How Civil War Shifts the Goalposts

[@The3gg]

Focusing on the politics in the trailer was a huge mistake for a movie that does not touch it

[@jatzi1526]

@@loadishstone I mean the trailers I saw seemed to highlight California and Texas forming an alliance for some reason and succeeding? Turned me off and a lot of other military people I know off too. It just doesn't make sense. But pew pew, explosion! Lincoln Memorial getting destroyed! Thats like all you need for many people cuz people are mindless. So ofc it made a ton of money. EDIT: Eh it actually hasn't made that much money. Its been out 10 days, two whole weekends now, and its only made like 45 million bucks. While thats more money than I've ever seen that doesn't seem to be great for a movie. It was apparently made on a pretty light budget of $50 million according to Wikipedia but I'm not sure that factors in marketing. Maybe it'll make a profit in the long run but thats a bit of a rough opening ngl. It has positive reviews on Wikipedia though? Given that it looks like absolute shit I'm surprised but then again movie critics are not in touch with reality so I guess I shouldn't be

[@yucol5661]

Not if it gets people to watch the movie. Does it matter if they find the movie boring if they bought a ticket anyways?

[@goodtaste2185]

I though Ex Machina was boring as hell but really enjoyed Annihilation and its themes. Good video btw!

[@michaelpeters364]

@@yucol5661 It does, after opening night, word of mouth gets around... a bait and switch is a bad marketing ploy, unless what you switch to is better than what was expected and no one is saying that of Civil War. Almost everyone lauds Kirsten Dunst and other actors and... says it was a shame they were wasted in a movie that didn't really say much.

[@Ivyrigs]

The real mistake is making a movie about a major political situation currently impacting the lives of millions that doesn't actually want to say anything about that situation It's kinda like all those movies/shows using serious topics like racism as an aesthetic to feel like they're making a statement while really they're just exploiting it to make some money

[@laurenbastin8849]

it’s interesting to juxtapose civil war’s portrayal of war photography as a passive act of observation with John Berger’s brief essay on the subject in About Looking, where he notes how much of war photography curates and fetishises scenes of distress in such a way that it can only generate apathy in its audience

[@firstlast2636]

Das psychology pseudoscience

[@roastbeefy0weefy]

This doesn't seem to be at odds with Civil War's portrayal of war photography

[@jessewonderclark]

I think this is what the movie’s actually about. I think the movie agrees entirely. Just look at the last shot. Do you think we’re supposed to look at a journalist smiling and arm in arm with assassins and think “this is right?” No. We’re supposed to think “this is wrong”, and think about how pseudo-impartiality is destroying the USA.

[@simonriley4131]

​@@jessewonderclarkAbsolutely, it's amazing how this seems to be completely lost on people analyzing the movie. A lot of people I admire have went on these verbose rants denouncing the movie but I think it's rather simple and effective

[@roastbeefy0weefy]

So, I loved it, but I can see why people are chafing about it since it was marketed as a big topical blockbuster. In reality, it's just Nightcrawler for conflict photography. I liked it because I love conflict photography. I don't think it has much to say, but it's beautifully shot, has delicious sound design, and critiques spectacle while showing us spectacle. I'm grateful that Alex Garland sticks to his visions.

[@Miskatonic1927]

I really liked Annihilation. It could have used another 15 or 20 minutes in length to add more character development for the other team members outside of Natalie Portman's character, so that we cared about what happened to them. But overall I thought the movie was very intriguing and it pulled me in.

[@digitalbear1217]

Annihilation is such a brilliant movie. Such finely distilled drops of human horror set in a sea of gorgeous, nearly indecipherable natural beauty. Just a perfect movie to me, the whole thing really sings.

[@danilynn9904]

I think the lack of character development is a carryover from the book. They didn't have names or backstories in the book. They were encouraged not to get close or even use names. They were only addressed by their job titles on the expedition (the biologist, the psychologist, the linguist, etc.).

[@Miskatonic1927]

@@danilynn9904 Yeah, you are probably right. I had read that the characters in the books all were just referred to by their job. I still have all 3 books sitting on my shelf. Still unread after several years.

[@danilynn9904]

@@Miskatonic1927 They’re quite good but very different. I actually preferred the movie. (Don’t tell anyone.)

[@IamE0N]

I liked it, anyway. Garland was trying to show us the spectacle of something we're used to thinking about happening in far away ignorable places happening here, where we live. Overt political elements that would inevitably turn into trying to pick out "the good guys" - which people are right to bring this thing to our streets - would detract from the intended focus. It's showing anyone longing for a civil war to be careful what they wish for. It's a lot like a horror movie.

[@marthelea]

I agree a lot with this statement

[@cheekylix]

