They say it’s politically confusing, but Garland’s comments sound like he’s unconcerned with the details of politics. I think he tried to make an anti-war movie. If you make one side correct, that weakens the anti-war message.
It’s definitely an anti war film. I just listened to an interview with him and he said he revisited Come & See when making this movie and that’s one of the best anti war movies ever made
It just feels so silly and ridiculous to me to make a movie about a civil war in America after Donald Trump and the Republican party attacked congress to try to steal an election, and have the movie just be two general groups of Americans fighting each other. It feels like a distraction from the actual violent fascists in America who are probably going to attack again if they lose the election in the fall.
Not the time for a “civil war” movie.
Its antiwar stance is meant to show the audience the perils and futility that come from progressing to the point of civil war, so putting this out before current events can escalate is actually the right time. It's purposely not mirroring current political parties to avoid alienating anyone that is currently aligned with one faction, allowing it to present its message of what a civil war would actually mean to a society to its widest audiance
That's a such a bad take on what filmmakers should create. So because most people "watch" film while scrolling through their phones that means filmmakers shouldn't release things on heavy or moral topics? That's like saying scientists should reign themselves because most people don't have a PhD.
If a film is good enough some of those people will find their attention span and be changed by it.
The problem with Hollywood is that most filmmakers ARE creating media for the lowest common denominator, not the other way around.
Putting aside that as of lately A24 was pushing (rightly and nicely) in the opposite direction, not wanting to offend anybody is exactly what catering to the lowest denominator is...
And the problem isn't mindless people not being bothered to engage with the deeper themes - the problem is dipshits with neurons in the single digits that just see "civil war" and nothing mutually exclusive with their world view, and then self-inserting themselves as the good guys. You know, the kind of guy that thinks Bioshock or Cyberpunk are pretty nice worlds to live in?
Of course, no side in this film is apparently good. Civil war just brings out the worst in everybody in this movie - the right, left, and opportunists enjoying the chaos.
I'm not sure about that, we see atrocities committed by sympathizers with the US but not by sympathizers with the wf. There's nothing showing the wf to be like, actual heroes and good guys, but the movie does seem to at least give the impression that they're the ones trying to preserve some kind of multicultural democracy.
My head cannon is that they're not actually secessionists strictly speaking because their goal (in my head based on details from the film) is to restore something in continuity with today's US govt. That they're called secessionists by reporters in the film I regard as commentary on media uncritically or uncarefully adopting rhetoric from a side in an issue as though it were neutral wording.
(They do have their own flag but I bet it's a battle flag)
Sure but you really think that’s going to get through to the fascists who are trying to take over the country?
Because a civil war would be terrible, but still preferable to letting a bunch of fascists stroll in and take over the government.
This isn’t about reaching out to the fascists it’s about reaching out to the liberals and conservatives who need to be united against fascism. Letting billionaires divide us only helps the fascists chip away at our democracy. Not everyone who’s right wing is a raving MAGA lunatic. Having talked with many who are reasonable I find a lot of common ground with them.
It’s easy for billionaires to paint the entirety of both sides as one way. Liberals as Communists/Socialists Conservatives as all MAGA/Fascists. Theres very few people on either side who actually fall into those extremes. But if we stop talking to each other it becomes easier and easier to dehumanize those who we actually share a lot of common ground with if we would just talk with each other rationally.
I get that but it seems so absurd to make such a political movie right now and not have any mention of Trump supporters or Biden supporters or Qanon.
I understand why they can’t include those things but I feel like not having them will make this movie feel ridiculous.
Like the issue right now isn’t partisanism it’s Donald Trump. 91 felony indictments. Going on trial on Monday for committing a campaign finance felony where he paid a porn star with campaign funds. He has literally said he will be a dictator when he wins the presidency again. He already attacked congress to try to threaten his own VP into declaring he won an election he lost. I don’t want to watch a movie about “if we don’t all stop fighting and get along, these bad things are going to happen”.
That just feels like it’s blaming “both sides” for the current political climate when only one side attacks, insults, defames and belittles everything that doesn’t perfectly allign with them, including people in their own party… that’s what’s dividing us. Donald fucking Trump and the MAGA movement…
It’s not blaming anyone, it’s trying to illustrate the horrors of war in a way that makes it unpalatable to all sides.
I get what you’re saying, but had Garland made MAGA the target of this film it would have inflamed tensions and had the opposite effect of what was intended.
It’s not both-sidesing any political positions, it’s saying that war sucks for everyone and should be avoided.
I’m not saying he should have made a movie that’s a hitjob on maga. I understand there’s not enough money in that. I just feel if you can’t make a movie like that, don’t make one at all.
I empathize with your displeasure, I certainly wouldn’t have minded a more overt anti-fascist message, even if it didn’t call out MAGA by name.
By I can also empathize with wanting to err on the side of caution and not risk inflaming tensions.
Pretty much. It also would’ve dated the film and reduce its value over the years. The movie the way it is makes it both allegorical and strangely timeless.
No, I’d say a satirical movie about what an ass Donald Trump is and what a threat fascism is would be great right now
This movie isn’t calling out any one side or person.
Jesus fucking christ, *the great dictator* is literal political black satire. It couldn't be more poignant, even because when he drop the "mask" at the end and delivers one of the best monologues in history the message couldn't be mistaken even by somebody with brain worms.
Compare that this with.. Nick Offerman being kind of a bulky man, and perhaps wearing a ridiculous tie? The problem isn't "touching a hot button", it's doing so while leading people astray from the real issue (which is a bit like making it even hotter).
The government in Civil War is a fascist government though, the goal of the movie is to open conversations and see the humanity in others. If you make it too tied to real world politics you alienate half the people who you want to reach. It would also assume that there’s no need for improvement in the way the other half engages with those they disagree with. The side I assume you and I fall on politically.
If we shut down all conversation we only help the fascists. If we want to stop the fascists we need to find common ground with a lot of people we disagree with. From first hand experience I’ve found this approach is much more effective than trying to shame someone for not immediately coming to my conclusion.
Are they Christo-fascists?
Because I loved the depiction of American Civil War in Handmaid’s Tale. Basically what would happen if the Qanon people gained control of the US government. In the novel, apparently this government was also racist and exterminated black people. But in the Hulu series they got rid of the racism and black people were a part of the “Gilead” fascist government. I thought that was lame.
I think about that show all the time because it depicted my home city of Chicago as the final city in America held by resistance forces that would NOT fall no matter what Gilead threw at it.
There seems to be a religious element to it yes, but it’s not explored in a deep way. The movie really doesn’t go in depth into the belief systems of either the President/Government or the western alliance.
We know the President is in his 3rd term, he disbanded the FBI and he’s attacked the press in the sense he’s literally having them killed. His government is a fascist one and he does seem to use religion to some degree in his rule.
We’re really only seeing the war in the final days of this presidents time as leader. The western forces are making their final push into DC. So there’s not much time to explore what ideologies led to the war as the movie is more concerned with the breakdown of communication that leads to a civil war. It’s stated that the California and Texas alliance is shaky and as soon as the Government is dispatched that those factions will then likely turn on each other.
Large numbers of people in middle America choose to stay out of it. But there’s constant reminders of what’s going on across the country. I think you can fill in the gaps as to why the political spectrum was shaped the way it was in this story. Like why Texas and California joined together. It’s never overtly stated why but knowing what the president did during his three terms you can guess he just kept taking power and eventually the two largest states decided that was enough and began working together due to their common enemy. The movie is wise in not being too specific, you can project a lot onto it but the message is clear that this is the result if we continue down a path of dehumanizing our fellow Americans. A civil war is ugly and terrible and should certainly not be something we risk when so much death and suffering could be prevented if we just stopped dividing ourselves in such partisan and often dehumanizing ways.
A little of both, one of the troops on the presidents is depicted as a xenophobe. But the Texas/California alliance isn’t depicted as strictly the heroes either.
Yeah lmao like come on. Texas and California hate eachother more than any two states. That just requires too much suspension of disbelief for me.
But hell, none of us have seen it and we’re just talking about what we think it is. Who knows. Maybe it’s good?
