mbpm

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,857
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 think that this is all the movie kind of is yeah.

The particulars of the war don't matter in the film so you get thrown in with no info.

The morals of the characters in question don't matter because all that's required to do is to get the shot. So you embed with whoever you can.

The shots don't matter. We have no idea how they're received by their editors or their audience or what even makes it to press.

So if the shots don't matter, the fact that the crew are photojournalists also doesn't really matter. The ability to find shots, their experience in this little known industry, that really means nothing because they serve no purpose in this ecosystem.

Okay, so what does matter? Not these thinly sketched characters. These folks could go down in a hail of gunfire and I wouldn't be that pressed. Not the president. Not the people in the other factions. In fact as the movie went on I became more anti-every character on screen tbh and kind of hoped they would all get it at some point, so if the point was anti-war I'm not sure that was achieved. What we get on screen isn't people animated by motivations and dreams but just automatons for the war machine. It's like everyone here is a propaganda caricature.

So that leaves me with the movie's main thrust being again the idea that war journalists don't really matter. You can take all the photos you want but it won't change anything. But does the main point of journalism not having meaning here have meaning to me? Not really, because I don't fully agree with it. If I did agree with it though this movie is way too small scale and zoomed in for me to really get anything out of that though.

So, what's left for me is just a mildly entertaining post-apocalyptic ramble through America. It's something I'll just kind of forget about in a week. It's better than Men though.
 

H.Cornerstone

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,934
Question, did anyone else find it odd when they randomly started playing hip hop music over war crimes 20-30 minutes into the movie?
 

Loud Wrong

Banned
Feb 24, 2020
15,704
Question, did anyone else find it odd when they randomly started playing hip hop music over war crimes 20-30 minutes into the movie?
Nope. De La Soul stood for peace and harmony, so the juxtaposition of the song and the actions it played over was once again making a statement without making a statement. Brilliant choice imo.
 

mbpm

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,857
Yeah thinking it over I think for me this will just be a more entertaining Men in how it just kind of repeats itself over and over without exploration of its idea, but with guns and a bit of photography. Not very good overall but also not really because it was "apolitical"; there's something else missing here
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,993
As a Canadian the "300 Canadian" bit got the heartiest laughs I think I have heard in a theatre in a long time.

But as for the film as a whole, I dunno. I knew going into it it wasn't actually going to be about the divide in America from reviews even though it is clearly using that provocative imagery without really saying much about it. Even the Hunt which was a movie capitalizing on the divide in America actually characterized characters as left wing and right wing.

So I went into the movie knowing "ok, it's not about politics at all"... so what is it about?

I dunno. All I got from it is War Journalism is pointless as it does nothing to actually stop the atrocities happening and instead just sensationalizes them? Just very jarring imagery like Kirstin Dunst taking a photo in slow motion of a man about to be killed in a tire fire. The characters are basically fetishizing violence through their pictures as they keep trying to find the best shots of violence happening the moment it happens.

But there is no strong connective througline for this to even be what the film is saying. It's a lot of vignettes between a road trip to Washington. The film refuses to say anything of value regarding the state of the nation that I can't tell if Garland is critiquing media of war coverage to say it is meaningless and all that is captured is violence, or he didn't want to ruffle feathers despite making a movie called "Civil War"

The Meth Damon scene is the clear highlight, but I am still scratching my head trying to understand what the throughline of the film actually is.

Ultimately it just felt like a very vapid and nihilistic film and one I will probably forget about in a few weeks.
 

wenis

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,199
Good movie. I think it enters the pantheon of great films about the ramifications of journalism and its place in the scope of the people vs the story right alongside The Killing Field, Spotlight, Nightcralwer and Ace in the Hole. A shame this is Garlands last directorial effort but it's a great one to go out on. He's spurred more conversation (some legit awful conversation sometimes) than a lot of films can muster. Also this is a road movie through and through. Reminded me a ton of The Road and the intense bleakness found throughout. Also Children of Men. There's a leanness to not revealing all of what the world is going through in the same way both of those movies operate. You as the viewer don't need to know. It isn't important. This is how the people who are living through it are dealing with it and then continue to shrink that scope to the point that it's just these boots on the ground journalists. They don't know the whole story either. They just know the geopolitical underpinnings and talk of factions.
 