A lot of defenders of this movie make the argument that it’s about civil war in general, and how horrendous it could get. After all, Garland said his idea was that it could happen anywhere (as opposed to making it about America specifically), even in a western democracy. So let’s give this the benefit of the doubt. If Garland makes a warning about the consequences of war, but without exploring the context or the causes, it seems awful lot like a warning about repercussions of crime, with no thought given to why crime, despite all the repressions, persists. Crime is, but why crime is or how crime is, escapes from the picture. Likewise, wars are, but why wars are or how, we not only don’t know just based on this movie, we weren't supposed to even guess. Now, we know what happens socially when crime movies merely depict crime, with all the details but none of the explorations (hints: the Dirty Harrys and the Death Wishes). Now, what will happen when wars were portrayed in a way that we’re not supposed to think about their causes, but all about their consequences? Firstly, I don't see "avoiding the political subject" as much of a virtue as apparently a lot of normie Americans do, a lot of whom are people I know and seem to be convinced that politics is not at all a fundamental subject in their lives and shouldn't be anyone's (so goes a lot of intentional distancing away from, distrust, and even hostility towards, people who do take politics very seriously). To a lot of these people who are more politically minded, they have their reason to suspect the merits of this film, none of which Garland's defenders really address (they're more like accusations, because in their eyes being "political" is something worth being put on trial for). Military theorist Clausewitz didn't say "War is nothing but politics by other means" for no reason or justification. Wars are hellish. Of course, but to say something about wars, maybe a warning against it, without much political contextualization, and thus divorcing warfare from politics entirely (and I mean politics in a very general sense, one that even encompasses private family matters, as opposed to just "lib" vs "con" or "gop" vs "dem"), it would be comparable to thinking that one could call off violent conflicts just by showing people with horrendous images of these wars. Anyone with any knowledge of history knows that that's a very idealized picture of pacifism, one that only a westerner living with peacetime privileges could have. Try stop the conflicts between Israel and Palestine just by showing the Israelis and the Palestinians pictures of atrocities that they had been living with for decades, the very pictures they had already been all too familiar with. Put it this way: let's say that in a war, if one side's perception of the other side is that the latter are the ones who are bad faith and prefer violence, then the former will think that they have no choice but also to resort to violence. Now, in what way does showing the horrendous nature of war will have on the prospect of bringing peace to both sides, when they each think that they're the ones committed to peace but that the other side was engaging in deceit and violence in the first place? Or let's say that it's the Algerian war of liberation against the French colonizers. In such a situation, what should be the priority if bloodshed is to be avoided as much as possible? If one can, would it be prudent to stop that conflict, even if it means that the underlying conflict between the colonizers and the colonized isn't resolved? Yes, war is as much of a problem as violent crime, if not more so. But like violent crimes, is it really sufficient to show how inhuman and gruesome these crimes are in order to prevent them? In the same vein, can wars be prevented without addressing the conflicts of interests and ideas that lie beneath the hostility? Not to say documenting war crimes isn't important. But no one with knowledge of wars could say with a straight face that that's all we need. In a NYT interview, Alex Garland complains that we've made left vs. right into a moral issue, which somehow he thinks it shouldn't be. To him, if one taxation policy differs from another, it is only in its practicality. It doesn't strike me as surprising that he would contrive a fictional alliance between California and Texas, which isn't an unimaginable idea if we're given some justifications, but he did so to make the point that what we really should be preventing is clownish villains like the President in this film, whose crimes are beyond leftism vs rightism. Could there be a reason why the film didn't tell us the motivations for the President to order airstrikes on civilians, disband FBI, and do other bad things? Framing defines the morals of a story. Generally speaking, when a character does things that are meant to be interpreted as "bad", and when the story doesn't clarify why that character did such atrocious things, we have ourselves a one-dimensional villain. By design, such a contrivance forces the readers or viewers to identify with forces opposing that villain. And, again without justification, the left and the right join forces against the villain President, as if the left wouldn't see him as a "fascist" ally with the right, or the right wouldn't a "big-government" "commie" ally with the left. Is Garland trying to say that the solution to polarization is by hoping such a farcical evil figure to emerge that it only makes sense for both the left and the right to oppose? Garland also made a point about blind animosity. But like so many other themes of this film, it's never so much explored as it is merely presented. What are the roots of this blind hatred? We can conjecture that, on the battlefield, it's survival needs preceding moral concerns. But if that's true, we never got a sense of the dire material conditions to know for ourselves, that these lives on the front lines really don't have any other choice. And what about Jesse Plemons? Why does he kill even non-military people? (Remember that his questions about "what kind of Americans?" weren't raised when he was ready to execute Jessie, until Lee steps in) It's a terrifying situation that does indeed happen in real life, but still: what do they gain by such brutality? It's not sufficient to presume that wars drive people to insanity, or close to it, as psychological questions involving such insanity are just as valid as political questions as anything else (why the Holocaust, or the Cultural Revolution, or the Reign of Terror?). Other themes were merely presented, but not explored, such as Lee's self-doubts about the moral utility of total spectatorship as required by her profession (see the review I wrote). But it leaves the audience so little to think about, that even some themes escape their experience entirely (many people didn't even notice Lee's concerns as a major theme that ties into the ending). The film unequivocally endorses an "older" kind of journalism that apparently stresses "objectivity" and "impartiality". If you've ever read any media analyses like Herman and Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent, you know that such "objectivity" or "impartiality" are but fiction. But with that, Garland takes a step even further than this "older" journalism. The film made many references to people who pretend as if the civil war isn't their business, or simply not an ongoing fact. It appears as if these journalist characters are both purer than both the politically militant and the politically ignorant by being politically "factual". But what is so "factual" about staying uninformed of the subjective intentions, explicitly stated or psychologically understated, involved in the bloodshed they witness? The hesitation to “take sides” doesn’t excuse the underdevelopment of the political conceit. Filmmakers like Sidney Lumet and Sergio Leone have explored politics with their own humanisms, but they also knew how to transcend beyond it, enlarge and entrench their point into about the human condition, that in the end the politics seem like an afterthought. They make their works larger than politics by embracing it, making the whole larger, and deeper, than the sum of its parts. But Garland thinks he could do that by avoiding it.

[@underscore_5450]

I feel like this is an argument that only an American can make. There's such a long history of countries overthrowing their governments or breaking out into civil wars to combat injustices. Wars, especially civil wars, happen for a reason. To ignore the "why" just so you can say "look, war is scary!" is so basic and surface level. Yes, war is hell. We get a "war is hell" movie every 3 years it seems. That's why this movie falls kind of flat in many people's eyes. Alex Garland is saying nothing new and pretending he's just enlightened us. The plot of this movie could happen during any war in history, so why is it even called Civil War if the civil war in the movie isn't even all that important?

[@Agent_Cobalt]

@@underscore_5450You are correct that this is an American centric film. The emphasis on civil war being something unique is intentional because American culture has a unique relationship with civil war. More so than any democratic nation in the western world. War is bad and can happen anywhere is not the point. The point is that a modern American civil war would look unprecedented, because of those values. Whether those values would hold in the situation is the question the movie explores

[@thestorymerchant28]

@@cheekylix classic leftist wall of text

[@rowdyriemer]

My take (and this is probably do to my own preconceptions) is that the movie is partly about how the horror of war dwarfs the issues that divide us - that the problems that come with war make our current political issues seem petty by comparison. The race-to-berlin comment made earlier in the movie kinda hints that there's more horrors to come after the president is removed from power. Political differences do in fact matter, and we get extremely angry over those differences. But those who would like to resolve those differences with violence should consider what that violence leads to. However bad things are, war is generally orders of magnitude worse.

[@underscore_5450]

Violent revolution is the very reason why the US even exists in the first place. Yes war is hell, but to pretend that war has never resulted in anything good is to ignore virtually every civil war and revolution that has ever occurred in history. War has been the primary tool by which the oppressed can rise up against their oppressors and it necessitate violence against the oppressors. The UK would never agree to just let a colony become independent. All over the world there have been violent uprisings against Britain and other colonizers that have resulted in liberation for oppressed populations. To title the movie "Civil War", set it in the US, and then to not comment on why people would rise up against eachother and the government is just bad writing.

[@unprofessionallyamateur6354]

War does make politics melt away for the individual soldier which the film shows. But like you say, the ideology of whatever side wins a conflict is incredibly important and consequential but the film has little interest in that

[@Agent_Cobalt]

⁠@@underscore_5450​​⁠You lost me at “to pretend that war has never resulted in anything good” Who is saying that? Also you acknowledge that America has a special relationship with the concept of a civil war, but you are also trying to compare it to other examples. Is there any country like America in the world? I don’t think it’s fair to pull in any other examples. They don’t stack up. It’s not American exceptionalism to realize how unique the country is and how every war fought on its borders has dramatically shifted the values and left an impact on its culture. The movie is about that impact on the culture

[@boshwa20]

​@@underscore_5450 The French Revolution is a good example of a revolution going terribly wrong

[@plaguedoctorjamespainshe6009]

Wich would make this movie just another one in the pile with nothing more important, new or relevant to say War bad yes but why ? What would lead to war ? What could we do about war ? How does war would affect society ? But I doesn't engage in any topic because it's completely apolitical, doesn't engage with the setting and just show us images of extreme violence

[@atthesync]

I mean are you not shifting the goalposts by retroactively placing qualifiers on his projects? I understand your critiques but I feel they boil down to you having a the exact opposite of garlands intentions, that he made a movie with the backdrop of super heady topics. He wanted you to ask questions and I think he succeeded. Maybe that's a cop out but if I found the movie enjoyable and it made me ask some questions then I think he succeeded, no?

