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.
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..
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.
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