Civil War

When I first saw the preview for Alex Garland's Civil War, I was like "haha, no thank you." The idea of sitting through a film about an alternative history of the United States where we end up in a contemporary civil war just seems a little...close to home? 

But as the reviews started coming in, promising that this isn't the movie you think it is, I got curious and went ahead and bought a ticket. I'm glad I did because Civil War is a powerful, gut-wrenching film that gives the viewer (well, this viewer anyway) a serious adrenaline rush that slicker action films juts cannot achieve. Watching this movie literally feels like being in the middle of a war zone. If you're triggered by the sound of gun fire and images of people callously being shot and killed point blank, don't see Civil War. 

The movie takes place in "modern times", but in a version of the United States where Texas and California have banded together to secede from the nation, leading to a civil war. Nick Offerman plays the President of the United States who is currently serving his third term--it isn't outright stated, but heavily suggested that he didn't win a fair election that third time. 

Civil War makes a point to not provide any information about what led to the current state of affairs. There is a brief reference to "the Antifa massacre", which would have happened about 20 years prior to the events of the film. And there is also a Florida alliance of some states in addition to the "Western Forces" of California-Texas. The point of this movie isn't the why of the war, but more of a commentary on the fact that humans will find a reason to kill each other no matter what. I'll return to this point in a moment.

The movie follows a rag-tag group of war photographers. Lee Smith (Kirsten Dunst) is a celebrated war photojournalist who works with Joel (Wagner Moura), a Reuters journalist. These two are old enough to have the experience and instincts to survive in the middle of a war zone while still being young enough to move quickly when they have to and survive on little sleep and a lot of stress. They plan to drive from New York to DC in the hopes of getting an interview with the President (a highly unlikely prospect). They'll have to take a roundabout way through West Virginia since many of the highways are inaccessible. 

Along for the ride is Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson), a veteran photojournalist and Lee's mentor, who wants to get close to the action while logically knowing his body is too old for this shit. Additionally, the very young, very inexperienced Jessie (Callie Spaeny), who all but worships Lee and has big dreams of becoming just like her, manages to talk her way into joining the group. Lee is skeptical, but reluctantly agrees to allow her to tag along as far as Charlottesville. 

Danger lurks everywhere on this road trip from hell. There is no rule of law anymore. The group stops to get gas (a scare resource--they pay "300 dollars, Canadian" for it) and the gun-toting gas station owners show Jessie and Lee two looters they have captured and strung up. They've tortured and beaten the men within an inch of their lives but haven't killed them yet. Jessie is horrified into silence. Lee requests to take the men's picture alongside their captor, who agrees. 

This scene gets to the heart of one of the major themes of the film: is it ethical to witness atrocities without intervening? That is the job of the war journalist, is it not? War photographers have to get really close to horrific things all while not taking steps to interfere. That seems deeply unethical, but if they tried to intervene, they would almost certainly be killed (and of course, many war photographers are killed in the course of their work). And if no one photographs war, then people don't see it. In order for care about war, they need to see what is happening--as up close as possible. But in order for people to get up close, they have to have a level of detachment for their own safety and sanity. 

Civil War is about the paper thin line of so-called "right" and so-called "wrong" in a world where those lines have been irrevocably blurred. The movie takes place in a society where people kill because others are killing them. They kill because there is no rule of law. They kill because they have a gun. Back to the point I made earlier about not needing a reason to be at war: there's a scene where the gang comes across a stand-off between two men who are trying to take out someone shooting at them from a distant house. They ask for context: what led to this stand-off? The men say "There's a guy who's shooting at us in that house. We're trying to shoot him. We're stuck." The absurdity of this ouroboros (we're shooting at him because he's shooting at us because we're shooting at him...) is both funny and sad. We're at war because we're at war. 

Garland has said that Civil War is an "apolitical" film, which is both sort of true and sort of not true. The movie isn't about MAGA vs. woke or conservative vs. liberal, but it still shows the human toll that war and violence take. We see that toll in the tired eyes of Lee and Joel--two people who have been at the center of so much pain and suffering and death that they've lost a part of their souls. Which doesn't mean they're bad people, just that they've needed to turn off their empathy to do their jobs...and to survive. War can kill you quickly, but it can kill you slowly too. 

Civil War is an "anti-war" movie, but I feel like it wears that mantle loosely. You can kind of read whatever you want to into the film. War enthusiasts could see it as a movie that argues for the necessity of war in order to gain freedom. Pacifists could see it as a commentary on the total senselessness of war. People can read Lee and Joel as complicit in the atrocities they photograph...or the only people willing to show others the harsh realities of war. What you take away from the film is very much up to you. 

Grade: A-