Reviews for Civil War directed by Alex Garland, starring Kirsten Dunst
- Thread starter RastaMentality
- Start date
The marketing was a part of it but its trippy seeing Americans mad a serious conflict gets flattened to be a backdrop of a Hollywood character study working with filmmakers working with dubious local talent😑
It was a good war film
It was a good war film
Last edited:
This was one of the better movies I've seen in years, but also one I'll probably never want to watch again. Well written, well acted and the soundtrack needs to be on Spotify if it isn't already. They really lucked into getting Plemmons to play that part.
It is! The Sturgill Simpson song was particularly effective and the opening Silver Apples song
Civil War Official Soundtrack A24
Civil War Official Soundtrack A24 · Playlist · 11 songs · 1.3K likes
open.spotify.com
The De La Soul track being played over the horrors on screen was a wonderful choice too.It is! The Sturgill Simpson song was particularly effective and the opening Silver Apples song
Civil War Official Soundtrack A24
Civil War Official Soundtrack A24 · Playlist · 11 songs · 1.3K likes
I will say this: the movie is not apolitical. It directly touches on centrism.
My notes in full as I watched:
My notes in full as I watched:
Sprinklers being the image of stability and purposeful suburban ignorance is well done
"we just try to stay out." Movie is directly criticizing centrism. Even used an aloof teen to deliver that line.
Main characters look pristine with unblemished clothing even though they're constantly in war torn situations
Black character delivering "looks like everything I've always remembered" to contrast durnst white comfortability.
Overarching message is that all our understanding and "norms" fall to shit in a scenario like this. Unknown unknowns. There are no sides, only people trying to kill each other. "He's stuck, we're stuck." Journalist tries to ask who they are, who they take orders from, and who the person they're fighting are, and the sniper responds by calling them stupid.
The black elder character being the lone voice of reason is beyond on the nose. So many white sensibility remarks from the main character, "they would never do this," while they very much would do that.
The main characters have literal plot armor because they're white women from Missouri and Colorado.
Very evocative scene with the forest fire. Beautiful composition with embers and lighting.
Some really great shots in this film. Main man losing his shit with a cig in his hand while soldiers march behind him unphased is a choice for sure.
Dialogue to excuse a black man dying for some white girls seems both facetious and congratulatory.
The panic attack/composed shot taker switch does not feel organic whatsoever. Bond between two mains is not connective.
The small attention to detail to show white house was living out of plastic containers. How rotted the core was from the inside.
"we just try to stay out." Movie is directly criticizing centrism. Even used an aloof teen to deliver that line.
Main characters look pristine with unblemished clothing even though they're constantly in war torn situations
Black character delivering "looks like everything I've always remembered" to contrast durnst white comfortability.
Overarching message is that all our understanding and "norms" fall to shit in a scenario like this. Unknown unknowns. There are no sides, only people trying to kill each other. "He's stuck, we're stuck." Journalist tries to ask who they are, who they take orders from, and who the person they're fighting are, and the sniper responds by calling them stupid.
The black elder character being the lone voice of reason is beyond on the nose. So many white sensibility remarks from the main character, "they would never do this," while they very much would do that.
The main characters have literal plot armor because they're white women from Missouri and Colorado.
Very evocative scene with the forest fire. Beautiful composition with embers and lighting.
Some really great shots in this film. Main man losing his shit with a cig in his hand while soldiers march behind him unphased is a choice for sure.
Dialogue to excuse a black man dying for some white girls seems both facetious and congratulatory.
The panic attack/composed shot taker switch does not feel organic whatsoever. Bond between two mains is not connective.
The small attention to detail to show white house was living out of plastic containers. How rotted the core was from the inside.
That's not someone who has seen the movie.
It's worth remembering that we meet films from where we are, and what we expect, and what we hope to see in our present life. Like, there is likely a poor young woman in Arizona with an unwanted pregnancy right at this moment. She's living in a dystopia right now. She needs help right now. What this movie has to say would be irrelevant from her perspective in this moment, and probably irritating. Being able to mentally remove yourself from the present politics in America is a privilege many do not have.