[@cheekylix]

No. The movie fails in its own premise. It isn't for the audience to assume the greatness of what's supposedly a great film. By definition, they're supposed to watch movies with their subjective interpretations. It's the movie's job of directing their interpretations that it sees fits. A lot of defenders of this movie make the argument that it’s about civil war in general, and how horrendous it could get. After all, Garland said his idea was that it could happen anywhere (as opposed to making it about America specifically), even in a western democracy. So let’s give this the benefit of the doubt. If Garland makes a warning about the consequences of war, but without exploring the context or the causes, it seems awful lot like a warning about repercussions of crime, with no thought given to why crime, despite all the repressions, persists. Crime is, but why crime is or how crime is, escapes from the picture. Likewise, wars are, but why wars are or how, we not only don’t know just based on this movie, we weren't supposed to even guess. Now, we know what happens socially when crime movies merely depict crime, with all the details but none of the explorations (hints: the Dirty Harrys and the Death Wishes). Now, what will happen when wars were portrayed in a way that we’re not supposed to think about their causes, but all about their consequences? Firstly, I don't see "avoiding the political subject" as much of a virtue as apparently a lot of normie Americans do, a lot of whom are people I know and seem to be convinced that politics is not at all a fundamental subject in their lives and shouldn't be anyone's (so goes a lot of intentional distancing away from, distrust, and even hostility towards, people who do take politics very seriously). To a lot of these people who are more politically minded, they have their reason to suspect the merits of this film, none of which Garland's defenders really address (they're more like accusations, because in their eyes being "political" is something worth being put on trial for). Military theorist Clausewitz didn't say "War is nothing but politics by other means" for no reason or justification. Wars are hellish. Of course, but to say something about wars, maybe a warning against it, without much political contextualization, and thus divorcing warfare from politics entirely (and I mean politics in a very general sense, one that even encompasses private family matters, as opposed to just "lib" vs "con" or "gop" vs "dem"), it would be comparable to thinking that one could call off violent conflicts just by showing people with horrendous images of these wars. Anyone with any knowledge of history knows that that's a very idealized picture of pacifism, one that only a westerner living with peacetime privileges could have. Try stop the conflicts between Israel and Palestine just by showing the Israelis and the Palestinians pictures of atrocities that they had been living with for decades, the very pictures they had already been all too familiar with. Put it this way: let's say that in a war, if one side's perception of the other side is that the latter are the ones who are bad faith and prefer violence, then the former will think that they have no choice but also to resort to violence. Now, in what way does showing the horrendous nature of war will have on the prospect of bringing peace to both sides, when they each think that they're the ones committed to peace but that the other side was engaging in deceit and violence in the first place? Or let's say that it's the Algerian war of liberation against the French colonizers. In such a situation, what should be the priority if bloodshed is to be avoided as much as possible? If one can, would it be prudent to stop that conflict, even if it means that the underlying conflict between the colonizers and the colonized isn't resolved? Yes, war is as much of a problem as violent crime, if not more so. But like violent crimes, is it really sufficient to show how inhuman and gruesome these crimes are in order to prevent them? In the same vein, can wars be prevented without addressing the conflicts of interests and ideas that lie beneath the hostility? Not to say documenting war crimes isn't important. But no one with knowledge of wars could say with a straight face that that's all we need. In a NYT interview, Alex Garland complains that we've made left vs. right into a moral issue, which somehow he thinks it shouldn't be. To him, if one taxation policy differs from another, it is only in its practicality. It doesn't strike me as surprising that he would contrive a fictional alliance between California and Texas, which isn't an unimaginable idea if we're given some justifications, but he did so to make the point that what we really should be preventing is clownish villains like the President in this film, whose crimes are beyond leftism vs rightism. Could there be a reason why the film didn't tell us the motivations for the President to order airstrikes on civilians, disband FBI, and do other bad things? Framing defines the morals of a story. Generally speaking, when a character does things that are meant to be interpreted as "bad", and when the story doesn't clarify why that character did such atrocious things, we have ourselves a one-dimensional villain. By design, such a contrivance forces the readers or viewers to identify with forces opposing that villain. And, again without justification, the left and the right join forces against the villain President, as if the left wouldn't see him as a "fascist" ally with the right, or the right wouldn't a "big-government" "commie" ally with the left. Is Garland trying to say that the solution to polarization is by hoping such a farcical evil figure to emerge that it only makes sense for both the left and the right to oppose? Garland also made a point about blind animosity. But like so many other themes of this film, it's never so much explored as it is merely presented. What are the roots of this blind hatred? We can conjecture that, on the battlefield, it's survival needs preceding moral concerns. But if that's true, we never got a sense of the dire material conditions to know for ourselves, that these lives on the front lines really don't have any other choice. And what about Jesse Plemons? Why does he kill even non-military people? (Remember that his questions about "what kind of Americans?" weren't raised when he was ready to execute Jessie, until Lee steps in) It's a terrifying situation that does indeed happen in real life, but still: what do they gain by such brutality? It's not sufficient to presume that wars drive people to insanity, or close to it, as psychological questions involving such insanity are just as valid as political questions as anything else (why the Holocaust, or the Cultural Revolution, or the Reign of Terror?). Other themes were merely presented, but not explored, such as Lee's self-doubts about the moral utility of total spectatorship as required by her profession (see the review I wrote). But it leaves the audience so little to think about, that even some themes escape their experience entirely (many people didn't even notice Lee's concerns as a major theme that ties into the ending). The film unequivocally endorses an "older" kind of journalism that apparently stresses "objectivity" and "impartiality". If you've ever read any media analyses like Herman and Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent, you know that such "objectivity" or "impartiality" are but fiction. But with that, Garland takes a step even further than this "older" journalism. The film made many references to people who pretend as if the civil war isn't their business, or simply not an ongoing fact. It appears as if these journalist characters are both purer than both the politically militant and the politically ignorant by being politically "factual". But what is so "factual" about staying uninformed of the subjective intentions, explicitly stated or psychologically understated, involved in the bloodshed they witness? And I don't see as many questions asked by the defenders of this movie, who are content on simple messages like "war bad" and "prevent war", as by the critics. The hesitation to “take sides” doesn’t excuse the underdevelopment of the political conceit. Filmmakers like Sidney Lumet and Sergio Leone have explored politics with their own humanisms, but they also knew how to transcend beyond it, enlarge and entrench their point into about the human condition, that in the end the politics seem like an afterthought. They make their works larger than politics by embracing it, making the whole larger, and deeper, than the sum of its parts. But Garland thinks he could do that by avoiding it.

[@atthesync]

@@cheekylix cool

[@guyfieri791]

@@cheekylixYou said a whole lot of nothing. Would you have preferred if a black screen popped up at the beginning that said “Republicans and Donald Trump are freaking bad”

[@cheekylix]

@@guyfieri791 Your self-reflection is very on point

[@guyfieri791]

@@cheekylix Your entire essay basically boils down to “it doesn’t have contemporary politics explicitly inserted into it therefore it’s bad”

[@pretends2know]

I took a completely different different take from Civil War. I took it as an indictment of journalism taking a true neutral stance to avoid the horrors of what people do to justify dehumanizing each other.

[@TheJ_G]

I think this is a movie that will age better with time and separation from the current anxieties its marketing attempted to tap into, and all of the marketing itself. If it had been released in a less turbulent and a less hyper political period of time, I believe it would have been better received. It also really shows just how clunky A24 is at leaning into and selling their films to the broader, general population. I really liked the movie, but the marketing has been a complete dumpster fire of tone deaf decisions, garbage Ai art posters, bait and switches, and empty promises. It feels like the real civil war is happening behind the scenes and in the development of this movie; like making an expensive “art house” film and then hiring the Micheal Bay marketing team to sell it as a blockbuster. Where factions of corporate interest, marketing teams, bombastic filmmaking, and creative integrity, are all fighting for control of this otherwise important idea of a film.

