice and lack of engagement with American politics. On a purely artistic level, theominous nature of the fictionalized conflict feeds into the eeriness that surrounds the journalists' odysseyacross the nation. Their adventure is not born out of the pursuit of social justice, but rather, to fuel their innate journalistic adrenaline by capturing harrowing snapshots of the war and obtaining an interview with the disgraced unnamed President (Nick Offerman).
The Political Ambiguity of ‘Civil War’ Feeds Into the Murkiness of War
OnThe Big Picturepodcast, Garland found the ambiguity of the story practical, stating, “I think those things did not need to be explained because I don’t meet people … who really need that explained,” concerning the specifics of the civil unrest. While it’s tempting to read this as a cop-out on Garland’s part, this rationale condenses the scope of the film. Along their journey,the group devolves from journalism to survivalism.Garland’s commitment to framing the story from their perspective eases thepressure to communicate a grandiose political statement.When you’re running for your life or caring for a colleague after they’ve been inflicted with gunshot wounds,you don’t have time to preach profound ideology surrounding war.
Based on the historical precedent of a civil war within the United States,we imagine that a modern-day internal conflict would feature sides split between Democrats and Republicans, the two major parties that have never felt more divided. Alex Garland presupposes that maybe our clearly defined ideas of political ideology would collapse under the fatalistic pressure of a national revolt. In the throes of a war-torn America, our vision will likely be distorted, with the righteous and the evil blending with each other. “Extremism encourages extremism,” Garland said onThe Big Picture. From his worldview,this is how the events of the film transpired. By bemoaning the lack of explicit political hand-wringing in his film, we are headed toward a similar fate in real life. For people who want their politics valorized on screen, they’ll have to look elsewhere, asCivil Warapproaches its dicey subject byattempting to mirror the psychological complex of a conflict that is too monumental to properly consume. Garland’s passive voice implies indifference to provocation,but the divisive reception to his filmsuggests that the stubbornness of ideology was challenged.
Civil Waris now available to rent on Prime Video in the U.S.