Jesus you guys will blame Marvel for anything. What a dumb statement. This movie is a 7/10 at best. This forum sometimes…
What a boring ass film. Completely vapid, and the young woman was hella unlikeable due to her shit decisions.
Pretty and technically great tho
Pretty and technically great tho
People keep going with this refrain about not having seen the movie when the general commentary makes it very clear what's happening and Garland's statements very clear what his goal was. Several critics have remarked on this, too. Are you going to accuse Justin Chang of Variety of also not having seen it? Several professional critics at this point have criticized the movie on exactly this topic.
Beyond that this portion of your comment just seems to illuminate things:
Her situation as a victim in a state of war didn't come in a vacuum, like oh oopsie, how did I get here? A whole lot led up to it, including significant public policy (which is very political, weird), and ignoring that is essentially saying "bad shit happens to everyone in time of strife and war, don't worry your pretty little head about why you're in this shit," which is one of the most vapid and cowardly statements I can imagine. War doesn't happen in a vacuum, and neither was this movie made in one, or without this weak attempt to appeal to real history while actually ignoring said history. The pregnant mother in the South during the American Civil War who didn't even own any slaves is menaced and her life goes to shit too. And that's dreadful. But what was that war fought over?
I'm not watching the film's theatrical release, because I disagree with its open cowardice and what people who have viewed and praised it seem to categorize as both "apolitical" and "obvious and unambiguous," all at the same time, and all of its defenses just tend to reinforce that view. That tells me it's muddled at its most charitable, and doesn't have much to say other than "this would be kinda scary in your backyard wouldn't it?"
Pretty much how I felt. It's a provocative concept but by the end it felt like a big meh. Not a movie I would revisit.
Liked it. Intense as hell.
Complaints about lack of "worldbuilding" made me laugh. Has nothing to do with anything at all. Who cares what's happening in Canada or why Florida broke off lol
This kind of obsession with "lore" is why we keep getting stupid prequels to explain things "nobody ever asked for".
Complaints about lack of "worldbuilding" made me laugh. Has nothing to do with anything at all. Who cares what's happening in Canada or why Florida broke off lol
This kind of obsession with "lore" is why we keep getting stupid prequels to explain things "nobody ever asked for".
Yeah, this was terrible.
It's really the worst thing a movie can be: boring. The script is uninteresting and it feels like it thinks it's very smart and profound yet never actually says anything. Cowardly, centrist dreck.
It's really the worst thing a movie can be: boring. The script is uninteresting and it feels like it thinks it's very smart and profound yet never actually says anything. Cowardly, centrist dreck.
Yeah, that's not what I got out of this at all. It was far from boring.
A centeist snoozefest. Nothing interesting the story at all.
Loved it. Really effective. Wish it wouldn't have been set in America because I feel like more would enjoy it instead of faulting it for things it didn't set out to be. Could have done it better for sure but I think it's highs make up for where it's doesn't go far enough
Everyone I went to see this movie with loved it, but we're not American.
Idk, I guess it's because all we get is News about the really outrageous stuff here, but this seemed pretty accurate and the politics didn't seem that muddled as folks make it out to be? Maybe it's because we easily attached the president here to Donald Trump and the rest of America as fighting his loyalists while some try splintering out into their own thing.
We thought the movie was scary in how real it felt, by again were not American.
Also it's a movie about contemporary politics, as much as I would love this to have called a specific group out, it would be inflammatory at best and dangerous at worst.
Idk, I guess it's because all we get is News about the really outrageous stuff here, but this seemed pretty accurate and the politics didn't seem that muddled as folks make it out to be? Maybe it's because we easily attached the president here to Donald Trump and the rest of America as fighting his loyalists while some try splintering out into their own thing.
We thought the movie was scary in how real it felt, by again were not American.
Also it's a movie about contemporary politics, as much as I would love this to have called a specific group out, it would be inflammatory at best and dangerous at worst.
Just got back from seeing it. The biggest props I can give this is the sound design, and Jesse Plemons. Also:
If there's an attack within the White House, even if he doesn't want to, the president can and will be forced by secret service agents to move to an undisclosed location. I don't know why president Swanson stayed in the Oval Office.