[@juanmanuelpenaloza9264]

It's like a deerskin jacket. It's nice and I appreciate the craftsmanship, but I can also see the rotting deer guts on the table. You didn't bother to make venison with the meat. And I saw this as someone who workshopped a Civil War story. Imagine a story where troops at Gettysburg are dissolutioned because of an order to preserve the historic battlegrounds while the actual town of Gettysburg is getting arti battered into rubble. Or a Muslim teenager picking up arms to protect and evacuation, noting the eerie similarity to the evacuation of Kabul, except it's in St Louis. Or the idea of the instigating president being a televangelist with a private military and connections with the governors, facing off the Federalists in exile in Colorado with a succeeded president who was the former Speaker of the House, now having to step up despite being unprepared. Or the idea of battles occurring in Matamoros Mexico and Sao Paulo Brazil. I have the basic ideas in a video on a separate channel, but my point is, for a film trying to play both sides in something inherently political as a Second American Civil War scenario is chickenshit at best. And to have it be from the perspective of journalists with no real interest in the conflict is to leave opportunities on the table.

[@diegojose4173]

I believe the director should have not stated the factions fighting in the war, just state that there's a war between an alliance of Anti-Washington forces vs. The government. All of these stuff like the Western Alliance and the Florida Alliance and the Northern Confederation or whatever is completely unnecessary. A lot of people are still clowning upon the alliance between the highly liberal California and the highly conservative Texas as stupidly funny.

[@plaguedoctorjamespainshe6009]

Honestly if he never wanted to make the movie deeper, agreed, just make it ambiguous as it seems like everything else is, and then create this world as if we would have lore and all that

[@Oldhandlewasabitcringe]

I think that the Texas Cali alliance is important to try and muddy the waters to prevent audiences latching onto their side in a fight between blue vs red

[@tabletbooks4967]

Great video. Treating the United States as some blank canvas empty of history where a civil war could erupt for any variety of arbitrary reasons, rather than a place which suffered an incredibly brutal civil war whose divisions continue to shape its politics and would no doubt sculpt any future conflict is the opposite of apolitical - it is very political, a declaration of a kind of American exceptionalism, the only country in the world without a past.

[@johnnotrealname8168]

Ireland had a Civil War, it does not influence politics anymore. Britain had a Civil War, guess what unless you mean that Royalism is still in the dumps then no it does not influence politics and America is the same. That War does not influence politics.

[@seamusesparza1943]

Only 20% of the current US population is descended from the people who fought in the Civil War.

[@elliotyourarobot]

Exactly

[@zachcameron1117]

"We get a brutal action sequence and then ironic pop-punk puts us back onto the road" There is not a single song on the soundtrack that could be categorized in any way whatsoever as Pop-Punk. Silver Apples - Lovefingers Suicide - Rocket U.S.A. De La Soul - Say No Go Skid Row - Sweet Little Sister Sturgill Simpson - Breaker's Roar Suicide - Dream Baby Dream

[@zachcameron1117]

Replying to Truffaut's assertion that it's impossible to make an anti-war movie because every movie romanticizes what it depicts, Kubrick said “That’s clever because you can’t fault it, but I’m not sure what it means. There are obviously elements in a war film that involve visual spectacle, courage, loyalty, affection, self-sacrifice, and adventure, and these things tend to complicate any anti-war message." Also, you fault Garland for using ironic music (particularly De La Soul's Say No Go [Garland used that song in that particular sequence to tarnish any romance that could possibly be interpreted]) but Kubrick wasn't exactly avoiding irony himself when he used The Mickey Mouse Club Song at the end of Full Metal Jacket.

[@c-samleystudios1573]

That Breaker’s Roar needle drop was fantastic.

[@kaydenjones3183]

@@zachcameron1117 I dont remember al of full metal jacket, havent watched it in years, but weren't the soldiers singing it?

[@zachcameron1117]

@@kaydenjones3183 Yes.

[@ctons]

Nerrrrd

[@troyschulz2318]

I saw a tweet that read something like "Alex Garland wanted to make a film about conflict reporters, but didn't wanna deal with subtitles," and I think that's very telling. Actual, textual politics of the film aside (I'm a journalist myself and I have THOUGHTS), Garland's centrist schtick and his seemingly total ignorance of actual American politics makes it seem like the "Civil War" part of his CIVIL WAR movie was an afterthought. The fact that his own words seem to contradict the text of the film makes me think he's kind of just dumb guy who accidentally stumbled into profundity. Not for nothing, but Garland's insistence that conflicting reporting is somehow apolitical is genuinely baffling and also telling. Like a "tell me you know nothing about journalism without telling me you know nothing about journalism" telling. He's trying to put a square peg in a round hole by insisting that extremely political topics can somehow be decoupled from politics.

[@stephennootens916]

If his point was to make the journalists are apolitical makes his movie shockingly stupid. We knew from how journalist report the are bias whether we agree or not with them is a different story. And if you think about often time how unbiased reporting is framed it is so stupid. Take reporting in a war zone unbiased reporting would be "this side said the other side is commiting war crimes and the other side said no, they are not and than claim their enemy is the real one committing war crimea. Cut to report shrugging their shoulders and saying you decided you is lying.

[@xrxwearebetterthancapitalism]

Not to mention like in Garland's film but not Garland in interviews, is kind of playing with how journalism can kind of be exploitative with how it captures graphic images for it to be consumed by the public. I think this has become true when discussing how we have become increasingly desensitized to violence watching police shootings and killings in body cam footage along with all the horror coming out of Gaza. There's something there I think that could've been cool if it were fleshed out more between the dynamics between Walter Cronkite style journalism in Stephen McKinley Henderson's character and the more jaded VICE news gen x style journalism of Wagner Moura/Kirsten Dunst to the independent journalist Cailee Spaeny. But Garland's set piece road trip movie doesn't even have meaningful discussions or tensions between these characters. Even with Dunst line "it's a warning, don't do this" like rings sooo hollow bc WHAT DO YOU MEAN DON'T DO THIS? Does Garland think these large historical events happen because our own shere will power? The movie in the end ACTUALLY does the thing it's criticizing by having these violent images of lynchings and mass graves and burning bodies be shown to the audience out of context to anything bigger and just desensitizes us to the "horror" he's trying to depict. Garland to violent imagery that invoked memories of the holocaust and the Bosnian genocide in this movie is what Sam Levinson is to objectifying women in his works. Recreation does not equal critique and you basically just made a movie in which you made your audience unwilling participants in a process you're supposedly attempting to commentate or criticize in?

[@AestheticStudiosMelb]

@@xrxwearebetterthancapitalism I think provided zero context to the civil war was probably part of the point haha. Exposing our own bias- mine being that my main takeaway was "pain=bad", so both sides bad. You're right, exploring the dynamics between reporting style would be interesting, but so would be introducing a bunch of genetically modified T-REX Ferrari monsters to Civil War.

[@AestheticStudiosMelb]

do you think that at its core, journalism COULD be more scientific in sharing news without bias?