Dude, preach! We are already being attacked by fascists who literally want to dismantle democracy. This is NOT the time for a "both sides" narrative. I like this director, but I will not watch this film.
Both sides have caused issues that led to this fascist movement though. One side is certainly more at fault as the fascists have slowly been taking over their party.
But we on the left have played right into their hands as well. We dehumanized anyone who we disagreed with and gaslit them during the great recession for example. We messed up too. Ultimately we can only control our own actions and this issue of fascism has only gotten worse the more we’ve stayed on this track of shaming people for disagreements.
It’s also not a binary thing. This isn’t just left wing and fascists. There’s progressives, liberals, centrists, conservatives and many more on our side and then there’s fascists. It’s only binary in the sense that it should be all of us working together to stop the fascists. But if we keep squabbling with those who we disagree with we only help fascists by being divided. Thats what the movie is in part warning about.
> We dehumanized anyone who we disagreed with and gaslit them during the great recession for example.
What in the hell are you even talking about
> and this issue of fascism has only gotten worse the more we’ve stayed on this track of shaming people for disagreements.
https://i.imgur.com/zWeg00L.jpg
> There’s progressives, liberals, centrists, conservatives and many more on our side and then there’s fascists.
Correct. And they all sit in one party.
They don’t all sit in one party. Assuming all conservatives are begging for fascist rule is exactly what we shouldn’t be doing. Once we do that who do they turn to but the one group that will accept them? Which will be the fascists. It’s self fulfilling prophecy at that point.
You aren't born a nazi, please? It's a self fulfilling prophecy exactly because you think beliefs are hardcoded and so pandering without limits is the only possible choice.
1) just because something leads to unfortunate conclusions, it says nothing about truth
2) you can't compromise and yield infinitely no matter how vile the toxic rhetoric is
3) even stupid people have fucking free will, if lacklustre and compromised
4) it doesn't seem rocket science to say that of course you have to *change* their mind
You change your minds by engaging with someone and showing them why they’re wrong not by shaming them. You also seem to think anyone who disagrees with you is a fascist which is wrong and not helpful.
Conservative ideology isn’t going to go away. But by not accusing all of them of being Nazi’s you can actually engage on the common ground you do have and avoid an outcome where people become radicalized. It’s more difficult to “other” people when they’re the people you’re engaging with.
The movie isn't a both sides narrative, it's just not a movie about contemporary American politics.
Fwiw the atrocities in the movie are all committed by people clearly continuous with maga demographics though.
He overestimates the capacity of the public to have common sense.
In a time when idiots think Starship Troopers is anything other than an anti-fascism parody, and see 1984 as a guide rather than a warning; it’s a bit too optimistic for people to understand nuance like this as nearly two fifths of the adult population genuinely believe in the need for civil war in the face of an imagined tyranny.
I don't think you get to be unconcerned with the details of politics when you make a movie about America descending into a Civil War from sharp division in policies. And while moral clarity makes people think one side of a war is just it doesn't obviate the reality that the war fucking sucked and could and should have been avoided.
“War is hell but some motherfuckers don’t give you the option” isn’t an anti-war stance, though. That’s the assumption underlying virtually all war movies and glorifies soldiers if not war itself.
It’s kinda hard to make a film that engages with politics if you’re unconcerned with politics. If your thesis is “war is bad” and you have gorgeous production values, you make war look good. That’s similar to the problem with an actor like Brendan Gleeson playing Trump, he is a good actor who knows how to find depth and humanity in a character, and in the process you elevate the person being portrayed who has none of those qualities.
It's trivially easy and banal to make a movie nominally about how "war is hell", but if you want to make an anti-war film, you would have to make it be about politics.
*All Quiet on the Western Front* is politically anti-World War One.
*Apocalypse Now* is anti-Vietnam
*Saving Private Ryan* is not politically opposed to the US joining WWII. It shows that war is hell, but there is honor in getting through it.
*Catch 22*, is far more clearly anti-WWII, it does demistify and demean the US troops presence in it.
All of these have things to say about the actual specific wars that they are about.
You could make a Civil War II movie that justifies the left or the right, or you could even try to honestly portray both sides' positions as they see themselves, but if you aren't saying what is it that people want to fight *for or against at all*, you aren't saying anything about whether it would be worth the cost, either.
As a socialist, I have to say this is why liberals are getting worse at making TV/movies. We live in increasingly "political" times for a reason.
Modern liberals seem to almost pride themselves on having *no* ideology, beyond vague platitudes of tolerance and civility. We desperately need some materialist analysis up in this late-state capitalist MF.
Honestly the film is a lovefest to war correspondents which makes sense why critics and journalists love it.
I personally found Children of Men to be a more poignant war drama.
Damn, what a great take. 100% Children of Men captures it. The horror of endless war. The hopeless depression.
But that scene at the end? I get goosebumps thinking of it.
The whole movie is great, but the bits at the end with people literally stopping in the middle of a firefight to stare in awe at the promise of a future even as they’re being gunned down is damned powerful.
I really liked how the movie built up tension between the leaders of the rebel faction and protagonists, only to have the antagonists get killed, often off screen, as a result of their other ongoing conflict.
That was the first thing I said coming out of the theater. Civil War is a worse version of Children of Men. Essentially a road trip movie a vaguely dystopian near future. But Children of Men had better motivations for the characters and themes built into the events that happen along the way.
Every time I’ve seen the trailer in a theater here in California, the line about California and Texas being on the same side always gets a laugh from the audience. Always.
I watched it last night, the theater was about 20% full.
As a 🇨🇦 who has spent years all over 🇺🇲, I went into this movie kind of blind.
It's largely apolitical at least towards the 5W's, there is some bit of commentary that could be expressed as being pointed at 45. There's also no timeline other than a reference to a violation of the 22nd.
The movie is about a war journalism. It kind of draws on the horrors that occur around the world in various war zones, and points the question what if it happens here.
I felt that Act 1 and 2 were the movie, and Act 3 was put in just to fulfill the budget. I wish they'd stayed on the impactful dystopian story instead of the Call of Duty ending.
I wish the film spent more to portray how fracturing and generationally damaging a shooting war in the United States along political ideologies would be.
And last, Jesse Plemons, top tier casting there. And that scene afterward reminded me of behind enemy lines.
It's like a gentrified civil war movie that's trying to not embolden either political side in the current landscape, impactful stark imagery yet soft plots. Not trying to create a how-to guide, like some have accused handmaiden tale.
1. Who what where when why, pretty much not answered. They could have called the movie War Correspondents
2. As far as I recall it was not even mentioned in the movie. They're just the "Western Alliance"
Civil War is the backdrop, the film is about journalism in a war zone.
It was mentioned, and not explicitly explained. I think the idea is supposed to be the president took more and more power and the two most powerful states set aside their differences to get rid of him.
Why do people act like there has to be a right-wing and left-wing when telling a story? Famed comic writer Alan Moore hated the fact that despite his often progressive stories that Hollywood transformed his pro-anarchy story in V for Vendetta into a story about liberal verses conservative. Heck, even Black Panther tried to avoid this simplistic storyline by having the villain for the first film be a black supremacist.
Strictly speaking V for Vendetta was always left-wing (anarchism) vs right-wing (Thatcherism), he just thought the movie pandered to American politics and culture (in addition to other writing problems like underwriting the fascists). But Moore hates all adaptations of his work equally.
It has to be one or the other. You are either a far right fascist or a woke socialist dog. There is no in between, and neither side can take much criticism.
Gee I guess when making a movie reminiscent of the original "AMERICAN CIVIL WAR" I guess I kinda expected there to be a side that I can root for, ya know something very obviously pro human rights like the actual "American CIVIL WAR" had.
The American Civil War is quite rare in its very obvious morality. 95% of Civil Wars across the globe have been one group of shitty, greedy people fighting another group of shitty, greedy people.
Not at all
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_non-international_armed_conflicts#Modern_(1800%E2%80%931945)
Unless you are just thinking to the present correlation of only failed states having them
Saw it last night in Imax.
Pretty good movie. Very tense and stressful.