Last edited:
This is Garland on the Trump comparisons btw
This is so vapid. Exactly what I said above. Thr film thinks it's more intelligent than it actually is (and apparently, so does Garland).
Kirsten's character having an almost come and see like arc was the most profound thing about this film. The way violence poisons the soul and yet we cannot help but naval gaze over the very things we should be standing up against. An inescapable feedback loop.
Vapid indeed. Making something vague isn't intelligent. It would've been much harder to go, "He was a democrat/republican and here's how he became this way," then proceed to show a realistic reason how this might happen.
Instead he wants to stand on some moral high ground as if he did something. Nah, you just tossed some random shit together and tried to make the movie as incongruous as possible in a pathetic attempt not to piss anyone off.
I can't help but feel like if the film clearly stated that the left were the good guys and the right were evil, we wouldn't have this reaction. The right would say it's woke garbage like they do everything else, and the left would be propping this film up as a profound warning against the proliferation of fascism in America.
It didn't have to be the right. It could've been the left, tired of the right's bullshit. Just naming them would've helped. But instead the film comes across as something trying to capitalize on current anxieties.
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/civil-war-movie-review-2024
Matt Zoller Seitz wrote an insightful review, as always.
Matt Zoller Seitz wrote an insightful review, as always.
Interesting film. One thing I will say, I wasn't bored. The gunshots are loud and shocking in the mix, really well presented here.
That said, I think the main immediate message I come away with is that journalism is useless in a dying world. It can achieve voyeurism and nothing more, just as the main appeal of this movie is that lens into a world torn apart. I didn't think I would come out of this film actively feeling like I'm being told to dislike for war journalism as a career path but Garland managed it for me.
If there was anything more being brought to the table here it's muddled at best, cliche at worst.
But hey, it's fun to watch. Tense film.
That said, I think the main immediate message I come away with is that journalism is useless in a dying world. It can achieve voyeurism and nothing more, just as the main appeal of this movie is that lens into a world torn apart. I didn't think I would come out of this film actively feeling like I'm being told to dislike for war journalism as a career path but Garland managed it for me.
If there was anything more being brought to the table here it's muddled at best, cliche at worst.
But hey, it's fun to watch. Tense film.
Last edited:
Felt bloodthirsty in part, that line between thrill seeking and documenting history being a fine line. There's this sense that ones sense of humanity should be brought to this space but it's just as emotionally precarious as it is physically.
I mean, most of the reaction the characters manifest is to get a rush from this. There's not really any other reaction to the material on display than that and "oh shit get down". They are silent on all other aspects to things. So I found it relatively easy to just go ahead and do that too since that's what the film seems to want for the most part.
In that I think the film is not meaningless at least. It has a question and it answers it. Do I agree with it? Not really I think but it is capturing a certain type of journalism Isuppose
I think this article about sums how I feel about this.
www.thepitchkc.com
I actually liked the movie a lot more than I thought I would. I was kinda dreading seeing it, considering the subject matter and how off-putting Garland's very centrist comments were (and I say this as a fan of his work). I think this movie is a really effective and interesting dive into a chaotic America where violence is everywhere, and how people who aren't carrying out the violence are still seeking it. I respect this movie for focusing on the importance of journalism and the people who have that very difficult task of being observers of violence to tell that story to the world, and considering what's happening in places like Gaza and Sudan, I think that's a very admirable subject to shine a lot on right now. I do wish there was more setup for the kind of world this movie is set in, but this movie is very much a VIBE rather than a heavy story movie. And I think it certainly works that way.
That said, it left me wanting more commentary on the state of America given the subject matter and our present times. If you're going to handle this subject matter, I think you would have a responsibility to say something more and not stick with a voyeur perspective of sorts. Still, I got a bit out of this movie, and I'm glad I saw it. It's solid and very well made, but I wish there was more to it; I think the movie would be a lot more interesting and lead to more provocative discussions if it were open with its politics. I would not call this a centrist film that tries to please both sides of the political landscape, but I do think its focus on trying to be impartial to either side does make the larger film's messages feel a bit dull. And that's a shame because this movie hits at some things that are insightful, in my opinion.