[@plaguedoctorjamespainshe6009]

One of the best series I've ever seen, Generation Kill, is based on war journalism and what it can teach us It absolutely isn't apolitical, or purely voyeuristic or sadistic Idk wtf he meant with this movie Journalism is an important aspect of life specially on controversial topics like war

[@jessewonderclark]

I don’t know the filmmaker’s intentions but taken on its own the film is an indictment of American journalism. It’s all in the last shot. The last shot is a journalist smiling happily arm-in-arm with soldiers who have just murdered a man in cold blood, a man who was pleading “please don’t let them kill me.” The message of the final shot is clear: to pretend to be impartial is to enable monsters.

[@jordanthompson5696]

I genuinely felt that what he intended was in fact that all of this corruption/nihilism IS the cost of truth (truth here meaning objectivity). It’s weird how I agree with your assessment of the film until we reach a certain tier of conceptual depth, then it comes across to me like your exposure to his prior films renders your capacity to fully receive the intent of this film lacking. Then again, maybe it’s the other way around because I’ve only seen ex machina I have faith in this director. Anyway, put differently, I think this is a film about the violence, dehumanization, nihilism, etc OF objectivity. The range of perspectives among our protagonists reveals to me the desperate search for meaning in a contemporary world, a world that has allegedly progressed via objectivity. Industry is data driven. The efficiency of our communication, information consumption, distribution of resources, etc. all relies on the foundation of objective data to verify our trajectories or give us a point of reference for course correction. With this in mind, we are witnessing the tragedy of trying to find purpose THROUGH objectivity, with the outcome of course being our loss of humanity. Interestingly- and horrifyingly, I might add- this is not the same as a loss of purpose. Perhaps this is our greatest point of divergence. Yes, the quote at the end cancels out all previous indictments or arcs of corruption we witness throughout the film insofar as it reveals there was a purpose to all of this after all. There is a payoff for our ‘heroes’ in the end (at least those who survived). And of course that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But rather than chocking that up to clunky writing or blind spots or the product of trying to make an apolitical film, I see it as precisely the point he’s trying to convey. There IS a purpose in dehumanization, in ultraviolence, in the “cancerous” function of the press in these high stakes scenarios. In fact, cancerous I think is the perfect word here. This might be a little trippy, but hey, given the filmography we’re dealing with I don’t think it’s too far fetched- objectivity attempts to replicate reality, but inevitably fails. It slowly but surely creates a simulation. In our dispassionate conviction (lol… already just putting those words side by side is the freakin point!), we forsake the universe and commit to our replication of it. This is why our history of ‘progress’ is inextricably linked to our history of separation from and destruction of the actual world. In this sense, I think civil war hits on the real issues more than a tale of a nuanced overtly political conflict ever really would (not to mention the arrogance to assume such prescience as to portray a ‘realistic’ civil war in this country that doesn’t betray an undeniable left leaning bias… which would inevitably be the result of a mainstream take on how things would play out). So anyway, the problem with this movie in my opinion was the advertising of this movie. The freakin title of the movie. But the content I found profoundly insightful and earnest, rather than safe and cynical.

[@jordanthompson5696]

Yeah I like how you put it “other films…. Treat ideology as part of human nature, rather than a bug to be patched out”. I guess all I’m saying is that I agree with you that that is a difference between this film and the other war films you cite, and I think that makes this film MORE insightful rather than a film which bypasses real insight through its lack of context. Ideology as we understand the phenomenon today anyway, does indeed defer to some standard of objectivity. Now I know what you’re thinking. What an obviously inaccurate claim. Ideology is our freakin SEPARATION from objectivity, you might say. It’s our main way of revealing our biases, our lack of objectivity, you might say. But really in our desperate efforts to convince people we’re right we justify our violence toward them, our dehumanization of them, or distance from them through some sort of rationalization. Some attempt to merge our personal ideology with Truth, be this macroeconomics, a creator god, or modern science. The point of this film as far as I’ve interpreted is that those leaps ARE the problem. They are what takes us away from the real, from nature. So in this sense, yes, ideology is a bug, not a feature. I like the word tumor here once again. And to be clear I’m not saying that relativism is the alternative. I think relativism is the ‘rational’ implication when objectivity is rejected, and is inevitably just another ideology deferring to some foundation of objectivity. Anyway, we’ve reached the point where I don’t think we’re going to get answers from the film about where to turn to. But I do see it as a film earnestly portraying the problem. Perhaps the main reason this doesn’t satisfy people is that it doesn’t show us the solution, so it makes the presidents final line seem like we got the problem wrong in our experience watching the film up to that point. But I think that’s on the viewer needing some sort of solace when a rug has been pulled out from under them. I don’t necessarily think that renders the movie safe or cheap. Given the world is was operating within I’d say it would need an extra hour or so to properly expose us to an alternative. However, I think we get little snippets throughout the film. Snippets of vulnerability between humans. Of nature crying out to us that it’s still here and we can return at any time (when we linger on shots in the woods while they’re driving, hearing birds and insects in a wash of green and brown, when we see dunsts character looking through the flowers when lying on the ground (we could choose to see this as a cynical photographers perspective of a good shot, but I think the ambiguity/back and forth there is precisely the struggle we’re witnessing her character go through). It’s already there if we’re receptive of the film. So let’s go try on dresses together or hop from one car to another together or lay in the grass and wildflowers together, despite it all. How about it?

[@jordanthompson5696]

Nooooooo why must we conclude from this that it’s an endless cycle?!?!?!?! Again, the lack of an unambiguously expressed alternative is not the same as resigning oneself to a cycle of tragedy. Rather than seeing the struggle of these characters as eternal I see it as escapable, even if that escape isn’t forever.

[@jordanthompson5696]

I think the “back and forth and back and forth” of this movie reflects the aforementioned struggle for all of our characters to remain human. The “two sides of the same coin” Jesse characterization fits, I think. But it’s particularly interesting when we see how the characters respond to it in different ways, and how those responses reveal both how far gone they all are but also how they all still have the ability to return to innocence. Once again, it just seems like you have an unwillingness to receive what I perceive to be authorial intent. Maybe this comes down to exposure to his other work or lack thereof, but given your- at least up to this point- lack of acknowledgment of these moments of humanity beyond throwing one of them away as tonal inconsistency, I’m more inclined to believe there’s just something in the way of you giving the humanity on display the time of day

[@ethanjannes7587]

But this is an ethos that can only be held by some weird libertarian British dude. There is no hot button America-centric political debate that when looked at through a direct “objective” lens could produce some “both sides are evil fighting is bad nothing is worth the cost” 14 year old takeaway

[@ethanjannes7587]

Actually upon reading your whole comment this could be a vindication of the film as a condemnation of American media’s equivalency of objective reporting to sensationalist out of context snapshots of a conflict; and the somewhat uniquely American conceit of any kind of *objective, apolitical* reporting. Essentially objective reporting == “Palestine is hamas and hamas killed babies”

[@nailati]

"Why are we talking and not listening? We’ve lost trust in the media and politicians. And some in the media are wonderful and some politicians are wonderful-on both sides of the divide. I have a political position and I have good friends on the other side of that political divide. Honestly, I’m not trying to be cute: What’s so hard about that? Why are we shutting down? Left and right are ideological arguments about how to run a state. That’s all they are. They are not a right or wrong, or good and bad. It’s which do you think has greater efficacy? That’s it. You try one, and if that doesn’t work out, you vote it out, and you try again a different way. That’s a process. But we’ve made it into ‘good and bad.’ We made it into a moral issue, and it’s fucking idiotic, and incredibly dangerous." - Alex Garland retroactively ruining _Devs_ and _Ex Machina_ for me by revealing that he's dumber than a box of hair

[@troyschulz2318]

Alex Garland is a very talented writer and filmmaker who also happens to be extremely dumb. Which is far more common than people like to think.