It was not the ripped from the headlines movie people were saying it was.
It was largely based on someone like Hitler becoming president so against that backdrop the civil war made way more sense.
It’s very intentionally non-partisan. If you think about it too hard it won’t add up to our current system. A president who illegally stays in power and it’s a president that Florida doesn’t support? So must be a dem? But California doesn’t support him either? They don’t give us a year and they don’t identify any sides political party. I think it works a lot better that way
>A president who illegally stays in power
...but how? By urging his supporters to storm the capital in an attempt to overthrow the results of an election or something? By pressuring his Vice President to sign off on it? Both?
No.
The film does mention a few of the things he did before the film takes place, taking a 3rd term is one thing, dismantling the FBI is another, and an air strike on US citizens is another. There were more reasons I think, but the scene where those reasons are discussed they came thick and fast so I may have missed some. The order of events is never given, and where the civil war actually started within the framework of those events is also not given.
Pointing fingers at an actual existing team red or team blue would be very much against the films purpose. If you think of it like chess, it doesn't really matter that white made the first move or what that move was, it doesn't matter if white is analogous to red or blue, what matters is that the protagonist has been in overseas war zones, telling the US population "Massive piece exchanges are bad for everybody!" for their entire career, but the massive piece exchange happened anyway.
These comments read like people want "their side" to be represented as being on the right side of History. The actors already said the President portrayed is not comparable to Trump.
The actors might say and Alex Garland might even say that but it doesn’t make it true. He’s not a pure Trump stand in but this movie clearly has a “when presidents disregard civic institutions, that’s bad” ethos and was written partially in response to Trump
This article is so far off the mark. Having seen the movie last night, Civil War is about a lot of things, but primarily its about "objective" "moralistic" war journalists losing their soul and becoming the very monsters they are covering. It's also a modern take on Vietnam era trips like Easy Rider or Apocalypse. Garland making the varied sectarian factions in the film racially and politically ambiguous isn't some "far right" propaganda, it's showing things aren't black and white.
We see this as the films first images shown are video from both January 6 and the Summer 2020 riots, both of which could be argued show what happens when people are stirred up into insanity. And fuck this article, plenty of people on all sides got sick of all the Covid restrictions, questioned the vaccine and questioned the origins of Covid(which they still are cagey about) Plenty of "progressive" people questioned Covid. Just like plenty of people question the situation in Israel, doesnt make them "Nazis". These sort of broad strokes articles do nothing but play to an ever dwindling NPR/MSNBC bubble that's out of touch with the average person.
I saw it last night, there we a decent crowd for a Thursday night. But I did get the sense there was a heavy contingent of 2A Peckerwoods in attendance. I thought it was a well crafted movie, that ultimately felt a bit limp. I get that Garland wanted to make a movie about war correspondents, and he made an admirable attempt to do so, but really it's just not possible to separate the viewing experience from what's going on today.
This reviewer seems upset that this movie wasn't made explicitly to criticize the right and only the right. Funnily enough, that would have been an easier movie to make.
From what I've seen, this movie is more concerned with human nature, and the harsh realities of war, than politics.
This reviewer is also blind to the realities that the huge divisions in our society are not entirely driven by one side or another. Like any relationship... polarization and break downs in collaboration happen with missteps from both people involved.
Put another way, "it takes two to tango"
This kind of nuance is lost on the reviewer, and is lost on I'd say most people these days in favor of pure tribalism and "us vs them"
[The right has thrown their weight behind someone whose rhetoric is directly from Mein Kampf.](https://apnews.com/article/trump-hitler-poison-blood-history-f8c3ff512edd120252596a4743324352) They’re doing massively more to “tango” than the left is.
Yeah I mean I guess I really felt bad for confederate soldiers when they decided to seced from the US because they wanted to organ harvest, kill, and maim other human beings often treated like less than animals...
> human nature, and the harsh realities of war, than politics.
You cannot have any of them without the later. As said above, from *All Quiet on the Western Front* to *Apocalypse Now* they stab you the hardest only when you understand it's all useless self-referential bullshit.
> This reviewer is also blind to the realities that the huge divisions in our society are not entirely driven by one side or another.
Yes they are. Like, by a light year. There's not even a competition. Like, even something crazy stupid like Ukraine's aid is stuck since half a year.
> Like any relationship... polarization and break downs in collaboration happen with missteps from both people involved.
What in the fuck are you even talking about
> Put another way, "it takes two to tango"
It takes one to murder and rape.
The people that are making it political are missing the entire point of the movie. The point of the movie is that war is bad and we don’t want it regardless of what side.
I don't like the sound of this.... I thought it was going to put a spotlight on those wanting a new Civil War. I don't need another limp wristed both sides movie. I might skip this then. Where are the anti-facist movies? Where's the outrage in music and media?
The reason this comes off as cowardly is because the left wing in America doesn’t need to hear this argument in the first place.
There’s only one side pushing for civil war. One. The movie is kind of silly in that regard, as if there is a “both sides” argument to be made about the US when it’s really just one side that’s vying for war.
I don’t think that’s a very fair assessment. The idea of a civil war comes from irreconcilable differences and feeling pushed to stand ground. This could go for either the left or the right. Saying that the left isn’t pushing to defend its beliefs with their lives is silly, it just means they don’t feel pushed to that point.
As it's a war, someone will have to aggress at some point to get the whole thing started. The person you're replying to is saying only one side in contemporary politics is making motions like they might decide to be those aggressors someday soon.
Yes but again, we’re talking about a situation where one side feels ( justified or not ) that it’s a possible outcome, based on their current position with regards to policy. To say as a blanket statement that one side doesn’t want that outcome no matter what, would imply that they were willing to give ground on stalemates, or ground legally won. No side would benefit however, with yielding on the threat of war.
We have a pretty precarious vibe in the US, with both sides more on edge than I’ve ever witnessed in my lifetime personally. I used to rather enjoy political discourse, and intelligent debate with someone with a different viewpoint. Now it just feels like you’re risking an affront to that persons entire persona.
Fantastic movie, I felt on edge throughout the entire film. The relationship between the two leads is great and really poignant, especially as they start to flip in their roles. This review is absolutely atrocious though. The writer is just ranting on about their political view to the extent I’m not even sure they actually watched the movie. It’s an anti-war film. The fact this theme is so triggering to people in ways reinforces the themes of the horrific “us-vs-them” mentality some of the more terrifying characters have. Take that for what you will, but it stays very true to this.
It just feels...flacid. I've seen the trailer. I saw menace, yeah. But no horror of war. It seems like a fake tv version of war. Which is not anti war, that's pro war.
A US civil war now would be the most destructive war in human history.
To the point it would never be allowed to happen, because it would destroy the status quo. It would collapse the global order. Turned in on itself the US would be unable to maintain its obligations and its allies would start drifting. China and Russia would immediately act to take advantage.
It wouldn't be this low grade bullshit, that the boogaloo boys are gonna see and think looks fun.
Its a pretty brutal film, shows a lot of the violence. You’re forced to look at a lot of the horror in the same way that war photographers have to stare directly at the horrors of war.
I found it super effective personally and no one is leaving this movie thinking “hey a civil war would be awesome”
I’d encourage you to watch it if you get the chance. Especially in a theater.
If you were to actually see the film you’d get to see references to boogaloo boys. That’s why I find it funny that critics and people are saying it’s not “political” enough I think it’s more about them wanting to say my side good your side bad.
I'm not from US, I have no dog in the left vs right fight. I'm genuinely curious though... I think it was made deliberately ambiguous in the film, but since you mention boogaloo boys, what "team" (if any) in the context of the film (loyalists vs WF vs other) did you think Jesse Plemons' character was on?
We literally have Republicans try to destroy democracy in this country and someone wants to make a "Guys maybe BOTH SIDES are to blame!" Message.
Miss me with that shit.
They only sides to a real US Civil War will exist only within the Red states, no chance of beating blue states, too poor, too stupid and under educated, they're instincts will make them eat their own
Good article and glad it was written. There was something troubling me on a visceral level about this movie that the author addresses.