Anyway, I think it's a solid movie.
2024 audiences may not be in a space to enjoy Civil War. 2034 audiences (if they still exist) will love it.
Alex Garland’s Civil War. // Courtesy A24 The fact that Alex Garland’s Civil War is a less political film than you might expect is somehow a relief, while also feeling maddeningly irresponsible. It’s a similar reaction to the one that seeped in following Martin McDonagh’s Three Billboards...
www.thepitchkc.com
I actually liked the movie a lot more than I thought I would. I was kinda dreading seeing it, considering the subject matter and how off-putting Garland's very centrist comments were (and I say this as a fan of his work). I think this movie is a really effective and interesting dive into a chaotic America where violence is everywhere, and how people who aren't carrying out the violence are still seeking it. I respect this movie for focusing on the importance of journalism and the people who have that very difficult task of being observers of violence to tell that story to the world, and considering what's happening in places like Gaza and Sudan, I think that's a very admirable subject to shine a lot on right now. I do wish there was more setup for the kind of world this movie is set in, but this movie is very much a VIBE rather than a heavy story movie. And I think it certainly works that way.
That said, it left me wanting more commentary on the state of America given the subject matter and our present times. If you're going to handle this subject matter, I think you would have a responsibility to say something more and not stick with a voyeur perspective of sorts. Still, I got a bit out of this movie, and I'm glad I saw it. It's solid and very well made, but I wish there was more to it; I think the movie would be a lot more interesting and lead to more provocative discussions if it were open with its politics. I would not call this a centrist film that tries to please both sides of the political landscape, but I do think its focus on trying to be impartial to either side does make the larger film's messages feel a bit dull. And that's a shame because this movie hits at some things that are insightful, in my opinion.
Anyway, I think it's a solid movie.
I saw the movie yesterday and it's the most I've had my feelings all over the place for a movie in recent memory. Which, I guess is better than the very low expectations I went into from the general concept and the one trailer I saw. I only went because a family member bought tickets.
Like, when the movie is going I'm just drawn in. I easily pulled into the tension of every scene. It sounds great. It's beautiful. The drive through the forest on fire… I just don't have any words. It's the first movie in a while that made me wish I had a premium screen accessible to me. Real IMax, fake IMax, Dolby, anything. This is why I think I may see the movie again in the future, possibly before it leaves theaters.
Yet, like others, the writing doesn't do much for. There are hints of something on all sorts of topics, but the film doesn't go deep on any of them.
If you're going to set a civil war in America, you should do something with it. Maybe lean into America's role in other civil wars around the world. Or, if you want to do something to talk about current American politics, okay, but you'd have to be clever about it because the first few obvious ways of doing that seems at best incredibly annoying to me, even if the writing reflected my own idiosyncratic political views. Opting not to use proper nouns and using seemingly unorthodox alliances while instead reflecting the real actions and attitudes of certain people in America is a good first step (see the Jesse Plemons scene even if that is a bit clumsy)… out of like the seventeen good steps needed to make this work.
So, the movie is going to be about the war photography. Fine. Except, we don't get anything about the actual results of the photography. Where is it published? Who sees it? What are the reactions? What impacts does it have? Some posters here have brought up Nightcrawler. In Nightcrawler, we see Louis Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal's character) not only do the act of recording certain events, but also the news agency he sells it to, what the agency uses it for, the impacts of how the agency uses it, debates within the agency about whether they should be using the footage in that way. I wouldn't want Civil War to just copy Nightcrawler here, but there Civil War just does not have any equivalent to this. In Civil War, at best we get to see some of the actual photos taken by the main characters and very light discussion about one being particularly good in the eyes of the characters, which I do think there is something to even if I do not know what after a first viewing, but it's not nearly enough. Without the questions I asked earlier really being explored, the photography aspect seems mostly meaningless to me. And maybe that is how we're supposed to feel by the end? But somehow I do not think so.
The most we do get out of the photography angle is the growing thill seeking to it, which is why I really do not mind how a character death happened at the end compared to others. Although it just reinforces the sense of meaninglessness.
