We keep hearing it from political pundits on the news: our nation is more divided than ever. Left and right are far apart. A second Civil War is on the horizon. And what would it look like if Americans again took up arms against one another? Who would be on which side? In Civil War, Alex Garland stares down these terrifying questions to create a film that is urgent, terrifying and surprisingly banal.
Best known for speculative science fiction films Ex Machina (2014) and Annihilation (2018), Civil War is Garland’s most realistic film to date. Everything that occurs in Civil War could potentially happen, unlike the fantastical elements that inform the aforementioned films and Men, Garland’s 2022 dud about a woman being terrorized in the British countryside. Here, Garland follows a group of war correspondents as they try to make their way to Washington, D.C. to catch a big story.
Kirsten Dunst stars as Lee, a hard-bitten war photographer. When the film opens, Lee is in New York, planning a journey to Washington, D.C. to cover the battle as federal forces face off against two different revolutionary factions. Both the Western Forces, comprised of folks from California and Texas, and the Florida Alliance are attempting to find the President (Nick Offerman) and take him out. Even though it’s not entirely clear who is fighting who, Lee and her friends must traverse a dangerous America where even the simple act of filling up on gasoline can get you shot.
Lee doesn’t attempt the trip alone. Joining her are Joel (Wagner Moura), a reporter who gets off on danger, and Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson), an older journalist who wants to get one last big story. Rounding out the quartet is Jesse (Cailee Spaeny) a young photographer who idealizes Lee. This unlikely crew traverses a journey of murderous soldiers and depraved rebels in a landscape that has been destroyed by conflict. Along the way, Lee and Joel each mentor Jesse in the ways of being a war correspondent, a position where getting the perfect photograph is more important than saving someone’s life.
Much like Kathryn Bigelow did with The Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty, Garland frames his violence in a detached, realistic manner. We don’t get many stylized slo-mo shots or bravado action sequences a la John Wick. Instead, Civil War creates an urban warfare thriller that is devoid of fun. We’re not meant to cheer the violence on here. We’re meant to be horrified.
But all the bloodshed adds to up to the same anti-war message that Hollywood has been peddling for years. As a collection of effective set pieces, Civil War succeeds. The problems occur during the interstitial, quieter moments. Dunst is good as the embattled Lee. However, Moura is an unappealing actor and Spaeny’s green Jesse is unbelievable in some of her choices. Oliver Stone tackled the same idea — do what it takes to get the shot — in a subplot in Salvador (1986) and it didn’t feel revelatory then. And Garland’s script never discloses exactly who is fighting against who and why. One can say it doesn’t matter, that Civil War is more about how our gun-toting society is becoming inured to bloodshed, but that argument is a cop-out. There is something off-putting in showing us extreme violence as commentary against violence. Are we supposed to be thrilled or horrified? Or both?
It is an interesting choice for Garland, a British filmmaker, to create a movie about America and how violent rhetoric, socio-economic divide and gun fetishization is pushing us to the brink. Many of the images in Civil War reflect warzones from around the world from Ukraine to Gaza. But that could never happen here, right? Civil War begs to differ.
Photo courtesy of A24
The post Civil War appeared first on Spectrum Culture.