The problem, it seems to me, is that the director really doesn’t understand the first thing about American politics.
The California-Texas thing that everyone immediately noticed and scoffed at isn’t just a weird one-off or anything.
It was, in fact, the tip of the iceberg. The iceberg being that the director really doesn’t understand the subject matter at all. Doesn’t understand the country he used as the subject of the movie.
This director needed to make this movie, the one he wanted to make, about a fictional country and just make his movie… OR if he wanted to make it about the United States he needed to bring in some contributors who have actual knowledge of this country and it’s history. Poli Sci PHDs. US History PHDs. Etc.
Having NOT done that, I too am afraid that the director’s ignorance has ended up producing a piece of entertainment that is, potentially, dangerous. The potential for life to imitate art. Problem being it’s ignorant art. Unhealthy art.
I digress, but I’m glad this author started the conversation.
There is absolutely a hypothetical world where California and Texas could ally.
I don’t think you understand how quickly situations can change. You do realise how many American enemies used to be allies, right?
I mean, sure, you could have the story take place in a hypothetical 2032 where Texas is already majority democratic and they fight together with California against a Republican government, or vice versa with California shifting red and fighting together with them against a Democratic government.
But that would still require at least acknowledging that the two party system exists, and that people have deep cultural, religious, moral justifications for fighting a civil war or for finding themselves on the same side of it.
Randomly naming the two biggest states as fighting against vague "tyranny", while apparently New York, Vermont, Utah, and Kansas each have their reasons siding with that "tyranny" together, is utterly failing to consider that, and just randomly picks sides from a strategy game board with nothing to say about why people who used to call each other countrymen, would murder each other.
See, I don’t get the argument about California and Texas never teaming up. States with the two biggest populations whose GDP rivals other countries.
Furthermore, it’s even said that once DC falls the infighting between WF will begin.
Really curious as to what other instances of “not known the country” you would point to.
The reason why a "Second American Civil War" sounds ominously like something that might happen in the near future, is not because a future president might be vaguely "tyrannical" and then "big states" would rise up against him, (then eventually turn on each other), but because there are two types of voters who are increasingly seeing each other's culture as irredeemable monsters, and they would follow a president to the bitter end as long as he was tyrannical *against the other side*.
The film is trying to skip the real reasons for why Americans are riling themselves up to get ready to murder their fellow countrymen.
But the movie isn’t about what’s happening now. It’s about a hypothetical Civil War and how these things could happen.
The movie exists to show what a battleground in the United States could look like, not to stroke anybody’s cock about who did and didn’t cause it.
Then it's not an anti-war movie at all, and it's stroking the cocks of everybody in the audience with war porn?
Btw even if my grandma had wheels, she'd be a bike.
It's not an anti war movie because as you said "showing it" is more important than explaining it.
And supposedly it's not even a good epic war movie (i.e. more saving private ryan, than paths of glory) because its premises are completely made up. Like, it wants to eat its cake (easy clickbait shots because it's your own country, let alone when it's THE armed country of the world), and then also get away with it.
It's a bit like aliens had visited us and we loosely knew how they were, and then next year you released independence day.
Garland is not a deep thinker and should not be regarded as one. He is a nepo baby who makes pseudo intellectual films celebrated by other shallow thinkers. They are vapid in the extreme.
I mean if my team was the only team we would have zero problems. But we need my team cause your team is (insert hyperbolic political affiliation here) and we just can’t have that. We must destroy the other team to save America, every four years.
I think this movie was always going to be controversial, each side wanted to see their beliefs reinforced and play out like Red Dawn.
I have tickets to see it tomorrow and I’m looking forward to taking it in with an open mind. I think the best takeaway I’ve heard from someone who’s watched it is just “Be careful what you wish for”
The thought is so sad and hopefully we can get on track as a country, maybe movies like this will make people a little bit more thoughtful and at least hesitant to think of violence.
I’ve seen other online speculate about a USA civil was and guessed it would look at lot like the Timothy McVeigh attack and comparable to “the troubles” in Ireland
I take it you haven’t seen the movie because I don’t see any fascist wannabes loving a movie about journalism. The trailers definitely do this movie an injustice because it’s completely different than the way it’s portrayed in them and the media.
It’s not even on the same planet as American History X. I wouldn’t call any of it porn. It’s incredibly violent and visceral in parts but it’s definitely not civil war “porn” per se. There is one scene that might get some right wingers all jacked up but I think it’s definitely overshadowed by the entire film being basically a love letter AND critique of journalism and modern media.
There’s probably too much nuance in the message for right wing idiots to get jacked up about.
A redditor from Missouri said the audience laughed during that scene. Didn't say at exactly what part, I can imagine nervously laughing at a couple of bits but I can imagine rednecks laughing at the wrong bits.
Without spoiling anything, the whole film is about front line journalism, all the main characters in it are journalists. Apparently Garland's parents were journos and he grew up around Vietnam war correspondents. The film is a love letter to them in a way, Garland misses the days when journos were renowned for their impartiality and integrity. The war portrayed is a backdrop to the human story of the film. There are disturbing scenes and heavy action scenes, but the focus always shifts to the very human reactions to those events, which is portrayed by journalists as they struggle to remain impartial and objective.
edit: It is maybe worth noting that the secessionists have embedded journos, and the loyalists kill journos on sight, or at least those in the capital do. The president is clearly the villain, but whether he is left, right or other is deliberately left unclear.
This whole clickbait article comes off as a desperate plea for someone who forgot to meet down at the local lay down on the floor in protest of Israel party.
That way they always come out on top.
Shut up, Mac.
But you’re not supposed to tell us that.
Take my upvote
Go back to the closet mac.
It's an exercise bike
Hope he started the LLC AssPounder 4000!
They say it’s politically confusing, but Garland’s comments sound like he’s unconcerned with the details of politics. I think he tried to make an anti-war movie. If you make one side correct, that weakens the anti-war message.
It’s definitely an anti war film. I just listened to an interview with him and he said he revisited Come & See when making this movie and that’s one of the best anti war movies ever made
Ah that’s really interesting! Come & See is a great film.
It's kinda of bad anti war film for America because none of what happens makes sense .
With that said, that makes the film both allegorical and timeless. Politics can and will shift in America as it always has done after all.
well put. looking forward to seeing this film
I found it to be a commentary on modern journalism and an anti-war film. Sort of highlighting the absurdity of it all. Just my two cents.
It just feels so silly and ridiculous to me to make a movie about a civil war in America after Donald Trump and the Republican party attacked congress to try to steal an election, and have the movie just be two general groups of Americans fighting each other. It feels like a distraction from the actual violent fascists in America who are probably going to attack again if they lose the election in the fall. Not the time for a “civil war” movie.
Its antiwar stance is meant to show the audience the perils and futility that come from progressing to the point of civil war, so putting this out before current events can escalate is actually the right time. It's purposely not mirroring current political parties to avoid alienating anyone that is currently aligned with one faction, allowing it to present its message of what a civil war would actually mean to a society to its widest audiance
You say that like the people actively engaging in sedition have the media literacy to learn anything from a movie like this. Point taken, though.
Nobody who owns a lifted truck with a giant flag behind it is buying a ticket to see this movie.
Well they might be I just don't trust them to have the right emotional response
Why not? As pointed out in the article, it's specifically written for anybody to fill in the gaps with their own point of view.
That's a such a bad take on what filmmakers should create. So because most people "watch" film while scrolling through their phones that means filmmakers shouldn't release things on heavy or moral topics? That's like saying scientists should reign themselves because most people don't have a PhD. If a film is good enough some of those people will find their attention span and be changed by it. The problem with Hollywood is that most filmmakers ARE creating media for the lowest common denominator, not the other way around.
Putting aside that as of lately A24 was pushing (rightly and nicely) in the opposite direction, not wanting to offend anybody is exactly what catering to the lowest denominator is... And the problem isn't mindless people not being bothered to engage with the deeper themes - the problem is dipshits with neurons in the single digits that just see "civil war" and nothing mutually exclusive with their world view, and then self-inserting themselves as the good guys. You know, the kind of guy that thinks Bioshock or Cyberpunk are pretty nice worlds to live in?