Like, when the movie is going I'm just drawn in. I easily pulled into the tension of every scene. It sounds great. It's beautiful. The drive through the forest on fire… I just don't have any words. It's the first movie in a while that made me wish I had a premium screen accessible to me. Real IMax, fake IMax, Dolby, anything. This is why I think I may see the movie again in the future, possibly before it leaves theaters.
Yet, like others, the writing doesn't do much for. There are hints of something on all sorts of topics, but the film doesn't go deep on any of them.
If you're going to set a civil war in America, you should do something with it. Maybe lean into America's role in other civil wars around the world. Or, if you want to do something to talk about current American politics, okay, but you'd have to be clever about it because the first few obvious ways of doing that seems at best incredibly annoying to me, even if the writing reflected my own idiosyncratic political views. Opting not to use proper nouns and using seemingly unorthodox alliances while instead reflecting the real actions and attitudes of certain people in America is a good first step (see the Jesse Plemons scene even if that is a bit clumsy)… out of like the seventeen good steps needed to make this work.
So, the movie is going to be about the war photography. Fine. Except, we don't get anything about the actual results of the photography. Where is it published? Who sees it? What are the reactions? What impacts does it have? Some posters here have brought up Nightcrawler. In Nightcrawler, we see Louis Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal's character) not only do the act of recording certain events, but also the news agency he sells it to, what the agency uses it for, the impacts of how the agency uses it, debates within the agency about whether they should be using the footage in that way. I wouldn't want Civil War to just copy Nightcrawler here, but there Civil War just does not have any equivalent to this. In Civil War, at best we get to see some of the actual photos taken by the main characters and very light discussion about one being particularly good in the eyes of the characters, which I do think there is something to even if I do not know what after a first viewing, but it's not nearly enough. Without the questions I asked earlier really being explored, the photography aspect seems mostly meaningless to me. And maybe that is how we're supposed to feel by the end? But somehow I do not think so.
The most we do get out of the photography angle is the growing thill seeking to it, which is why I really do not mind how a character death happened at the end compared to others. Although it just reinforces the sense of meaninglessness.
We do get some sense of the state of publishing. Dunst and the guy work for Reuters, she starts the movie trying to upload photos from the tanker event, and presumably they're very confident an interview with the president will be published. The NY Times sounds like it's struggling, but TV news is still going. People seem to be living comfortably in parts of the country and hotels are running, so there are definitely still consumers of media.
Edit: Not to mention the world will be hungry for reports. From Canada's dollar being worth trading, we can assume they're relatively okay in this world.
Edit: Not to mention the world will be hungry for reports. From Canada's dollar being worth trading, we can assume they're relatively okay in this world.
This is basically how I feel. if youre going to do a movie called civil war in 2024 you better have something to say and this movie doesn't. just ended up being feckless
I do think that is how we're meant to feel. That is what eats at Kirsten Dunst's character, which the older reporter actually says at one point. Her war reporting overseas changed nothing and helped no one, and she literally refuses to "ask questions" about it because the answers are deeply uncomfortable. The photography is, at best, an exercise in compartmentalization.
I liked but did not love this movie. My hobby is film photography so seeing a big blockbuster about how sick nasty photographers are should have been a personal home run. Unfortunately, while I empathize with the decision to avoid allegorizing or depicting the current real-life US political crisis, Alex Garland's total aversion to any kind of internal political context completely hobbles the movie. Despite what Kirsten Dunst espouses in this movie, photography is not "neutral." The choices the photographer makes such as lens, angle, framing, color, stock, etc, completely change how the information the image conveys psychologically turns into a idea in the viewer's head. Even just being embedded in a specific faction for a battle changes the entire perspective of the image. On top of that, war photographers are historically not above manipulating scenes to get the image they want. So the entire premise of the movie felt wrong, or at least deeply in denial. After all, it ends with Jessie photographing the death of the DC President from the POV of the Western Forces, including a propagandistic group shot.
