Haven't seen this movie yet, but based on your review and others I've read, I feel like it teed itself up to have a more humanistic and less internet-culture-war-politics approach to the Civil War 2 scenario -- which is valid -- but then maybe got distracted by action scenes and following protagonists who happen to be there for all the most important events.
I'm reminded of a portion of a WWII documentary I watched on Youtube (World War Two in Real Time -- it's great) about D-Day and how when they were storming the beaches, not every beach was like Saving Private Ryan. They talked about how village commuters were waiting for their bus or having a morning coffee on the boardwalk when all of a sudden Allied troops stormed through. I had never really thought about what it would be like for the average person in occupied France in 1944, but I guess they'd still be drinking coffee and commuting to work, and occasionally encountering soldiers of various stripes who may disrupt/destroy everything or may just be moving through to the next objective.
Also reminded of the scene in the movie Beirut when the taxi driver is explaining to Jon Hamm how they shouldn't take X highway because a car bomb had gone off there that morning. And how the Muslims were blaming the Christians and the Christians were blaming the Israelis and the Israelis were blaming the Muslims. He asks the cab driver what he thinks and he responds "I think we shouldn't take X highway".
So perhaps the average person wouldn't really have a good idea of what's going on or what the backstories are of each of the factions and why they are fighting. But then by following journalists instead of "civilians" the protagonists will naturally follow the action and be more clued in to what's going on than the average person actually would. So then the fact that we the audience /still/ don't know what the civil war is actually about is maybe an indictment of journalism rather than a lionization of it? That decontextualized violence gets views and explaining why they're doing it might offend people so it's better to just maintain the view from nowhere.
....hmm I liked the under-explaining. I thought the politics of the movie was that liberals are coming for Trump and as far as you could tell they have no choice but what have we become, a civl war degrades both sides etc.? It seems less preachy because it stays vague.
The images had power and (cinematic) plausibility because we've seen them in reporting on the rest of the world so what if the circumstances that make war-reporting possible in Serbia or Libya happened here? They take that premise and work backwards, not filling in too many blanks. Mixing the "war zone" cinema style with the "protect the president with badass technology like The Beast" cinema style, where the symbols of presidential power become like the Fürherbunker, was particularly effective.
Where the not making sense was a problem for me: what do the journalists think they are up to? Who do they work for, who reads their stories and looks at their photos? In American journalism movies the American People need to know whatever the journalist is reporting so they can Act. Also the grizzled war correspondent who vaguely evokes Hilary Clinton teaching the inexperienced Gen Z mentee seemed odd, if Cailee Spaeny grew up during the Civil War you'd assume she's seen a lot.
"what do the journalists think they are up to? Who do they work for, who reads their stories and looks at their photos? In American journalism movies the American People need to know whatever the journalist is reporting so they can Act."
My read was that the non-answers to those questions are part of the point: they don't really know what they're doing, nobody is reading their stories, and the American people just want it to go away. Both Kirsten Dunst and Cailee Spaeny's characters say their parents are trying to pretend the civil war isn't happening; Wagner Moura seems genuinely shaken that the only civilian they meet outside of a war zone is deliberately not paying any attention. Is making this record worth it even so? IMO that's the central question of the movie, and one it takes care not to answer (though I think it's ultimately more sympathetic to 'yes').
It is pretty blackly funny to think about from that angle.
That Americans are so used to tuning out misery they create around the world that theyd have no problem tuning out that same misery if it's two towns over.
I would like a little more explanation of how that towns "two yokels on a rooftop with rifles" defense force has managed to keep the US's predator drones, the Western Forces Badass Jets that seemingly only do barrel rolls, the Boogs and Jesse Plemons Freelance Death Squad at bay.
The Nicest Place In America Is In West Virginia is the clearest evidence they didn't give one thought to worldbuilding, and anyone complaining about such after watching that scene is a dope.
I mean Americans already do that (and they're by no means unique in that regard)! There are countless examples of disasters, crises, and mass killings that for a lot of people - even when they occur in the same country - never have more impact than a spot on the nightly news.
Yea but I'm old enough that "We don't give the weight to disasters in non-English speaking countries that we do in English speaking ones" was how we used to posture morally before 9/11.
The unspoken assumption was we'd care if What Couldn't Happen Here did, but obviously the 21st century democrats, party and voters, have put that notion completely to bed.
Old man reconciles what he was taught with what he's learned, I suppose was the headline on that comment.