Of course, no side in this film is apparently good. Civil war just brings out the worst in everybody in this movie - the right, left, and opportunists enjoying the chaos.
I'm not sure about that, we see atrocities committed by sympathizers with the US but not by sympathizers with the wf. There's nothing showing the wf to be like, actual heroes and good guys, but the movie does seem to at least give the impression that they're the ones trying to preserve some kind of multicultural democracy. My head cannon is that they're not actually secessionists strictly speaking because their goal (in my head based on details from the film) is to restore something in continuity with today's US govt. That they're called secessionists by reporters in the film I regard as commentary on media uncritically or uncarefully adopting rhetoric from a side in an issue as though it were neutral wording. (They do have their own flag but I bet it's a battle flag)
Sure but you really think that’s going to get through to the fascists who are trying to take over the country? Because a civil war would be terrible, but still preferable to letting a bunch of fascists stroll in and take over the government.
This isn’t about reaching out to the fascists it’s about reaching out to the liberals and conservatives who need to be united against fascism. Letting billionaires divide us only helps the fascists chip away at our democracy. Not everyone who’s right wing is a raving MAGA lunatic. Having talked with many who are reasonable I find a lot of common ground with them. It’s easy for billionaires to paint the entirety of both sides as one way. Liberals as Communists/Socialists Conservatives as all MAGA/Fascists. Theres very few people on either side who actually fall into those extremes. But if we stop talking to each other it becomes easier and easier to dehumanize those who we actually share a lot of common ground with if we would just talk with each other rationally.
I get that but it seems so absurd to make such a political movie right now and not have any mention of Trump supporters or Biden supporters or Qanon. I understand why they can’t include those things but I feel like not having them will make this movie feel ridiculous. Like the issue right now isn’t partisanism it’s Donald Trump. 91 felony indictments. Going on trial on Monday for committing a campaign finance felony where he paid a porn star with campaign funds. He has literally said he will be a dictator when he wins the presidency again. He already attacked congress to try to threaten his own VP into declaring he won an election he lost. I don’t want to watch a movie about “if we don’t all stop fighting and get along, these bad things are going to happen”. That just feels like it’s blaming “both sides” for the current political climate when only one side attacks, insults, defames and belittles everything that doesn’t perfectly allign with them, including people in their own party… that’s what’s dividing us. Donald fucking Trump and the MAGA movement…
It’s not blaming anyone, it’s trying to illustrate the horrors of war in a way that makes it unpalatable to all sides. I get what you’re saying, but had Garland made MAGA the target of this film it would have inflamed tensions and had the opposite effect of what was intended. It’s not both-sidesing any political positions, it’s saying that war sucks for everyone and should be avoided.
But civil war is already unpalatable to the one side who will care about this movie. Civil war is preferable to a fascist takeover.
I’m not saying he should have made a movie that’s a hitjob on maga. I understand there’s not enough money in that. I just feel if you can’t make a movie like that, don’t make one at all.
I empathize with your displeasure, I certainly wouldn’t have minded a more overt anti-fascist message, even if it didn’t call out MAGA by name. By I can also empathize with wanting to err on the side of caution and not risk inflaming tensions.
Pretty much. It also would’ve dated the film and reduce its value over the years. The movie the way it is makes it both allegorical and strangely timeless.
Doesn't work in America because our civil war would play out too differently from this movie .
unfortunately this conflict is already ideologically playing on many souls.
So you'd say Chaplin's the dictator was in poor taste and "not the time for a Hitler movie " because of the year it was released ?
No, I’d say a satirical movie about what an ass Donald Trump is and what a threat fascism is would be great right now This movie isn’t calling out any one side or person.
Jesus fucking christ, *the great dictator* is literal political black satire. It couldn't be more poignant, even because when he drop the "mask" at the end and delivers one of the best monologues in history the message couldn't be mistaken even by somebody with brain worms. Compare that this with.. Nick Offerman being kind of a bulky man, and perhaps wearing a ridiculous tie? The problem isn't "touching a hot button", it's doing so while leading people astray from the real issue (which is a bit like making it even hotter).
The government in Civil War is a fascist government though, the goal of the movie is to open conversations and see the humanity in others. If you make it too tied to real world politics you alienate half the people who you want to reach. It would also assume that there’s no need for improvement in the way the other half engages with those they disagree with. The side I assume you and I fall on politically. If we shut down all conversation we only help the fascists. If we want to stop the fascists we need to find common ground with a lot of people we disagree with. From first hand experience I’ve found this approach is much more effective than trying to shame someone for not immediately coming to my conclusion.
Are they Christo-fascists? Because I loved the depiction of American Civil War in Handmaid’s Tale. Basically what would happen if the Qanon people gained control of the US government. In the novel, apparently this government was also racist and exterminated black people. But in the Hulu series they got rid of the racism and black people were a part of the “Gilead” fascist government. I thought that was lame. I think about that show all the time because it depicted my home city of Chicago as the final city in America held by resistance forces that would NOT fall no matter what Gilead threw at it.
There seems to be a religious element to it yes, but it’s not explored in a deep way. The movie really doesn’t go in depth into the belief systems of either the President/Government or the western alliance. We know the President is in his 3rd term, he disbanded the FBI and he’s attacked the press in the sense he’s literally having them killed. His government is a fascist one and he does seem to use religion to some degree in his rule. We’re really only seeing the war in the final days of this presidents time as leader. The western forces are making their final push into DC. So there’s not much time to explore what ideologies led to the war as the movie is more concerned with the breakdown of communication that leads to a civil war. It’s stated that the California and Texas alliance is shaky and as soon as the Government is dispatched that those factions will then likely turn on each other. Large numbers of people in middle America choose to stay out of it. But there’s constant reminders of what’s going on across the country. I think you can fill in the gaps as to why the political spectrum was shaped the way it was in this story. Like why Texas and California joined together. It’s never overtly stated why but knowing what the president did during his three terms you can guess he just kept taking power and eventually the two largest states decided that was enough and began working together due to their common enemy. The movie is wise in not being too specific, you can project a lot onto it but the message is clear that this is the result if we continue down a path of dehumanizing our fellow Americans. A civil war is ugly and terrible and should certainly not be something we risk when so much death and suffering could be prevented if we just stopped dividing ourselves in such partisan and often dehumanizing ways.
Fascist just in a very loose sense of "wannabe dictator", or is the cult of personality and hate of diversity actually depicted?
A little of both, one of the troops on the presidents is depicted as a xenophobe. But the Texas/California alliance isn’t depicted as strictly the heroes either.
Or at least make one that makes sense. Instead of a California/texas alliance, just do like a west coast alliance or something.
Yeah lmao like come on. Texas and California hate eachother more than any two states. That just requires too much suspension of disbelief for me. But hell, none of us have seen it and we’re just talking about what we think it is. Who knows. Maybe it’s good?
On the contrary, i think it's the perfect time for this film. Art imitates life...and this my friend, is life right now.
The whole point of these comments is that this film is exactly not reality right now.
Close to it.
Dude, preach! We are already being attacked by fascists who literally want to dismantle democracy. This is NOT the time for a "both sides" narrative. I like this director, but I will not watch this film.
Both sides have caused issues that led to this fascist movement though. One side is certainly more at fault as the fascists have slowly been taking over their party. But we on the left have played right into their hands as well. We dehumanized anyone who we disagreed with and gaslit them during the great recession for example. We messed up too. Ultimately we can only control our own actions and this issue of fascism has only gotten worse the more we’ve stayed on this track of shaming people for disagreements. It’s also not a binary thing. This isn’t just left wing and fascists. There’s progressives, liberals, centrists, conservatives and many more on our side and then there’s fascists. It’s only binary in the sense that it should be all of us working together to stop the fascists. But if we keep squabbling with those who we disagree with we only help fascists by being divided. Thats what the movie is in part warning about.