[@caseyw.6550]

Oh God no...

[@wellthissucks112]

So you've copied and pasted a quote of his, but I would like to hear why YOU dislike this quote rather than me assuming why you dislike it so strongly. Hopefully you can comment without just simply saying "his quote is self explanatory". Thanks.

[@TheLeftistOwl]

​@@wellthissucks112 it's pretty self evidently stupid. How to run a society is something we should take seriously. He's talking as if it's just a difference of opinion when the decisions we make as a society are much, much more grave than that. If he views politics as separate from morality, not only is he dumb, he's privelege d in a way that blinds him to political realities that shape our world. He is so utterly bereft of political literacy

[@greggoat6570]

That is your own damn fault if that innocuous quote bothered you so much. I really doubt Garland gives a shit that you are seething 🤷‍♀️

[@joshfennell2257]

You might want to rewatch Annihilation, because you didn't get much from a very rich metaphor. You can call it a slow film, you can say it wasn't to your liking, but to claim it's heavy-handed or doesn't cohere (which is it, btw - obvious or incoherent?) is something you might say if you missed the point. The clear metaphor is what makes it, for me, a rewarding film to rewatch as it lends itself to numerous extended interpretations of its central theme, and almost critique-proof because most complaints seem to focus on things the movie never claimed to be about and in fact could not be about (ie, you missed the point). The only defensible critique I can think of is that it wasn't to your taste; saying more usually only reinforces the lack of engagement with the movie as it actually exists.

[@thestorymerchant28]

this guy is a bad reviewer, don't be surprised he didn't get annihilation

[@armedraptor5114]

Least pretentious Annihilation fan.

[@EnteringMyFlopEra]

The movie tries so hard to be apolitical when it’s a movie about a fucking civil war in the U.S

[@_Devil]

Its hard to paint both sides as bad when both sides want so desperately for you to prove that their side is the just side, and the other one is wrong. The good from that is that it ends up alienating the radicals from both sides. The Common Man went to go see this movie, not the Boogaloo Boys or the Portland Maoists. They rejected it as Communist and Fascist propaganda respectively because it didnt paint their views as the correct ones.

[@Ulyssestnt]

It's fascinating to see how much of a cinematic Rorschach test this movie turned out to be. Personally I went in having seen Little to no marketing and I enjoyed it. I didn't think it was very apolitical at all,there's mentions of "the antifa massacre" the FLOT being at Charlottesville and a very Trumpian president forcing a third term ,"disbanding the FBI" etc.. It's not very subtle really and it's not hard to see what it's getting at.

[@Oldhandlewasabitcringe]

Another review that I cant help but feel comes off as “annoyed because its doesn’t take my side” In a political climate where talk of civil war and violence is becoming increasingly flippant. The movie is a warning that this is what you are asking for, this is the cost, and the outcome is not going to be the utopia you imagine even if your side wins The movie is a call to grow up and take the threat of conflict and violence seriously. It would be completely undermined if Garland spent 90 mins explaining how the texas alliance started

[@Itsalwayscloudyincleveland]

If I'm interpreting your criticism correctly, you're suggesting that the main theme of the film is "violence/war is bad"? ... I mean is that not such a shallow thing to explore? Saying "If you let yourself get thrown into war, it will lead to death and destruction" is the biggest nothing-burger of a theme. He chooses to make a film centered on a UNITED STATES CIVIL WAR, in a time when the country couldn't be any more politicized, and he thinks the best route to take is being apolitical?? Nobody is apolitical, especially journalists who try to remain objective. It's not that he didn't take 90 minutes explaining the world building, it's that he spent 100 minutes intentionally avoiding it like the bubonic plague. People like Taylor and myself aren't suggesting we're annoyed because Garland "didn't take our side," but we're frustrated he didn't even present sides at all. It felt like the biggest cop out of a filmmaker I've ever seen.

[@Thomas...191]

Shallow thing to explore? What ab9ut the great anti war film "come and see" is that shallow? I think perhaps the shallow violence may be the snappy dialogue and exploding heads etc that most seem to half want this film to have. A realistic depiction of violence this was, mass graves, executions. Watch: "come and see" the greatest anti war film ever, this is in that lineage.

[@Itsalwayscloudyincleveland]

@@Thomas...191 I've seen Come and See many times (twice on the big screen). An incredible masterpiece. Civil War is not in the same league. Come and See explores more than "war is bad." It tells the story of a child indoctrinated into believing he wants to fight for his country but slowly being introduced to the real horrors of war. It is the darkest depiction of a "coming of age" film you can get. Civil War is a puddle compared to the depths of humanity Come and See explores

[@Thomas...191]

@pepesilvia3573 I agree it doesn't come close to come and see, but to call it a puddle is the type of hyperbole I can't get on board with. Regardless; it's lineage in terms of influence and genre is clear. Much like annihilation was no stalker; I still can appreciate the work. The themes that do separate it from a "come and see" are also quite rich. The three generations of journalists, past present and future is quite a unique lens to see it from. The blurring of art and journalism, the purpose of journalism and the utility of it are all questioned, and there are no answers given in the peice. I think this seems quite appropriate in terms of journalism in the digital age, the invention of the printing press enabled us to have our democracies because public discourse on a large scale was made possible by it. We are living in a time where it is hard to know if the digital printing press has made our democracies impossible. We really don't know. This film certainly underlines this existential question we have right now. And I think it does a good job here. Also, watching come and see so many times is questionable. Lol.. I'm jealous you saw it on the big screen tho.

[@Itsalwayscloudyincleveland]

@@Thomas...191 Lol i try to watch it once a year (but no more than that). And I guess my biggest qualm is I don't think it necessarily knows what it is trying to say. Because it undercuts journalism's influence by acknowledging the distrust in the media in this day and age. Also we have no idea how these journalists work is being received by the public. For all we know, the pictures they have taken don't move the needle at all with the public (which honestly would be the most realistic route). If you look at it as an indictment against the elusive objective lens of wartime journalism thenI think it fails there too because he willfully skirts any subjective statement which it needs. If it wants to raise questions about the morality of it, it does so while gleefully indulging in showing us gruesomely staged scenes of death itself. It's a walking contradiction to any thematic core imo.

[@houston-coley]

Thanks for plugging my article!! Great words here; glad to see you bringing some sense into this incredibly aggravating discourse. It’s funny that I agreed with every criticism you had and still ended up feeling very compelled by the film’s thematic conclusions anyway. I don’t know if I’m getting more out of it than Garland can even be credited for, but either way it’s stuck with me and challenged me. Art is cool that way I guess.