Really appreciate the way you phrase the "explainer movie" phenomena. It's something that has both driven me batty and filled my digital shelves over the last 20+years. Too much exposition is always horrible, but one line here or there can do SUCH wonders to for a character, for a scene, for the whole G-D film. And the films that do require full youtube tutorials on their backstory, essentially films-for-the-films are so fun for a small subset of the audience, those of us that put the FANATIC in fan, but so many more are just "wha..." or TLDW.
As for Garland's take on politics, and ultimately Republican or Democrat being a label for how we decide to implement a distribution system...maybe you could argue that on the surface, but anyone caring to peak under the hood knows that's a fascile and lazy argument. To me, the problem with our politics these days is that many groups wish it was still thus, when it was never really, but enough people convincingly held to the story that IT WAS ABOUT "distribution of goods," when it was really about distribution of wealth, of power, and of rights, and really always has been. Only over the last 20 or so years, more and more people have started to figure that out. Some, when they become more aware, have decided to fight for more wealth, more power, and more rights. Others, when become more aware, have become scared that the power, wealth, rights will be taken (even if they never actually had access to it in the first place - but even the illusion that they might is critical to how they see themselves and their place in the wider context of society) and so they fight against the first group. And then you've got a vocal grouping in (primarily) the GOP that want power and wealth in the GOP and will use it to try and keep it, embracing all the hypocrisy imaginable to do so.
I say all this to say that, while I do want to see Civil War, it's so weird to me to make a purportedly political movie that sure sounds like it strives to be A-political. It's like making a Marvel movie but introducing new characters that are essentially Batman and Superman and Wonder Woman. Don't waste a Marvel movie when you really wanted to make a DC movie all along. They're not the same thing!
In the Civil War, there was a compromise that never was solved. Thus, violence and slavery became rampant, and segregation seemed like the only possible solution..
California and Texas are not the same, nor are they aligned. They are separate republics. The Northern and Florida Alliances are equally distinct from one another, as well as from the two different republics. In truth, the only thing they have in common is their mutual hate for their oppressive government; which is based on some unknown grievances. There is even a comment to this effect in the movie itself saying that the various alliances will never be able to coordinate with one another against the federal government so they don't pose a real threat; obviously an erroneous evaluation made by a movie character based on more wishful thinking than on movie world fact.
Anyone talked yet about how soft this movie seemed to portray a savage civil war?
Like, everyone in Spring 2024 knows exactly what it looks like when American arms are turned on civilian centers for a sustained period (I belive its been years in the movie, as opposed to a few months in Gaza. I suppose you could argue America is bigger and would take longer to carpet bomb.) Or look at Syria, but I think the analogy isnt as pat since it isn't 100% US policy, aid and arms enabling the destruction there.
Anyway aside from vignettes that could have been pulled from any identikit zombie movie of the last 15 years (or the better Romero ones going back 40 years), every time we get an aerial shot of devasteted america, its a perfectly normal neighborhood with one building conspicuously on fire for juxtaposition.
Call me a cynic but when it comes, and when things have got to the point $300 US is worth a gas station cheese sandwich, I don't think Americas exurbs are gonna look exactly the same from above, but with fewer cars and a single scorched flaming hole in an otherwise intact walmart.
Speaking of art not being able to catch up with reality.
Late to the party but I also enjoyed this movie much more than I expected. I can understand why some critics were disappointed, given Garland's fairly baffling comments - and a title/marketing that in hindsight are almost entirely misleading. I think your Max Read on it (sorry) as an Iraq movie set on the US East Coast is spot on; the civil war is a narrative conceit to make it immediate and affecting to American audiences. It's set in Pennsylvania and DC the same way a Shakespeare play is set in Verona or Denmark.
One thing I haven't seen anyone mention yet is the film's use of still photos, which I think is really the key to understanding it. Of the few glimpses we get of the American public, two characters mention their parents are just ignoring the civil war, and the only one we actually meet outside of a war zone is very deliberately not paying attention (which clearly shakes Wagner Moura's character). When Moura finally gets his quote at the end, there's no triumph or sense that journalism has won; the feeling that our 'heroes' are little more than vultures is never fully dispelled. The question then becomes: is making this record of atrocity, unwanted and impotent as it is, worth shutting off the human part of you that should recoil from it? We never see the public's reaction, if any - only the photos, incongruously black and white as if already buried in the pages of a high school textbook.
Haven't seen this movie yet, but based on your review and others I've read, I feel like it teed itself up to have a more humanistic and less internet-culture-war-politics approach to the Civil War 2 scenario -- which is valid -- but then maybe got distracted by action scenes and following protagonists who happen to be there for all the most important events.