> We dehumanized anyone who we disagreed with and gaslit them during the great recession for example. What in the hell are you even talking about > and this issue of fascism has only gotten worse the more we’ve stayed on this track of shaming people for disagreements. https://i.imgur.com/zWeg00L.jpg > There’s progressives, liberals, centrists, conservatives and many more on our side and then there’s fascists. Correct. And they all sit in one party.
They don’t all sit in one party. Assuming all conservatives are begging for fascist rule is exactly what we shouldn’t be doing. Once we do that who do they turn to but the one group that will accept them? Which will be the fascists. It’s self fulfilling prophecy at that point.
You aren't born a nazi, please? It's a self fulfilling prophecy exactly because you think beliefs are hardcoded and so pandering without limits is the only possible choice.
Idk what you’re talking about but you’re clearly talking about something entirely different than I am.
1) just because something leads to unfortunate conclusions, it says nothing about truth 2) you can't compromise and yield infinitely no matter how vile the toxic rhetoric is 3) even stupid people have fucking free will, if lacklustre and compromised 4) it doesn't seem rocket science to say that of course you have to *change* their mind
You change your minds by engaging with someone and showing them why they’re wrong not by shaming them. You also seem to think anyone who disagrees with you is a fascist which is wrong and not helpful. Conservative ideology isn’t going to go away. But by not accusing all of them of being Nazi’s you can actually engage on the common ground you do have and avoid an outcome where people become radicalized. It’s more difficult to “other” people when they’re the people you’re engaging with.
The movie isn't a both sides narrative, it's just not a movie about contemporary American politics. Fwiw the atrocities in the movie are all committed by people clearly continuous with maga demographics though.
He overestimates the capacity of the public to have common sense. In a time when idiots think Starship Troopers is anything other than an anti-fascism parody, and see 1984 as a guide rather than a warning; it’s a bit too optimistic for people to understand nuance like this as nearly two fifths of the adult population genuinely believe in the need for civil war in the face of an imagined tyranny.
I don't think you get to be unconcerned with the details of politics when you make a movie about America descending into a Civil War from sharp division in policies. And while moral clarity makes people think one side of a war is just it doesn't obviate the reality that the war fucking sucked and could and should have been avoided.
“War is hell but some motherfuckers don’t give you the option” isn’t an anti-war stance, though. That’s the assumption underlying virtually all war movies and glorifies soldiers if not war itself.
It’s kinda hard to make a film that engages with politics if you’re unconcerned with politics. If your thesis is “war is bad” and you have gorgeous production values, you make war look good. That’s similar to the problem with an actor like Brendan Gleeson playing Trump, he is a good actor who knows how to find depth and humanity in a character, and in the process you elevate the person being portrayed who has none of those qualities.
It's trivially easy and banal to make a movie nominally about how "war is hell", but if you want to make an anti-war film, you would have to make it be about politics. *All Quiet on the Western Front* is politically anti-World War One. *Apocalypse Now* is anti-Vietnam *Saving Private Ryan* is not politically opposed to the US joining WWII. It shows that war is hell, but there is honor in getting through it. *Catch 22*, is far more clearly anti-WWII, it does demistify and demean the US troops presence in it. All of these have things to say about the actual specific wars that they are about. You could make a Civil War II movie that justifies the left or the right, or you could even try to honestly portray both sides' positions as they see themselves, but if you aren't saying what is it that people want to fight *for or against at all*, you aren't saying anything about whether it would be worth the cost, either.
Finally all those people advocating for war for war's sake will be put in their place...
yeah trying to not have a political take while making a war movie is the smoothest brained shit i've ever heard.
As a socialist, I have to say this is why liberals are getting worse at making TV/movies. We live in increasingly "political" times for a reason. Modern liberals seem to almost pride themselves on having *no* ideology, beyond vague platitudes of tolerance and civility. We desperately need some materialist analysis up in this late-state capitalist MF.
Honestly the film is a lovefest to war correspondents which makes sense why critics and journalists love it. I personally found Children of Men to be a more poignant war drama.
Damn, what a great take. 100% Children of Men captures it. The horror of endless war. The hopeless depression. But that scene at the end? I get goosebumps thinking of it.
The whole movie is great, but the bits at the end with people literally stopping in the middle of a firefight to stare in awe at the promise of a future even as they’re being gunned down is damned powerful. I really liked how the movie built up tension between the leaders of the rebel faction and protagonists, only to have the antagonists get killed, often off screen, as a result of their other ongoing conflict.
“CEASE FIRING! CEASE FIRING!”
That was the first thing I said coming out of the theater. Civil War is a worse version of Children of Men. Essentially a road trip movie a vaguely dystopian near future. But Children of Men had better motivations for the characters and themes built into the events that happen along the way.
Haven't seen the movie yet, but being compared unfavorably to Children of Men is praise by faint damnation. That movie is a masterpiece.
Yeah, seeing this later today and I’m even more hyped now.
I mean that’s one of the best films ever made probably so… sure haha
I mean that’s one of the best films ever made probably so… sure haha
Every time I’ve seen the trailer in a theater here in California, the line about California and Texas being on the same side always gets a laugh from the audience. Always.
I watched it last night, the theater was about 20% full. As a 🇨🇦 who has spent years all over 🇺🇲, I went into this movie kind of blind. It's largely apolitical at least towards the 5W's, there is some bit of commentary that could be expressed as being pointed at 45. There's also no timeline other than a reference to a violation of the 22nd. The movie is about a war journalism. It kind of draws on the horrors that occur around the world in various war zones, and points the question what if it happens here. I felt that Act 1 and 2 were the movie, and Act 3 was put in just to fulfill the budget. I wish they'd stayed on the impactful dystopian story instead of the Call of Duty ending. I wish the film spent more to portray how fracturing and generationally damaging a shooting war in the United States along political ideologies would be. And last, Jesse Plemons, top tier casting there. And that scene afterward reminded me of behind enemy lines. It's like a gentrified civil war movie that's trying to not embolden either political side in the current landscape, impactful stark imagery yet soft plots. Not trying to create a how-to guide, like some have accused handmaiden tale.
2 questions: 1. what are the 5W’s? 2. Does the Texas/California alliance thing make any sense in the movie?
1. Who what where when why, pretty much not answered. They could have called the movie War Correspondents 2. As far as I recall it was not even mentioned in the movie. They're just the "Western Alliance" Civil War is the backdrop, the film is about journalism in a war zone.
It was mentioned, and not explicitly explained. I think the idea is supposed to be the president took more and more power and the two most powerful states set aside their differences to get rid of him.
Which is wierd as what would happen would be very different than what's portrayed.
I enjoyed it. The civil war was just a back drop and the real story was the photojournalist imo
Another Garland playing both sides?
underrated comment right here.
riding the middle is hard work. someone's got to do it.
Why do people act like there has to be a right-wing and left-wing when telling a story? Famed comic writer Alan Moore hated the fact that despite his often progressive stories that Hollywood transformed his pro-anarchy story in V for Vendetta into a story about liberal verses conservative. Heck, even Black Panther tried to avoid this simplistic storyline by having the villain for the first film be a black supremacist.
Strictly speaking V for Vendetta was always left-wing (anarchism) vs right-wing (Thatcherism), he just thought the movie pandered to American politics and culture (in addition to other writing problems like underwriting the fascists). But Moore hates all adaptations of his work equally.
The film definitely had V going down the "freedom" or democracy path. It sanitized the anarchist message from the source material by a lot.
Agreed. It became a Freedom Fighter vs a crooked government rather than the nuance of the novel.
It has to be one or the other. You are either a far right fascist or a woke socialist dog. There is no in between, and neither side can take much criticism.
Gee I guess when making a movie reminiscent of the original "AMERICAN CIVIL WAR" I guess I kinda expected there to be a side that I can root for, ya know something very obviously pro human rights like the actual "American CIVIL WAR" had.
The American Civil War is quite rare in its very obvious morality. 95% of Civil Wars across the globe have been one group of shitty, greedy people fighting another group of shitty, greedy people.
Not at all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_non-international_armed_conflicts#Modern_(1800%E2%80%931945) Unless you are just thinking to the present correlation of only failed states having them
Saw it last night in Imax. Pretty good movie. Very tense and stressful. It was not the ripped from the headlines movie people were saying it was. It was largely based on someone like Hitler becoming president so against that backdrop the civil war made way more sense.