MTR

Member
Oct 27, 2017
504
Fantastic film I thought. Tense and probably one of the best sound designs in any movie period.
 

Messofanego

Member
Oct 25, 2017
26,945
UK
Question, did anyone else find it odd when they randomly started playing hip hop music over war crimes 20-30 minutes into the movie?
All the slow-mo montages and juxtaposing needle drops right after extreme violence is to help the audience become desensitised, much like these journalists are becoming or have become. Quite clever, I found.
 

mbpm

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,857
I dunno. All I got from it is War Journalism is pointless as it does nothing to actually stop the atrocities happening and instead just sensationalizes them? Just very jarring imagery like Kirstin Dunst taking a photo in slow motion of a man about to be killed in a tire fire. The characters are basically fetishizing violence through their pictures as they keep trying to find the best shots of violence happening the moment it happens.
Yeah it was funny to consider what I'd heard from interviews about the film being there to put a spotlight on the important work of journalists...bc by the end of the film I hated all the journalists lol
 

Sec0nd

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
6,228
I think that this is all the movie kind of is yeah.

The particulars of the war don't matter in the film so you get thrown in with no info.

The morals of the characters in question don't matter because all that's required to do is to get the shot. So you embed with whoever you can.

The shots don't matter. We have no idea how they're received by their editors or their audience or what even makes it to press.

So if the shots don't matter, the fact that the crew are photojournalists also doesn't really matter. The ability to find shots, their experience in this little known industry, that really means nothing because they serve no purpose in this ecosystem.

Okay, so what does matter? Not these thinly sketched characters. These folks could go down in a hail of gunfire and I wouldn't be that pressed. Not the president. Not the people in the other factions. In fact as the movie went on I became more anti-every character on screen tbh and kind of hoped they would all get it at some point, so if the point was anti-war I'm not sure that was achieved. What we get on screen isn't people animated by motivations and dreams but just automatons for the war machine. It's like everyone here is a propaganda caricature.

So that leaves me with the movie's main thrust being again the idea that war journalists don't really matter. You can take all the photos you want but it won't change anything. But does the main point of journalism not having meaning here have meaning to me? Not really, because I don't fully agree with it. If I did agree with it though this movie is way too small scale and zoomed in for me to really get anything out of that though.

So, what's left for me is just a mildly entertaining post-apocalyptic ramble through America. It's something I'll just kind of forget about in a week. It's better than Men though.
The movie is very much about how people get desensitized by witnessing all the continuous violence and political atrocities. And it cleverly uses the American backdrop to show us something 'novel' to trigger that part of our brain that has been so desensitized. If they told the exact same story but in Africa people wouldn't have batted an eye about the supposed politics of the story. Warring sections killing each other would've been 'just something that happens' because we've seen it so many times in half hearted media coverage or poorly told stories and movies. And because of that we wouldn't have cared one bit about the why. Yet now we suddenly do, which is a pretty interesting observation to be honest.

We all enter the film as Lee, completely desensitized to everything that happens around her by her experience of the world. But with the help of the events of the story and also through the eyes Jessie we slowly get pulled back from that and people really start to wonder about the implications and the reasons of all the meaningless violence.

Combine that with the way it shows how fucked up the American political landscape is with seemingly endless chaos and mindless tribalism, which just gets completely confirmed by the discourse around it by people who were seemingly frothing at the mouth to see a movie where they would trash the side they themselves don't agree with in real life and are now furiously upset that wasn't the case. Whether or not this is all completely intentional, I think the movie is pretty fucking smart.
 

mbpm

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,857
We all enter the film as Lee, completely desensitized to everything that happens around her by her experience of the world. But with the help of the events of the story and also through the eyes Jessie we slowly get pulled back from that and people really start to wonder about the implications and the reasons of all the meaningless violence.
See that's where the movie missed for me I suppose. I got more desensitized as the movie went on, the same way Jesse did. I had increasing negative feeling about all parties involved as the movie continued.

By the end of it I had purely transitioned into the voyeurism of the reporters. Give me those good bangs and call it a night, cos I hated all these folks.
 