[@AestheticStudiosMelb]

Well said. Feels like there was a predetermined bias that ignores the acknowledged efficacy haha. I think "how much a film sticks with me" is trumping (no pun intended) how much I feel I enjoy the movie of late

[@jordanthompson5696]

Just read your article. I quite enjoyed it and resonate with much of what you say! Having said that, there are a couple of things I'd like to say in response. First, while I of course understand the comparisons to January 6th actors while looking at the final photo, I think leaning too hard on a 'side' executing the president would risk missing the point-- that our relationship with objectivity is what leads us to this level of desensitization. This of course, (or maybe not "of course", but it seems obviously inevitable to me), is a plight that afflicts both red and blue. Anyway, I don't think your article indulges in that comparison too much, but I just wanted to bring it up in case you had any interesting thoughts in response. The second, and more important part of my response is this: 2/3 of the way through your article you create a dichotomy between 'objective altruism' and 'art' or 'artistry'. I totally see why you'd do this, and why that would be one takeaway from the film/interpretation of authorial intent. However, I personally see that as a tragically misguided framing of art. This could be quite a lengthy passage I'm about to write lol. We'll see!! Anyway, so Jessie uses a camera/film that is not the most "accessible" (can you tell I know nothing about photography?), but the resulting aesthetic of the photos can yield a more compelling artistic piece. This is the claim. And perhaps it's true, like I said I know nothing about photography. And we could maybe extrapolate from this that the 'more objective' alternative would have been to use a digital camera (is that right? Is that the superior alternative? Help!). This of course makes sense to me, as digital in many ways implies a sort of input/output, on/off, binary framework for.... well, everything! A further implication here is that the more 'accessible' the image, the more informative the image (standard lowest common denominator logic, a logic that also applies to the film, music, and television industries), and the more informative, the more helpful the image is. The other side of this is of course the implication that it's the 'get it for the 'gram' (lol I already forgot the phrase... not the most social media savvy person over here!) approach to information that is soul-rending, desensitizing, inaccessible, harmful. I think this positioning is *completely* missing out on a third option, and not recognizing that the presented options are two sides of the same coin known as objectivity. Our reliance upon image, as you poignantly express, has rendered us desensitized, 'soul diminished', etc. But what if I said that instagram, facebook, etc. operate on the same set of.... metaphysical assumptions about what it means to be human, to be 'right', to be 'good' as objective news/journalism does? Both options, necessarily, decontextualize the subjects (admittedly one of them nominally expresses that that is literally it's goal, while the other is just in denial that that is it's goal. Nevertheless, they both do it). Somehow, we are supposed to gather that this is a good, admirable thing in one context, but a hypocritical, inauthentic, shallow thing in another? I contend that it's inauthentic, shallow, and hypocritical in both contexts! We assume that we need access to objective information to remain informed about the goings on of the world. To this I have two points. First, I've yet to read an 'objective' piece of news. I've yet to see an 'objective' image, in the sense that I'm being exposed to a metaphysically real, True state of affairs. Of course all media we consume is biased. Some are just in denial of this. The second point is that I think we appreciate things most when we relate the most. One could argue this necessitates accessibility as a standard for communication, but I think that's putting the cart before the horse. Things are accessible when expressed and received with openness and vulnerability. This doesn't mean every human will be able to understand or be moved by such expressions (but of course that's an impossible standard to meet with 'objective' portrayals as well!!!). It simply means that we need relatability. By relatability I don't mean accessibility, I mean *relationship*. And relationship requires context, bias, whatever word you want to use!!! It is through relation that information compounds. Contemporary society seems to be operating as if the opposite is true. I see this as the desperate, urgent shift resulting from an inability to otherwise function morally within a globalized capitalistic planet. Science, data, facts, economics, have to replace all other foundations for ethical living. Anyway anyway anyway, I feel I could go on and on there but I hope I've gotten my point across (not to be confused with convincing you I'm right... I just think you/the reader have enough here to understand where I'm coming from!!) In short, the point that I see this film making is perhaps not an indictment of photojournalism, but of objectivity itself. I have no clue if Garland would articulate it that way when asked, but I genuinely believe he's on that wavelength. And that's why I find this film so compelling (and Taylor's deference to objectivity is why he can only see this film as being too safe/cheap in its apoliticality, rather than MORE compelling through it's resistance of the urge to dive deep into the factions or material conditions that result in a civil war). What are you thoughts on this? I have a feeling you were already partially in alignment with my perspective but aren't used to people indicting objectivity itself. Does that bridge any gaps for you or do you feel you already generally grasped what the film was going for?

[@patrickbrown897]

Garland said of the politics that he felt he didn't need to tell Americans what the reason for the war was because we already know. It's very surprising to me that so many Americans seem not to, or seem to need to be hand fed the politics instead of observing whats happening around us and inferring. And scarier, is that people seem not to realize that our political divisions are manufactured by the state and state backed media. Most of us could see eye to eye if it wasn't for constant propaganda that politicians use to get votes and politicians being used by corporations to get richer. If something like civil war happens again in this country, people won't understand the reasons, or what side they're on. They won't know who the good guys or the bad guys are, and tons of innocent people will be murdered, like in all wars. I think the movie captured it perfectly.

[@Itsalwayscloudyincleveland]

Except... when you tell us that California and Texas (two states that couldn't be on more opposite sides politically)I have teamed up, and somehow they are capable of conquering their way all the way to DC against the US armed forces, that will obviously present confusion. If he wanted to play it straightforward with the red state/blue state very Trumpian lines, then that would be self-explanatory. Instead he created a convoluted world and didn't give us any indication what either side is fighting for or how it functions. I think the "so many Americans seem not to know the reasons for the war" is not achievement of intent, but an indictment of the frustratingly obfuscated filmmaking

[@romankotas448]

That’s just a long winded excuse for lack of world building

[@mr.dirtydan3338]

It's not state backed media. It's corporation backed media. The problem is big money interests control the media narrative and pushing only what they want people to see.

[@AlexSciChannel]

You cooked him dude​@@romankotas448

[@underscore_5450]

I think I get what you're saying, but I think your conclusions miss the mark a little bit. Sure there's certainly obfuscation on the part of politicians to keep people divided so they keep thinking they are under threat by the opposition, but people do actually have beliefs. Israel and Palestine aren't a war because of propaganda and politcal meddling, there's a LONG history of violence and unfair treatment from Israel. In war morals don't suddenly disappear and get muddied, if anything they do they opposite. They collapse into singular ideas that the entire cause rallies around. Patriotism, religious beliefs, revenge, ect. I find it ridiculous that Civil War has FIVE WHOLE FACTIONS and not single one has any discernable cause they've rallied around. People don't start wars for no reason and people especially don't risk their lives rising up against their own government for no reason either. State backed propaganda and division is bad, but it would never cause a civil war on purpose. Politicans want us to still rally under the US flag, otherwise they don't have any power.

[@lex_rodriguez]

I watched this film ONLY knowing about Jessie Plemons having a show stopping scene (no context or anything) - along with the fact that it wouldn't touch on the politics, because my friend was very upset about that fact. Didn't see the trailer or watch any reviews... With all that being said, I was so fucking dissapointed with how much was squandered with its story, opting to settle for a forced and redundant "character journey." What a fucking waste. Plemons wasn't even meant to be in the damn film and he's the best part and touches on something I wish the rest of the film would have explained.