I'm reminded of a portion of a WWII documentary I watched on Youtube (World War Two in Real Time -- it's great) about D-Day and how when they were storming the beaches, not every beach was like Saving Private Ryan. They talked about how village commuters were waiting for their bus or having a morning coffee on the boardwalk when all of a sudden Allied troops stormed through. I had never really thought about what it would be like for the average person in occupied France in 1944, but I guess they'd still be drinking coffee and commuting to work, and occasionally encountering soldiers of various stripes who may disrupt/destroy everything or may just be moving through to the next objective.
Also reminded of the scene in the movie Beirut when the taxi driver is explaining to Jon Hamm how they shouldn't take X highway because a car bomb had gone off there that morning. And how the Muslims were blaming the Christians and the Christians were blaming the Israelis and the Israelis were blaming the Muslims. He asks the cab driver what he thinks and he responds "I think we shouldn't take X highway".
So perhaps the average person wouldn't really have a good idea of what's going on or what the backstories are of each of the factions and why they are fighting. But then by following journalists instead of "civilians" the protagonists will naturally follow the action and be more clued in to what's going on than the average person actually would. So then the fact that we the audience /still/ don't know what the civil war is actually about is maybe an indictment of journalism rather than a lionization of it? That decontextualized violence gets views and explaining why they're doing it might offend people so it's better to just maintain the view from nowhere.
....hmm I liked the under-explaining. I thought the politics of the movie was that liberals are coming for Trump and as far as you could tell they have no choice but what have we become, a civl war degrades both sides etc.? It seems less preachy because it stays vague.
The images had power and (cinematic) plausibility because we've seen them in reporting on the rest of the world so what if the circumstances that make war-reporting possible in Serbia or Libya happened here? They take that premise and work backwards, not filling in too many blanks. Mixing the "war zone" cinema style with the "protect the president with badass technology like The Beast" cinema style, where the symbols of presidential power become like the Fürherbunker, was particularly effective.
Where the not making sense was a problem for me: what do the journalists think they are up to? Who do they work for, who reads their stories and looks at their photos? In American journalism movies the American People need to know whatever the journalist is reporting so they can Act. Also the grizzled war correspondent who vaguely evokes Hilary Clinton teaching the inexperienced Gen Z mentee seemed odd, if Cailee Spaeny grew up during the Civil War you'd assume she's seen a lot.
"what do the journalists think they are up to? Who do they work for, who reads their stories and looks at their photos? In American journalism movies the American People need to know whatever the journalist is reporting so they can Act."
My read was that the non-answers to those questions are part of the point: they don't really know what they're doing, nobody is reading their stories, and the American people just want it to go away. Both Kirsten Dunst and Cailee Spaeny's characters say their parents are trying to pretend the civil war isn't happening; Wagner Moura seems genuinely shaken that the only civilian they meet outside of a war zone is deliberately not paying any attention. Is making this record worth it even so? IMO that's the central question of the movie, and one it takes care not to answer (though I think it's ultimately more sympathetic to 'yes').
It is pretty blackly funny to think about from that angle.
That Americans are so used to tuning out misery they create around the world that theyd have no problem tuning out that same misery if it's two towns over.
I would like a little more explanation of how that towns "two yokels on a rooftop with rifles" defense force has managed to keep the US's predator drones, the Western Forces Badass Jets that seemingly only do barrel rolls, the Boogs and Jesse Plemons Freelance Death Squad at bay.
The Nicest Place In America Is In West Virginia is the clearest evidence they didn't give one thought to worldbuilding, and anyone complaining about such after watching that scene is a dope.
I mean Americans already do that (and they're by no means unique in that regard)! There are countless examples of disasters, crises, and mass killings that for a lot of people - even when they occur in the same country - never have more impact than a spot on the nightly news.
Yea but I'm old enough that "We don't give the weight to disasters in non-English speaking countries that we do in English speaking ones" was how we used to posture morally before 9/11.
The unspoken assumption was we'd care if What Couldn't Happen Here did, but obviously the 21st century democrats, party and voters, have put that notion completely to bed.
Old man reconciles what he was taught with what he's learned, I suppose was the headline on that comment.
Really appreciate the way you phrase the "explainer movie" phenomena. It's something that has both driven me batty and filled my digital shelves over the last 20+years. Too much exposition is always horrible, but one line here or there can do SUCH wonders to for a character, for a scene, for the whole G-D film. And the films that do require full youtube tutorials on their backstory, essentially films-for-the-films are so fun for a small subset of the audience, those of us that put the FANATIC in fan, but so many more are just "wha..." or TLDW.