May 24, 2019
22,652
The message yall are getting about war photography is wild.
People are risking their lives to document atrocities right now. Guess it's just fetishism.
 

mbpm

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,857
The message yall are getting about war photography is wild.
People are risking their lives to document atrocities right now. Guess it's just fetishism.
Sure.

That's outside of this film. What we see in the film isn't that same bravery or that compassion. And as indicated by the film with similar topics like the origins/beliefs of the Western Forces/Florida etc, what we don't see isn't important.

When I look at the characters in this film, I don't think I'm even seeing humans half the time. They might as well be camera drones, and that's undercuts something about whatever message they're trying to send here. They're only in the room for death.
 

HiredN00bs

Member
Oct 25, 2017
831
Laurel, MD
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?"
I guess that's good enough for me. That's an idea worth showing, not telling, to a culture oblivious to it, and one where some segment of the population is oblivious to their own fascist tendencies.
 

ZeoVGM

Member
Oct 25, 2017
77,528
Providence, RI
Okay I'll go see it.

Originally thought this was right wing glory porn but it seems like it's not

It's actually worse than that because at least with right-wing glory porn, it's incredibly obvious and is almost always so bad that it turns into an unintentional comedy.

A political film that chooses to be vague and centrist is far worse than an overtly right-wing film.
 

mbpm

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,857
Tbh I don't think this movie is that incompatible with a right wing glory pov. That's the joy of making a film this open. Criticism falls everywhere
 

OSHAN

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,959
It's worth theater admission for its cinematography and sound design alone. This will join Annihilation and Men as two of the best looking and sounding 4K discs for sure.
 

reksveks

Member
May 17, 2022
4,046
Just came out of it, trying to figure out my thoughts.

Definitely a movie about journalism more than politics.
 

Loud Wrong

Banned
Feb 24, 2020
15,704
Director Alex Garland's provocative dystopian thriller "Civil War" lit up the box office with $25.7 million in its debut. It's the first A24 movie to lead the charts in North America, setting an opening weekend record for the New York-based specialty studio. It also marks the biggest R-rated start of the year.

Heading into the weekend, "Civil War" was projected to kick off with $15 million to $20 million. Those ticket sales would have been enough to overtake 2018's "Hereditary" (which opened in fourth place to $13.6 million) as A24's biggest debut.

Deserved.
 

Speevy

Member
Oct 26, 2017
19,819
I think that criticizing the effect of having no specific left wing/right wing politics is fair if that is how you feel while watching it.

I do not think it's fair to say the filmmaker had to do X and Y because then you're injecting your expectations. Any more than I would watch Children of Men and wonder which political party is locking people in cages. (another near future thriller in which a group of people get in a car and travel around to accomplish some task while being shot at, meanwhile the world is falling to shit)
 
Nov 30, 2021
694
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.

Except this movie isn't a character study of how a normal politician becomes a fascist, nor a political study of how a democracy descends into fascism and civil war.

Complaining that a movie isn't about what you wish it were about is such a weird modern thing.
 

Loud Wrong

Banned
Feb 24, 2020
15,704
Except this movie isn't a character study of how a normal politician becomes a fascist, nor a political study of how a democracy descends into fascism and civil war.

Complaining that a movie isn't about what you wish it were about is such a weird modern thing.
Eh, I think some people have always wanted to be spoonfed. "Preaching to the choir" is a really old phrase.
 

Speculator

Member
Oct 30, 2017
98
Austin
Question, did anyone else find it odd when they randomly started playing hip hop music over war crimes 20-30 minutes into the movie?
Yeah I agree with others it's an internal juxtaposition to the shots. Difference I felt was that the contrast between the intense scenes and the hip hop music seemed like a commentary on the usual celebratory tone in action movies after a battle. Rather than feeling triumphant, it left me feeling conflicted and uncomfortable, which I think was the point.

The film is not presented as being overtly political but subtle details in almost throwaway lines and background elements do paint one side as the clearer antagonist
The Loyalist States - President is on his Third Term, Bombs civilians, disbanded the FBI, and shoots journalists on sight. The end seemed like a general win against Authoritarian Fascism

Overall I felt it was an effective anti-war war film. Half the audience in my theater appeared like they were there to watch a popcorn action flick and were somewhat obnoxious/rowdy vocal in the beginning, but it quickly turned into silence + shocked gasps as the movie progressed. Theater was pretty quiet and speechless at the end.
 
