- Civil War
- Directed by: Alex Garland
- Starring: Kirsten Dunst, Wagner Moura, Cailee Spaeny, Stephen McKinley Henderson
- Action/Thriller | R | 1 hr 49 min
By Reed Ripley
As unbelievable as it may seem, Civil War is not an especially provocative film—at least not politically, as its title and domestic, contemporary setting may suggest. Yes, it’s a film set in the not-too-distant dystopian future about an America that’s devolved into active military conflict amongst its sovereign states, but it’s not much interested in the X’s and O’s of how the country got there. The ultimate answers as to what divide violently split the country apart simply aren’t there, and that leads to deeper questions about how something like an American civil war could happen, and who’s paying attention enough to ask.
The film’s apolitical (or maybe more accurately, actively non-partisan) framework is facilitated using journalists, and specifically, hardened war correspondents, as its point of view. Essentially, it’s a road movie—jaded photographer Lee (Kirsten Dunst), thrill-seeking writer Joel (Wagner Moura), weathered reporter Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson), and aspirational rookie photographer Jessie (Cailee Spaeny) make their way from New York to Washington, D.C. through worn-torn Americana to beat the “so-called Western forces of California and Texas” to the President (Nick Offerman) for one final interview.
This isn’t a straight hero’s journey of journalists capturing history in the face of significant risk of personal injury and death, though. Sure, a certain admiration for journalism is there, with a strong focus on the sheer determination and skill it takes to document the most important American news story in 300 years, echoing things we see in journalists on the front lines in Gaza, Syria, you name it in the real world.
But the film also doesn’t shy away from another basic truth—journalists tend to have an ego. On a certain level, that’s necessary. After all, journalists are putting their words and images out there every day assuming there’s an audience that wants to consume that content (me included). However, unchecked, that can lead to extremely dangerous rhetoric that leaves journalistic integrity behind. Lee, Joel, Sammy, and Jessie never come close to crossing that line, but it’s easy to see how their most reckless and selfish impulses could betray them.
That’s something director Alex Garland is clearly interested in—the idea that following an objectively good and worthwhile path can sour whenever the reasons for originally going down that path fade away. The same is true for democracy. Open debate and shared opinion is foundational to any functioning democracy, but actually engaging with that debate and hearing those opinions are crucial.
The themes and questions are all fine and worthy, but what separates Civil War from an interesting-but-forgettable doctoral thesis or a poignant-but-staid 60 Minutes segment is the technical filmmaking, nearly all of which is Garland’s best work to date. The film looks and sounds incredible, but it’s more than that thanks to Garland’s extreme skill at developing tension. There are very few moments in Civil War to catch one’s breath, and it’s usually the lack of artillery, not the presence of it, that drives the tension.
Many probably saw the trailer for this film or heard its premise and immediately recoiled at the idea of a literal Red versus Blue war. But that’s simply not what the film is – rather, it’s a sharp reminder of how quickly things can break down when people stop talking to each other or, maybe more significantly, when the loudest voices in the room aren’t interested in listening.
Check here for showtimes.
Discover more from Martin City Telegraph
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.