That's a fair opinion to have and thank you for explaining it so eloquently. It's hard to say whether this is a "fun" action movie when neither of us has seen it, but I imagine the movie you're describing would be pilloried from basically every reputable critic. The fact that it's not and that a24 is behind this is sort of what piqued my interest. I am not familiar with garland although I adored annihilation so at least we have that in common.
I know I am not the typical poster on era. I'm from a very blue family in a very red state. I am also queer and went to perhaps the most homophobic school in the country (byu). I read the newest bullshit our state legislature does and my blood boils. I went through years where I had nothing but hate in my heart. I am of the opinion that the left just can't win with hate; that's what the right does and it's toxic and soul crushing and is no way to live. Every red state has blue pockets and five million Texans voted for Biden. That's more people than LIVE in most states. I just hate it when someone looks at the color of my state on some electoral map and lumps people like me in with the Magats. It's not that simple and never has been.
You mentioned this would be like telling Ireland to join the UK, but this hyper partisanship is a fairly recent phenomenon. I see nothing wrong with a movie showing what destruction such a society could work if things continue down this path. It's really the beauty of sci-fi and horror and I think this movie has a little bit of both. Sure, it might not be for you, and that's perfectly fine. Personally I'm open to it and I hope it's actually good so we can have some discussions about it. But maybe I'm giving era too much credit.
The thing is, Garland is a talented writer (Sunshine's ending aside) and director. I'm not surprised that taken in a vacuum and ignoring the context, he was able to tell a compelling story about reporters covering a civil war in which they are active participants and critics seem to be able to forgive or even read what they want into the blank apolitical context of the actual civil war and connect with the core story.
I guess my thing is for all the talk about how BLM are terrorists and how both sides are somehow equally violent, it's shitheads like Rittenhouse who are violent and also get away with it. Maybe there are "left wing terrorists" blowing up... god knows what that I don't know about, but as far as I can tell one side is violent and wants to murder anyone who doesn't fit into their paradigm of normal and the other just wants to be able to live in peace and be treated like human beings.
I just think this centrist line that he's riding is offensive to the people who feel marginalized and under actual threat. You can't have both sides agree to end extremism and partisanship when one side literally wishes the other side literally didn't exist. One side thinks gay men are groomers and trans women want to sneak into women's bathrooms and rape cis women. How do you meet in the middle with that?
Most people are going to be okay with that, and the seemingly non-existent world building he created in order to have his action set pieces in the United States. He argues that the film is a statement against generic fascism, but what is the dark fascist reality under the left? Forced vaccinations and free health care? Forcing pregnant women to have abortions? Forcing people not to deadname or misgender trans people? The argument is that the fascist left are "National Socialists" but I think we all find that as stupid as the right saying that Republicans respect Black lives more than Democrats because they're the party of Lincoln.
I guess it depends if you agree with the premise that the right has reasonable positions that can be incorporated into mainstream thought. But where we are now is a far cry from debating the merits of Reaganomics.
From my understanding of the film itself, the
Western Front's ideologies are never defined. It's possible that he created a "Blue Texas" that aligned with California to stop this evil president, but it's basically left to you to fill that in. So it's equally possible that California in this future is "Red".
Again, I hate the Daily Wire, but I at least respect that they don't think trans women have a right to exist and decided to make a shitty "comedy" to make that point. There's no ambiguity about where Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh and Boring stand, and the film rolls in the shit of that ideology giving the person who hates trans women exactly what they want. It even has fucking Ted Cruz in it because I guess they thought it'd be funny to have him talk about wokeness.
It's not that I disagree with the thesis that "fascism" is bad. And if he just made a full science fiction film devoid of the specific American context, it'd be fine. But it feels like having your cake and eating it too, being able to rely on American imagery - US soldiers, probably tattered US flags, and US monuments getting blown up - but without offending anyone in the US.
And obviously he's not wrong since critics are fine with it and I assume most audiences will caught up in Dunst's performance and the action set pieces.
I guess some of the discomfort is it being a fictional alternative reality but not enough to separate from it enough for Americans to say 'this isn't really us'. I wonder if people would find it easier to grasp if it had a clear sci-fi concept like Children of Men, which served to critique a lot of things that were to come in the UK before the Tories were in power, without directly bashing the Tories. My highest hopes would be for Civil War to be like Children of Men, a road movie through a possible dystopia with great set pieces, but that movie also failed commercially while being prophetic about things in the UK. I don't think it would have been a better movie if it was more directly referencing the Labour government in power at the time or the Iraq war without that remove the sci fi setting gave it.
Hrm... I think so. At least for me Children of Men was "foreign" enough that it didn't really feel like it needed to explain the type of government response that would happen if society collapsed due to the lack of children. Admittedly, maybe that's also because I didn't think much about UK politics at the time, so that probably "helped".
Of course the debates are much different now than in 2006. In the UK, on one side you have JK Rowling denying that trans people were killed in the holocaust. I'm still wondering how you are supposed to negotiate with that position.