Mar 3, 2018
4,539
My friend just saw it and was telling me how he noticed people wincing and being uncomfortable in certain scenes. Intresting because I noticed the same thing.

During that slow-mo shot of a person being burned alive, the person sitting next to me covered their face with their hands and I whispered to them after to make sure they OK. Honestly had not seen people have that kinda reaction in a theatre before.
 

PanzerKraken

Member
Nov 1, 2017
15,197
Politics influenced the film, that is clear, but the film basically avoids any political context throughout. It's not about any politics nor has anything to do with our real world politics in it's own fictional world.
 

Loud Wrong

Banned
Feb 24, 2020
15,704
Yeah I agree with others it's an internal juxtaposition to the shots. Difference I felt was that the contrast between the intense scenes and the hip hop music seemed like a commentary on the usual celebratory tone in action movies after a battle. Rather than feeling triumphant, it left me feeling conflicted and uncomfortable, which I think was the point.

The film is not presented as being overtly political but subtle details in almost throwaway lines and background elements do paint one side as the clearer antagonist
The Loyalist States - President is on his Third Term, Bombs civilians, disbanded the FBI, and shoots journalists on sight. The end seemed like a general win against Authoritarian Fascism

Overall I felt it was an effective anti-war war film. Half the audience in my theater appeared like they were there to watch a popcorn action flick and were somewhat obnoxious/rowdy vocal in the beginning, but it quickly turned into silence + shocked gasps as the movie progressed. Theater was pretty quiet and speechless at the end.
As an anti-war film, which it is, it is incredibly effective.
 

Kusagari

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,139
So many people seem to not agree with that from the many comments in this thread alone. We get it, you have it out for this film

I have it out for pathetic centrist dipshits like Alex Garland who think "both sides are the same" and we "need to stop being so polarized"

Your view of what the movie is saying is irrelevant, because Garland has made it quite clear in his numerous interviews it's a pathetic centrist riding the fence movie too cowardly to say anything or relevance.

You want to know why "the fascist" president in Civil War would come to power? People like Alex Garland.
 

krazen

Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,661
Gentrified Brooklyn
And that's why the film is pointless and a failure

Then all hollywood war films are failures.

Every war movie starts:, pan to white guys are in this conflict and feel its useless (but murder a good amount of people) and throw in a random scene of them being forced to kill an enemy combatant who's portrayed as vicious but when they catch up shes (child/female/both). They might say something vaguely political like Nixon sucks, and how they want to get home and be middle class white guys effectively getting the fruits of this imperialistic labor which is by nature political(but never gets investigated by movie because its about white army guy feels).

They face the horrors of war that only get realized when they slowly get picked off (one white guy for like 40 savagely portrayed natives outside of that one humanizing scene of the kid)😀

War films are my favorite genre and while the advertising here did it no favors, I do find some of the arguments puzzling.
 

Speevy

Member
Oct 26, 2017
19,819
Movies can be whatever you want them to be, from any point of view, at any time period. If this one makes you beg that it have this or that, or that you want its world but *insert politics*, I'd say that's a job well done. You're not asking that of another film. Alex Garland would probably love this conversation more than Fox News calling out some on-the-nose caricature of Trump marching soldiers down the street and executing people.
 

Kusagari

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,139
Says the person who hasn't seen it…about the film that is sitting at 83 percent on RT and just beat box office estimates by about 5 million dollars. Total failure indeed.

Yes, and half the positive reviews are from liberals reading "TRUMP" into the movie when Alex Garland seems disgusted at the thought.
 

Speevy

Member
Oct 26, 2017
19,819
Yes, and half the positive reviews are from liberals reading "TRUMP" into the movie when Alex Garland seems disgusted at the thought.

Why does Trump, or a Trump-like figure need to be in the movie? Did he go away? He's been the president. He's on every channel. You want a warning for a Trump presidency? Look at the polls. A message about complacency or both-sides-ing? Look at us complaining about Biden.