All Garland achieves with this aversion is close off several avenues to discuss how journalistic photography consciously and unconsciously impacts how our understanding of history and news are formed. Because he is afraid to have any kind of internal political world at all, we have a movie where characters are from differering territories of a divided nation at war with itself, or from other countries with no skin in the game, yet none of them seem to regard the conflict with anything but apathy unless they can rubberneck at the carnage. Does Stephen Henderson's character, who writes for the New York Times, have a differing perspective from Wagner Moura's Floridian journalist, one that may impact how he approaches his job? How does a photographer from Colorado approach being embedded with a faction representing a completely different part of the country? The movie doesn't ask questions like this. The characters are just apolitical automatons. The movie is hyperfocused on a singular idea, which is that to survive as a successful photojournalist, you need to be just traumatized enough to be practical and pragmatic but not so traumatized that you're having PTSD flashbacks and treating your job as a suicide mission, which is a solid idea, but not enough for an entire movie to subsist on alone.
All Garland achieves with this aversion is close off several avenues to discuss how journalistic photography consciously and unconsciously impacts how our understanding of history and news are formed. Because he is afraid to have any kind of internal political world at all, we have a movie where characters are from differering territories of a divided nation at war with itself, or from other countries with no skin in the game, yet none of them seem to regard the conflict with anything but apathy unless they can rubberneck at the carnage. Does Stephen Henderson's character, who writes for the New York Times, have a differing perspective from Wagner Moura's Floridian journalist, one that may impact how he approaches his job? How does a photographer from Colorado approach being embedded with a faction representing a completely different part of the country? The movie doesn't ask questions like this. The characters are just apolitical automatons. The movie is hyperfocused on a singular idea, which is that to survive as a successful photojournalist, you need to be just traumatized enough to be practical and pragmatic but not so traumatized that you're having PTSD flashbacks and treating your job as a suicide mission, which is a solid idea, but not enough for an entire movie to subsist on alone.
My major frustration with this movie is the script's insistence on obscuring any context about the nature of the war.
I understand the desire to sidestep political affiliations that may turn off or color the opinion of some viewers, but that supposed "feature" ends up completely leaving me detached on how I should feel about any of this. Some have said that the movie isn't trying to preach but let you decide for yourself how to feel. The problem is, the movie never provides enough information for me to even reach a conclusion myself. It repeatedly refuses to give any context for the viewer to come to any conclusion besides "man wouldn't it be terrible if there was a civil war in America?". The movie doesn't provide the audience with tools to do any type of soul searching about "why we're so divided".
This missing context is emblematic in a couple of scenes where a character asks another where they're parents are and they respond that they're on a farm pretending this isn't happening. There's a similar exchange where they're in a shop in some downtown that's unaffected by the war where a shopkeeper says they just like to stay out of it and keep their heads down.
What am I supposed to make of these scenes? How can I judge these people's decisions when I'm in the dark about the nature of the conflict or even their relationship to it. Are they making the correct decision? Are they cowards? Is there any reason to assume that they could contribute anything meaningful to the war? Do they even have any sympathies to a specific side? I have no idea because the film is terrified of wading into any specifics that may be seen as polarizing.
Do these journalists have an opinion on the war or its outcome? In the aforementioned scene the journalist meets the desire to stay out of the conflict with what basically amounts to the shrug emoji. I understand that the nature of their jobs focuses them to prioritize the work and the results, but wouldn't at least one of them have some kind of opinion on the conflict? Some desire about how the war should end or whose side should win? And if they think both sides are wrong is there any type of conflicting emotions about how one side seems to be clearly winning? During the entirety of that road trip I would imagine at one point there had to have been a discussion of their hopes/fears/expectations once the president is killed and what the future of their literal home country looks like. What do they even expect the results of their efforts to be besides getting a good shot/interview?
The move's refusal to show this flattens the characters into PTSD cyphers. War is hell. That's all I got from this. Like Venat Fan said, Nightcrawler's whole "ethics in journalism" theme is supported by the greater context of how the Gyllenhaal character's decision/motives are reached, the push back/support he receives and the effects his decision has on the wider society. But "Civil Wars" myopic scope means that interplay is completely lost on the viewer, resulting in the whole effort feeling hollow.
