Is "Civil War" a Cinematic Masterpiece or an Example of Predictive Programming?
(Chaz Anon) "Civil War" is the latest cinematic endeavor from A24 Studios, the indie powerhouse famed for making audiences squirm with existential dread rather than cheap jump scares. Here, Director Alex Garland, thrusts the audience into America’s darkest nightmare: a nation torn apart, not by zombies, clones, or aliens, but by its own flesh and blood.
Set against the backdrop of a United States torn by internal conflict, the film ventures deep into the fragmented heart of America. Yet, fundamentally, "Civil War" unfolds as a road trip movie. Rather than encountering quirky diners and scenic landscapes, the journey is marked by the desolate remnants of cities and the ever-present threat of death.
The prime narrative centers on a group of war journalists embarking on a dangerous journey across a United States torn apart by internal strife, where the federal government is in conflict with the so-called Western Forces, comprising states like Texas and California, which have rallied under a flag featuring two stars.
The specifics of this division are deliberately vague—a tactic that keeps the audience searching for the distinct ideological boundaries in relation to today's political landscape. Garland presents a vision of a post-ideological America, one where traditional debates are drowned out by the noise of conflict, creating a setting where both extremes, MAGA and Antifa supporters, can view themselves as the righteous forces of a fragmented nation.
The portrayal of the press in "Civil War" is another area where Garland's film oscillates between critique and celebration. In a time when the credibility of mainstream media is a hotly contested topic, "Civil War" paints its journalist protagonists as noble truth-seekers amidst the chaos. This depiction feels somewhat at odds with the growing skepticism towards a media landscape perceived by many as deeply partisan and corrupt. Yet, perhaps this is Garland's point: to remind us of the idealistic core at the heart of journalism, even as that ideal becomes increasingly tarnished.
The story develops as Lee, Joel, Jessie, and the seasoned journalist Sammy as they embark on an odyssey to Washington in a van, with the lofty goal of interviewing the president. Sammy, the anchor of the group, offers a steady hand, while Jessie, the novice, injects a palpable eagerness into the mix, crafting a dynamic juxtaposition that enriches the story. Their exchanges, peppered with authentic banter and punctuated by moments of raw vulnerability, elevate them from mere characters to reflections of our own realities. This nuanced interplay not only humanizes them but also ratchets up the narrative tension, making their progression all the more compelling.
But the heart of the film beats through its characters, brought to life with gritty acting performances that anchor the narrative's lofty ambitions.
Kristen Dunst's portrayal of Lee, a war-hardened photographer, provides a grounding perspective on the toll of war journalism, her performance is a stark rebuttal to the often glamorized depiction of conflict correspondents.
Cailee Spaeny plays Jessie, a young, aspiring photographer who emerges as the protégé of Lee, who is a seasoned and influential figure in the world of photography. Jessie is talented, which quickly garners Lee's attention, seeing herself in the ambitious young women.
Nick Offerman’s performance as the President displays nuanced execution, despite the limited screen time his role entails. The character is presented in a politically ambiguous manner.
Stephen McKinley Henderson delivers a compelling performance as Sammy, a wise, old journalist, evoking the depth and gravitas reminiscent of Morgan Freeman.
Wagner Moura, who has Pedro Pascal vibes, delivers an excellent portrayal of the charming journalist Joel, showcasing his exceptional acting skills.
Yet, it is Jesse Plemons, in a brief but unforgettable appearance, who encapsulates the film's thematic core—his portrayal of a militia type chillingly underscores the potential for everyday extremism when societal divisions are left to fester. This scene, like many others in "Civil War," leaves a lingering question: What kind of American are you? Garland seems less interested in providing answers than in prompting reflection.
The film's aesthetic choices—its gritty cinematography, bone-shaking sound design, and an evocative soundtrack blending Stargell Simpson’s "Breakers Roar" with Suicide's "Rocket USA" to create an auditory experience that complements the film's haunting visuals and thematic ambitions, which might be the films highlight, creating a sensory experience that immerses the viewer in the stark realities of its world.
Is “Civil War” a type of 5th generational warfare propaganda aimed at planting a seed of the terrifying possibility of a future in American?
It certainly smells a lot like predictive programming, a sneaky way to get us all cozy with the idea of our own demise, which could easily play out in reality, courtesy of an economic collapse and a dollar as valuable as Monopoly money. And nowhere is this eerie prophecy more brilliantly displayed than in the seemingly mundane scene at the gas station, where characters negotiate for gasoline amid a backdrop where the US dollar has significantly devalued. The negotiation, strained due to the scarcity of resources and the diminished value of the US currency, culminates in an agreement where Canadian money is accepted as payment. This moment highlights the dire economic conditions and the shift in value between currencies, reflecting broader themes of desperation and adaptation in a society on the brink.
Ultimately, this is a film about power, the brutality of force, and the human cost of ideological warfare. It refuses to spoon-feed answers or take a definitive stance, instead offering a canvas upon which viewers can project their own fears and hopes. In an era where cinema often feels compelled to take a side, Garland's latest work stands out for its steadfast commitment to ambiguity.
Whether "Civil War" will be remembered as a profound commentary on America's divisions or a missed opportunity to explore them in depth remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: it's a film that demands to be discussed, debated, and deciphered—a mirror held up to a nation at war with itself, asking what kind of American you are.