As for Garland's take on politics, and ultimately Republican or Democrat being a label for how we decide to implement a distribution system...maybe you could argue that on the surface, but anyone caring to peak under the hood knows that's a fascile and lazy argument. To me, the problem with our politics these days is that many groups wish it was still thus, when it was never really, but enough people convincingly held to the story that IT WAS ABOUT "distribution of goods," when it was really about distribution of wealth, of power, and of rights, and really always has been. Only over the last 20 or so years, more and more people have started to figure that out. Some, when they become more aware, have decided to fight for more wealth, more power, and more rights. Others, when become more aware, have become scared that the power, wealth, rights will be taken (even if they never actually had access to it in the first place - but even the illusion that they might is critical to how they see themselves and their place in the wider context of society) and so they fight against the first group. And then you've got a vocal grouping in (primarily) the GOP that want power and wealth in the GOP and will use it to try and keep it, embracing all the hypocrisy imaginable to do so.
I say all this to say that, while I do want to see Civil War, it's so weird to me to make a purportedly political movie that sure sounds like it strives to be A-political. It's like making a Marvel movie but introducing new characters that are essentially Batman and Superman and Wonder Woman. Don't waste a Marvel movie when you really wanted to make a DC movie all along. They're not the same thing!
I lke movies with big bangs and this movie has BIG BANGS. Entertaining as hell. Even cried a little. Great day at the movies.
In the Civil War, there was a compromise that never was solved. Thus, violence and slavery became rampant, and segregation seemed like the only possible solution..
Ended up really liking this even though it felt a bit like ‘downfall but trump but a24?’
You should be required to watch the Grant doc alongside this as a bang bang
California and Texas are not the same, nor are they aligned. They are separate republics. The Northern and Florida Alliances are equally distinct from one another, as well as from the two different republics. In truth, the only thing they have in common is their mutual hate for their oppressive government; which is based on some unknown grievances. There is even a comment to this effect in the movie itself saying that the various alliances will never be able to coordinate with one another against the federal government so they don't pose a real threat; obviously an erroneous evaluation made by a movie character based on more wishful thinking than on movie world fact.
I agree with your analysis and made a similar post about the misdirect the trailer pulled on us. Would love it if you took a look!
"https://historicalcuriosities.substack.com/p/the-clever-gambit-of-civil-war">Read on Substack
How did you leave out that it's the President's 3rd term in office? That's a big clue.
The old journalist who tags along makes a comment that alludes to how it's the president's third term in office
Anyone talked yet about how soft this movie seemed to portray a savage civil war?
Like, everyone in Spring 2024 knows exactly what it looks like when American arms are turned on civilian centers for a sustained period (I belive its been years in the movie, as opposed to a few months in Gaza. I suppose you could argue America is bigger and would take longer to carpet bomb.) Or look at Syria, but I think the analogy isnt as pat since it isn't 100% US policy, aid and arms enabling the destruction there.
Anyway aside from vignettes that could have been pulled from any identikit zombie movie of the last 15 years (or the better Romero ones going back 40 years), every time we get an aerial shot of devasteted america, its a perfectly normal neighborhood with one building conspicuously on fire for juxtaposition.
Call me a cynic but when it comes, and when things have got to the point $300 US is worth a gas station cheese sandwich, I don't think Americas exurbs are gonna look exactly the same from above, but with fewer cars and a single scorched flaming hole in an otherwise intact walmart.
Speaking of art not being able to catch up with reality.
Late to the party but I also enjoyed this movie much more than I expected. I can understand why some critics were disappointed, given Garland's fairly baffling comments - and a title/marketing that in hindsight are almost entirely misleading. I think your Max Read on it (sorry) as an Iraq movie set on the US East Coast is spot on; the civil war is a narrative conceit to make it immediate and affecting to American audiences. It's set in Pennsylvania and DC the same way a Shakespeare play is set in Verona or Denmark.
One thing I haven't seen anyone mention yet is the film's use of still photos, which I think is really the key to understanding it. Of the few glimpses we get of the American public, two characters mention their parents are just ignoring the civil war, and the only one we actually meet outside of a war zone is very deliberately not paying attention (which clearly shakes Wagner Moura's character). When Moura finally gets his quote at the end, there's no triumph or sense that journalism has won; the feeling that our 'heroes' are little more than vultures is never fully dispelled. The question then becomes: is making this record of atrocity, unwanted and impotent as it is, worth shutting off the human part of you that should recoil from it? We never see the public's reaction, if any - only the photos, incongruously black and white as if already buried in the pages of a high school textbook.