I understand the desire to sidestep political affiliations that may turn off or color the opinion of some viewers, but that supposed "feature" ends up completely leaving me detached on how I should feel about any of this. Some have said that the movie isn't trying to preach but let you decide for yourself how to feel. The problem is, the movie never provides enough information for me to even reach a conclusion myself. It repeatedly refuses to give any context for the viewer to come to any conclusion besides "man wouldn't it be terrible if there was a civil war in America?". The movie doesn't provide the audience with tools to do any type of soul searching about "why we're so divided".
This missing context is emblematic in a couple of scenes where a character asks another where they're parents are and they respond that they're on a farm pretending this isn't happening. There's a similar exchange where they're in a shop in some downtown that's unaffected by the war where a shopkeeper says they just like to stay out of it and keep their heads down.
What am I supposed to make of these scenes? How can I judge these people's decisions when I'm in the dark about the nature of the conflict or even their relationship to it. Are they making the correct decision? Are they cowards? Is there any reason to assume that they could contribute anything meaningful to the war? Do they even have any sympathies to a specific side? I have no idea because the film is terrified of wading into any specifics that may be seen as polarizing.
Do these journalists have an opinion on the war or its outcome? In the aforementioned scene the journalist meets the desire to stay out of the conflict with what basically amounts to the shrug emoji. I understand that the nature of their jobs focuses them to prioritize the work and the results, but wouldn't at least one of them have some kind of opinion on the conflict? Some desire about how the war should end or whose side should win? And if they think both sides are wrong is there any type of conflicting emotions about how one side seems to be clearly winning? During the entirety of that road trip I would imagine at one point there had to have been a discussion of their hopes/fears/expectations once the president is killed and what the future of their literal home country looks like. What do they even expect the results of their efforts to be besides getting a good shot/interview?
The move's refusal to show this flattens the characters into PTSD cyphers. War is hell. That's all I got from this. Like Venat Fan said, Nightcrawler's whole "ethics in journalism" theme is supported by the greater context of how the Gyllenhaal character's decision/motives are reached, the push back/support he receives and the effects his decision has on the wider society. But "Civil Wars" myopic scope means that interplay is completely lost on the viewer, resulting in the whole effort feeling hollow.
Last edited:
The reporter regards the prez cowering, saying "Don't let them kill me" as all the interview he needs at that point.
That makes his opinion clear enough.
Even when he seemed to be seeking more of a Q+A interview, all of the mock questions Sammy was posing were digging at the choices that contributed to the state the country was in, and he was turning them down as too soft.
Edit: I need to learn that character's name already. Joel.
That makes his opinion clear enough.
Even when he seemed to be seeking more of a Q+A interview, all of the mock questions Sammy was posing were digging at the choices that contributed to the state the country was in, and he was turning them down as too soft.
Edit: I need to learn that character's name already. Joel.
While its true that the president is seeded as a villain and all the characters seem to despise him, it doesn't illuminate why the conflict has devolved into a Civil War and not just a referendum on his personal actions. I took that exchange as personal feelings against him and not an overall feeling of the conflict.
I'm not sure whether this map is misinformation or not, but why are so many states loyal to an obviously evil leader? I'm sure they have their reasons (be they valid or not) but since they're never clearly expressed, any nuanced opinion about why the loyalist states exist is missing unless I missed some interaction that revealed that.
"Civil War" map shows which states secede in Alex Garland movie
Which states have turned against the government in Alex Garland and A24's dystopian America?
www.newsweek.com
Last edited:
While its true that the president is seeded as a villain and all the characters seem to despise him, it doesn't illuminate why the conflict has devolved into a Civil War and not just a referendum on his personal actions. I took that exchange as personal feelings against him and not an overall feeling of the conflict.
I'm not sure whether this map is misinformation or not, but why are so many states loyal to an obviously evil leader? I sure they have their reasons (be they valid or not) but since they're never clearly expressed, any nuanced opinion about why the loyalist states exist is missing unless I missed some interaction that revealed that.
"Civil War" map shows which states secede in Alex Garland movie
Which states have turned against the government in Alex Garland and A24's dystopian America?
seems like the republic going on as usual despite a fascist federal government in place where Texas and California decide to secede. Mirroring that eerie pleasantville town that refuses to acknowledge the reality.