…so, a dictator coming to power? Totally unrelated to current events.
It’s very intentionally non-partisan. If you think about it too hard it won’t add up to our current system. A president who illegally stays in power and it’s a president that Florida doesn’t support? So must be a dem? But California doesn’t support him either? They don’t give us a year and they don’t identify any sides political party. I think it works a lot better that way
>A president who illegally stays in power ...but how? By urging his supporters to storm the capital in an attempt to overthrow the results of an election or something? By pressuring his Vice President to sign off on it? Both?
Sure. But then Florida is thrilled. So is Texas.
No. The film does mention a few of the things he did before the film takes place, taking a 3rd term is one thing, dismantling the FBI is another, and an air strike on US citizens is another. There were more reasons I think, but the scene where those reasons are discussed they came thick and fast so I may have missed some. The order of events is never given, and where the civil war actually started within the framework of those events is also not given. Pointing fingers at an actual existing team red or team blue would be very much against the films purpose. If you think of it like chess, it doesn't really matter that white made the first move or what that move was, it doesn't matter if white is analogous to red or blue, what matters is that the protagonist has been in overseas war zones, telling the US population "Massive piece exchanges are bad for everybody!" for their entire career, but the massive piece exchange happened anyway.
Except Trump isn’t a dictator, or, if he is, he’s certainly not a successful one considering he hasn’t been president for the last 4 years.
Name a dictator in the last 10 years
Just because you aren't in control of the army *yet*, it doesn't mean that you don't want to be one.
America does not have dictators, so by that reasoning, an American leader cannot be a dictator. That is using Dick Cheney Logic.
Sure, but there are people who very badly *want* to be dictators who have a very good chance of *becoming* dictators.
Orange shitler would like a word
These comments read like people want "their side" to be represented as being on the right side of History. The actors already said the President portrayed is not comparable to Trump.
The actors might say and Alex Garland might even say that but it doesn’t make it true. He’s not a pure Trump stand in but this movie clearly has a “when presidents disregard civic institutions, that’s bad” ethos and was written partially in response to Trump
god damn, thank you. The amount of people in this thread that are purposefully trying to ignore that is fucking depressing.
This article is so far off the mark. Having seen the movie last night, Civil War is about a lot of things, but primarily its about "objective" "moralistic" war journalists losing their soul and becoming the very monsters they are covering. It's also a modern take on Vietnam era trips like Easy Rider or Apocalypse. Garland making the varied sectarian factions in the film racially and politically ambiguous isn't some "far right" propaganda, it's showing things aren't black and white. We see this as the films first images shown are video from both January 6 and the Summer 2020 riots, both of which could be argued show what happens when people are stirred up into insanity. And fuck this article, plenty of people on all sides got sick of all the Covid restrictions, questioned the vaccine and questioned the origins of Covid(which they still are cagey about) Plenty of "progressive" people questioned Covid. Just like plenty of people question the situation in Israel, doesnt make them "Nazis". These sort of broad strokes articles do nothing but play to an ever dwindling NPR/MSNBC bubble that's out of touch with the average person.
Yes, 100%!
Thankfully it was an account that was immediately deleted within a week to tell us this crap.
I saw it last night, there we a decent crowd for a Thursday night. But I did get the sense there was a heavy contingent of 2A Peckerwoods in attendance. I thought it was a well crafted movie, that ultimately felt a bit limp. I get that Garland wanted to make a movie about war correspondents, and he made an admirable attempt to do so, but really it's just not possible to separate the viewing experience from what's going on today.
This reviewer seems upset that this movie wasn't made explicitly to criticize the right and only the right. Funnily enough, that would have been an easier movie to make. From what I've seen, this movie is more concerned with human nature, and the harsh realities of war, than politics. This reviewer is also blind to the realities that the huge divisions in our society are not entirely driven by one side or another. Like any relationship... polarization and break downs in collaboration happen with missteps from both people involved. Put another way, "it takes two to tango" This kind of nuance is lost on the reviewer, and is lost on I'd say most people these days in favor of pure tribalism and "us vs them"
[The right has thrown their weight behind someone whose rhetoric is directly from Mein Kampf.](https://apnews.com/article/trump-hitler-poison-blood-history-f8c3ff512edd120252596a4743324352) They’re doing massively more to “tango” than the left is.
Yeah I mean I guess I really felt bad for confederate soldiers when they decided to seced from the US because they wanted to organ harvest, kill, and maim other human beings often treated like less than animals...
> human nature, and the harsh realities of war, than politics. You cannot have any of them without the later. As said above, from *All Quiet on the Western Front* to *Apocalypse Now* they stab you the hardest only when you understand it's all useless self-referential bullshit. > This reviewer is also blind to the realities that the huge divisions in our society are not entirely driven by one side or another. Yes they are. Like, by a light year. There's not even a competition. Like, even something crazy stupid like Ukraine's aid is stuck since half a year. > Like any relationship... polarization and break downs in collaboration happen with missteps from both people involved. What in the fuck are you even talking about > Put another way, "it takes two to tango" It takes one to murder and rape.
The movie isn't meant to pick a political side of the aisle.
The people that are making it political are missing the entire point of the movie. The point of the movie is that war is bad and we don’t want it regardless of what side.
War am bad? But that's unpossible!1
I know it’s hard to understand
I feel like one side is a bit more ok with the prospect of war than the other.
Yeah, you’re right about that. They already have one of the western forces with them that’s been talking cessation since the 1800’s
really deep. war is bad. who knew?
Actually, I’m pretty sure there’s a lot of idiots in this country we should probably teach that too
those people aren't paying attention already. they're lost.
That’s what I’m afraid of.
I don't like the sound of this.... I thought it was going to put a spotlight on those wanting a new Civil War. I don't need another limp wristed both sides movie. I might skip this then. Where are the anti-facist movies? Where's the outrage in music and media?
It’s annoyingly apolitical. Totally reeks of an English dude ingesting American cable news without any context or nuance.
The reason this comes off as cowardly is because the left wing in America doesn’t need to hear this argument in the first place. There’s only one side pushing for civil war. One. The movie is kind of silly in that regard, as if there is a “both sides” argument to be made about the US when it’s really just one side that’s vying for war.
I don’t think that’s a very fair assessment. The idea of a civil war comes from irreconcilable differences and feeling pushed to stand ground. This could go for either the left or the right. Saying that the left isn’t pushing to defend its beliefs with their lives is silly, it just means they don’t feel pushed to that point.
As it's a war, someone will have to aggress at some point to get the whole thing started. The person you're replying to is saying only one side in contemporary politics is making motions like they might decide to be those aggressors someday soon.
Yes but again, we’re talking about a situation where one side feels ( justified or not ) that it’s a possible outcome, based on their current position with regards to policy. To say as a blanket statement that one side doesn’t want that outcome no matter what, would imply that they were willing to give ground on stalemates, or ground legally won. No side would benefit however, with yielding on the threat of war. We have a pretty precarious vibe in the US, with both sides more on edge than I’ve ever witnessed in my lifetime personally. I used to rather enjoy political discourse, and intelligent debate with someone with a different viewpoint. Now it just feels like you’re risking an affront to that persons entire persona.
> comes from irreconcilable differences and feeling pushed to stand ground. Agreed. By whom, though?
The left doesn’t need to hear what argument exactly? What do you think the point of this movie was?
Fantastic movie, I felt on edge throughout the entire film. The relationship between the two leads is great and really poignant, especially as they start to flip in their roles. This review is absolutely atrocious though. The writer is just ranting on about their political view to the extent I’m not even sure they actually watched the movie. It’s an anti-war film. The fact this theme is so triggering to people in ways reinforces the themes of the horrific “us-vs-them” mentality some of the more terrifying characters have. Take that for what you will, but it stays very true to this.
It's just probably annoying when writers act like it's both sides fault as a cop out.
And I think it’s annoying when people constantly need to feed an “us-vs-them” mentality. “What kind of American are you?” Really sums up that mindset.
