 |
| Civil War |
Releasing a film about a modern-day American civil war in 2024 is undoubtedly a daring move. However, the newly released ‘Civil War’ may feel less courageous in its examination of the political divides shaping the U.S. today. Depending on your expectations, it could come off as provocative yet hollow, or as a tame effort that merely reiterates the obvious—war is, of course, bad.
While these reactions have some validity, I appreciated the film's decision to avoid diving into today's political debates, opting instead to tell a more fundamental story. It arrives at a significant time, and I believe its message will resonate even more as we navigate an unpredictable and turbulent future.
Conflict Frontiers:
Had ‘Civil War’ heavily incorporated real-world events, the ‘urban-rural divide’ would likely have been central to its narrative. This divide is frequently highlighted in headlines about rural regions pushing for secession from nearby cities, rejecting state lines in favor of aligning with ideologically similar communities. Notable examples include federal confrontations with anti-government factions in isolated Western areas, such as the Bundy standoffs and the Montana Freemen.
The film doesn’t take that path, which is a good thing since, as noted by Daily Yonder, anti-government sentiments aren’t exclusive to rural communities. The idea of the situations mentioned above spiraling into a civil war would be even more implausible than the film’s actual premise: Texas and California uniting to oust a president clinging to power. While the absurdity of this Texas-California alliance has been widely discussed, that’s kind of the point.
'Civil War' isn’t focused on outlining the political agendas of either side or explaining how they came into conflict. Instead, the backdrop is revealed subtly through the characters' dialogue, unfolding gradually as the story progresses. The film’s main aim is to immerse viewers in its setting and prompt them to reflect on its implications. The 'Western Forces of Texas and California,' like a distorted fun house reflection, is just one of many elements meant to challenge our perceptions. This world is unfamiliar, but not entirely alien. In short, your understanding of today’s political landscape won’t be much help here.
While the story begins in New York City and concludes in Washington, D.C., the heart of the film unfolds in the spaces between, as a group of journalists journeys to the conflict's front lines in search of images and stories. This trek is anything but a smooth ride along the Adela corridor. Instead, it's a perilous road trip through abandoned, desolate, and contested areas. Along the way, the team witnesses horrifying clashes and encounters zones of near lawlessness.
Amidst the brutality, the film offers brief moments of peace and normalcy, found while camping near derelict industrial sites, visiting aid stations, or passing through remote small towns. Through incidental dialogue, the audience learns that many families have retreated to farms in places like Missouri and Colorado, waiting for the chaos to subside. Canada even comes up in one conversation, hinting at escape.
These quieter moments highlight how "Civil War" is fundamentally a character-driven story. The narrative is shaped through the personal experiences, emotional journeys, and evolving relationships of the core cast. The choice to focus on journalists is perhaps the film’s most overtly political decision, offering a chance to explore their unique role and responsibilities amid the ongoing conflict and the events that led to it.
As previously mentioned, the filmmakers behind "Civil War" seemed focused on creating a film that could, in theory, appeal to people across the political spectrum—or at the very least, avoid alienating half the audience right off the bat. This strategy appears to have been successful, with the movie topping the box office for two consecutive weeks, performing equally well in both red and blue states, and attracting a balanced mix of liberals and conservatives, according to audience surveys.
It leaves one to wonder what these different viewers are taking away from the film.
It’s no secret that journalism is a contentious topic, especially in a political climate filled with phrases like “fake news,” “enemy of the people,” and other threats that extend beyond mere rhetoric. The journalists in "Civil War" grapple with the impact of their work as the situation around them deteriorates, raising the natural question of what influence "Civil War" might have in our world. Will it help ease political divisions and civic dysfunction, or at least foster greater understanding and appreciation for journalists' efforts?
Critics who accuse the film of cowardice or “biosynthesis” would likely argue that it fails to make a significant impact, suggesting it would have been more effective had it taken a stronger stance or showcased more pronounced political and moral beliefs. Whether intentional or not, this reflects ongoing discussions about the journalism profession today.
On the surface, "Civil War" seems to align with traditionalists who advocate for classic journalistic objectivity, as opposed to those who argue that the current climate calls for a more urgent, activist approach. However, this may oversimplify the narrative, especially given the characters’ internal struggles about their roles. Two of the protagonists face pivotal moments that force them to choose between observing or intervening.
Ultimately, "Civil War" chooses to remain within these tensions, embracing their complexity rather than resolving them.
This film is undoubtedly provocative, especially considering writer-director Alex Garland’s previous explorations of significant themes like artificial intelligence, meta-verses, and gender issues. In an age where much of the media is designed to elicit immediate reactions of anger, agreement, or disgust, a movie that encourages a more contemplative and reflective response is certainly deserving of America’s attention.
"Civil War" is currently showing in theaters.