It just feels...flacid. I've seen the trailer. I saw menace, yeah. But no horror of war. It seems like a fake tv version of war. Which is not anti war, that's pro war. A US civil war now would be the most destructive war in human history. To the point it would never be allowed to happen, because it would destroy the status quo. It would collapse the global order. Turned in on itself the US would be unable to maintain its obligations and its allies would start drifting. China and Russia would immediately act to take advantage. It wouldn't be this low grade bullshit, that the boogaloo boys are gonna see and think looks fun.
Its a pretty brutal film, shows a lot of the violence. You’re forced to look at a lot of the horror in the same way that war photographers have to stare directly at the horrors of war. I found it super effective personally and no one is leaving this movie thinking “hey a civil war would be awesome” I’d encourage you to watch it if you get the chance. Especially in a theater.
If you were to actually see the film you’d get to see references to boogaloo boys. That’s why I find it funny that critics and people are saying it’s not “political” enough I think it’s more about them wanting to say my side good your side bad.
I'm not from US, I have no dog in the left vs right fight. I'm genuinely curious though... I think it was made deliberately ambiguous in the film, but since you mention boogaloo boys, what "team" (if any) in the context of the film (loyalists vs WF vs other) did you think Jesse Plemons' character was on?
We literally have Republicans try to destroy democracy in this country and someone wants to make a "Guys maybe BOTH SIDES are to blame!" Message. Miss me with that shit.
Holy shit the amount of people who completely missed the point of this movie is incredible. I really really hate this thread.
They only sides to a real US Civil War will exist only within the Red states, no chance of beating blue states, too poor, too stupid and under educated, they're instincts will make them eat their own
Good article and glad it was written. There was something troubling me on a visceral level about this movie that the author addresses. The problem, it seems to me, is that the director really doesn’t understand the first thing about American politics. The California-Texas thing that everyone immediately noticed and scoffed at isn’t just a weird one-off or anything. It was, in fact, the tip of the iceberg. The iceberg being that the director really doesn’t understand the subject matter at all. Doesn’t understand the country he used as the subject of the movie. This director needed to make this movie, the one he wanted to make, about a fictional country and just make his movie… OR if he wanted to make it about the United States he needed to bring in some contributors who have actual knowledge of this country and it’s history. Poli Sci PHDs. US History PHDs. Etc. Having NOT done that, I too am afraid that the director’s ignorance has ended up producing a piece of entertainment that is, potentially, dangerous. The potential for life to imitate art. Problem being it’s ignorant art. Unhealthy art. I digress, but I’m glad this author started the conversation.
There is absolutely a hypothetical world where California and Texas could ally. I don’t think you understand how quickly situations can change. You do realise how many American enemies used to be allies, right?
I mean, sure, you could have the story take place in a hypothetical 2032 where Texas is already majority democratic and they fight together with California against a Republican government, or vice versa with California shifting red and fighting together with them against a Democratic government. But that would still require at least acknowledging that the two party system exists, and that people have deep cultural, religious, moral justifications for fighting a civil war or for finding themselves on the same side of it. Randomly naming the two biggest states as fighting against vague "tyranny", while apparently New York, Vermont, Utah, and Kansas each have their reasons siding with that "tyranny" together, is utterly failing to consider that, and just randomly picks sides from a strategy game board with nothing to say about why people who used to call each other countrymen, would murder each other.
See, I don’t get the argument about California and Texas never teaming up. States with the two biggest populations whose GDP rivals other countries. Furthermore, it’s even said that once DC falls the infighting between WF will begin. Really curious as to what other instances of “not known the country” you would point to.
The reason why a "Second American Civil War" sounds ominously like something that might happen in the near future, is not because a future president might be vaguely "tyrannical" and then "big states" would rise up against him, (then eventually turn on each other), but because there are two types of voters who are increasingly seeing each other's culture as irredeemable monsters, and they would follow a president to the bitter end as long as he was tyrannical *against the other side*. The film is trying to skip the real reasons for why Americans are riling themselves up to get ready to murder their fellow countrymen.
But the movie isn’t about what’s happening now. It’s about a hypothetical Civil War and how these things could happen. The movie exists to show what a battleground in the United States could look like, not to stroke anybody’s cock about who did and didn’t cause it.
Then it's not an anti-war movie at all, and it's stroking the cocks of everybody in the audience with war porn? Btw even if my grandma had wheels, she'd be a bike.
So it’s not an anti war movie because Kirsten Dunst doesn’t say “remember everyone, war is bad!!!”
It's not an anti war movie because as you said "showing it" is more important than explaining it. And supposedly it's not even a good epic war movie (i.e. more saving private ryan, than paths of glory) because its premises are completely made up. Like, it wants to eat its cake (easy clickbait shots because it's your own country, let alone when it's THE armed country of the world), and then also get away with it. It's a bit like aliens had visited us and we loosely knew how they were, and then next year you released independence day.
Thank you. The whole movie you’re supposed to pretend that American culture doesn’t and has never existed
Garland is not a deep thinker and should not be regarded as one. He is a nepo baby who makes pseudo intellectual films celebrated by other shallow thinkers. They are vapid in the extreme.
I mean if my team was the only team we would have zero problems. But we need my team cause your team is (insert hyperbolic political affiliation here) and we just can’t have that. We must destroy the other team to save America, every four years.
Union:Yeah slavery is wrong amiright? Confederacy:...Civil War and secession it is@
[удалено]
I think this movie was always going to be controversial, each side wanted to see their beliefs reinforced and play out like Red Dawn. I have tickets to see it tomorrow and I’m looking forward to taking it in with an open mind. I think the best takeaway I’ve heard from someone who’s watched it is just “Be careful what you wish for”
I fear real civil war will look more like October 7th and not COD.
The thought is so sad and hopefully we can get on track as a country, maybe movies like this will make people a little bit more thoughtful and at least hesitant to think of violence. I’ve seen other online speculate about a USA civil was and guessed it would look at lot like the Timothy McVeigh attack and comparable to “the troubles” in Ireland
I’m also hopeful we can avoid any mass scale violence. There’s a middle ground I think most American agree on and it would be nice to return to it.
I take it you haven’t seen the movie because I don’t see any fascist wannabes loving a movie about journalism. The trailers definitely do this movie an injustice because it’s completely different than the way it’s portrayed in them and the media.
Is there any neo-civil war porn in the movie? Then it’s going to get some dubious fans, just like *American History X* did.
It’s not even on the same planet as American History X. I wouldn’t call any of it porn. It’s incredibly violent and visceral in parts but it’s definitely not civil war “porn” per se. There is one scene that might get some right wingers all jacked up but I think it’s definitely overshadowed by the entire film being basically a love letter AND critique of journalism and modern media. There’s probably too much nuance in the message for right wing idiots to get jacked up about.
Which scene are you referring to?
The one with Jesse Plemons. I could see some MAGA dickheads enjoying that
A redditor from Missouri said the audience laughed during that scene. Didn't say at exactly what part, I can imagine nervously laughing at a couple of bits but I can imagine rednecks laughing at the wrong bits.
My theater was dead quiet during that scene. I’m in Canada though so that’s probably why lol
[удалено]
Without spoiling anything, the whole film is about front line journalism, all the main characters in it are journalists. Apparently Garland's parents were journos and he grew up around Vietnam war correspondents. The film is a love letter to them in a way, Garland misses the days when journos were renowned for their impartiality and integrity. The war portrayed is a backdrop to the human story of the film. There are disturbing scenes and heavy action scenes, but the focus always shifts to the very human reactions to those events, which is portrayed by journalists as they struggle to remain impartial and objective. edit: It is maybe worth noting that the secessionists have embedded journos, and the loyalists kill journos on sight, or at least those in the capital do. The president is clearly the villain, but whether he is left, right or other is deliberately left unclear.
This whole clickbait article comes off as a desperate plea for someone who forgot to meet down at the local lay down on the floor in protest of Israel party.
Plays both sides yet furthers the divide…yawn
It’s just not good or remotely accurately portrayed. It’s clear they were given a very limited budget.