[@Lechkata]

It's crazy how much I disagree with you. I found Civil War to be one of the most prolific explorations of wartime journalists. Not of journalism, but of the actual journalists. These are people who have dedicated their lives to capturing horrors beyond our imagination. Every character represents a different way these people deal with the fact that that's their life. I agree with the critiques about act 2's repetitive nature, but making the film speculative allows the viewer to explore the JOURNALIST, not journalism. To be honest you danced around the points the movie wanted to make, but I feel like you twisted them just enough to fit your negative narrative. I repeat again, the movie is not perfect in my opinion, but it's not NEARLY as flawed as you make it seem.

[@BrianGonsr]

you get what you give with this movie, if you have expectations that aren’t met, that’s probably why people feel the way that they feel.

[@AestheticStudiosMelb]

Agreed. It sounds like this movie was pinned before viewing. Expecting a movie to fit an interpersonal predetermined mould that requires your predisposition of its director AND political views/preference for source material AND intent seems like a pretty wild oversight for critique. I think the stories focus on the characters journey within the narrative held more weight than any presumed intention of Garlands's assumed desire of statement/discourse.

[@florance333]

This movie would be a million times better if it was set in a real war, past or present, with American involvement or not. Real wars are nuanced, neither side is 100% right, and as a war journalist you have to deal with moral dilemmas and threats of violence all the time - basically everything Alex Garland wanted to say with this movie would be more impactful if it was set in a war that has some background, story, and stakes. The made up and poorly explained war he used gave me no reason to care about anything happening on screen.

[@Itsalwayscloudyincleveland]

As a journalist, this movie does a shallow, if not absolutely empty, exploration of wartime journalism. These characters are not real people, they are mouthpieces for Garland to espouse ambivalent philosophies. The film doesn't even understand how it wants to feel about death. It's tonally chaotic. A much better recent depiction of wartime journalism is A Private War. Garland used a fictionalized American civil war as strictly a marketing tool which is cheap and lazy filmmaking.

[@adaywithsmator]

​@@Itsalwayscloudyincleveland Preach

[@asrius]

I didn't love the movie either, and I can agree with most of the criticisms here but the tone of this review is almost unbearably condescending. Anything that isn't on the A-tier of filmmaking and messaging when compared to classics has to be entirely reduced to those shortcomings and joylessly shat on apparently.

[@mctheplaywright]

one of the most incurious films i have seen in awhile

[@elliotyourarobot]

It's an issue when the factions are ambiguous in the other films mentioned we know what the sides stand for and we could follow their history.

[@El-Duderino-His-Dudeness]

14:28 this part reminded me of the end of the Mist.

[@Hereticked]

I agree that Civil War is a superficial movie, ideologically and thematically (although very well made, technically), but man, did you miss the boat on Annihilation. It has so much more going on than you give it credit for. Check out Folding Idea's video "Annihilation - Decoding Metaphor."

[@michael.471]

To play defence for Banshees as an Irish person, the story depicts the arbitrary lines during the Irish Civil war pretty dead on.

[@davemac9563]

I personally didn’t have a problem with the apolitical message of the movie. I just think a lack of creativity was its problem without learning why these factions are fighting or what are they fighting for. It gets less engaging to talk about beyond war bad, or media perversion basic commentary. That’s why this movie is meh.

[@Bleech606]

I believe the movie focused on the press because we're in a time where the press is discredited constantly as being fake and when a certain politician fancies themself as a Putin figure - Putin, a man who kills the free press for telling the truth (like the president in this movie). I would say the civil war is a warning about discrediting/disregarding the press which is why Garland chooses that focus and to have the press lead the final charge. The movie is about the importance of the press and politicians who tell false narratives. Whether you thought it did it well or not, that's what I think it's about.

[@offthecufff]

i enjoyed the idea that there were different factions and there wasn't just two sides. there's way more different political beliefs in america that get left out because "trump bad and biden good" or vice versa but there are so many more complexities left out. there's like a majority of our population that doesn't even VOTE AT ALL because they feel unseen and left out. so it wouldnt make sense for him to just be like "i like the left" or "i like the right" when he didnt want to do that. and also who says that if everything goes to shit that unlikely factions wouldn't form? i mean who is anyone to say that WOULDN'T HAPPEN? because there's red and blue and that's it? that's so close minded. i'm glad he did it that way and i'm also glad that he left it more politically ambiguous than anything else. it made me immersed in the true story which is about the journalists and the stories they are trying to tell. which is why i loved it. caille spaeny needs more roles.

[@offthecufff]

for example, 20 days in mariupol is literally a documentary about couple of journalists documenting the horrific things happening in ukraine. a country fighting for it's independence. literally just filming dead mangled bodies and other terrible shit. and yeah it asks a bunch of the same questions as this movie regarding war journalism and it won an oscar. i mean if these types of wars and things can happen in other countries why are there so many people denouncing civil war for it's "unrealistic" approach to this kind of stuff when this is literally happening in other places in the world?

[@unprofessionallyamateur6354]

You say it’s interesting that several factions are present with varying ideologies and I agree but the film doesn’t use it at all. The only character whose ideology is on show is the dude who shoots the journalists for not being American. Everyone else is just “shoot the guys shooting us”. Which is great for the sniper scene but I’d like more to chew on for the rest. What do the Hawaiian shirt guys think or the western alliance. Having some details gives context to their actions particularly in the dc battle where multiple unarmed members of the government are executed. And that’s not an “I like X political party” thing. Make them all do heinous shit but give us some understanding as to why they do the things they do

[@nayR5]

It would appear this is not the greatest motion picture ever put to screen given the titles of the videos channels I'm subscribed to have made regarding it.

[@asmodeusguys4472]

Who's actually saying this? I'm curious

[@Lifesizemortal]

​@@asmodeusguys4472 Everyone???

[@metalbloodnoisefire]

I think I disagree about the breakdown of the quality of the film. I genuinely enjoyed it, and felt like it built to its climax well with the characters having a pretty satisfying (if somewhat ubiquitous) arc. But definitely agree about the lack of overall meaning the movie has by staying apolitical.

[@wiiplaya25]

Even taking out the political aspects in this film, the characters are simply bland and there are no stakes. Cliched ending with some awkward performances took me out. If you avoid any political leaning, you HAVE to say something to make up for that. In this case there isnt enough substance there and I felt very empty by the end. Not for the reason most here claim to defend. Plemons' scene was great acting wise but imagine if we knew just a bit of lore? His ambiguous allegiance would've made it MUCH scarier

[@prahslra]

Slickly written and spoken, but it sounds like you wanted CW to be a completely different film. No wonder you were disappointed. Perhaps time for you to write the film you wanted to see?

[@widewatching338]

Movie is ahead of its time, those that don’t get it now will “get it,” later and pretend they always did. Movies are about what they are, now what you wish they were. Keep watching, American.

[@danielfrome3962]

Consider that you may not have hit the nail on the head this time around. Not sure objectivity is the goal here. It’s probable that it’s an incredibly subjective film, but it’s just taking a position entirely outside the parameters by which we might expect it to abide. Garland’s greatest strength is also the thing preventing him from the mass appeal that grants greatness: He’s. It thinking on our level. Not above or below mind you, but outside. He will never satisfy our expectations, because what he’s thinking about is entirely outside our expectations. Perhaps he tries too hard from time to time, but I genuinely don’t think he’d make a movie if it fell within the scope of any reference points an audience might have. He skirts those reference points (zombies, aliens, robots impersonating humans, folk horror,politics) but he’s not remotely interested in discussing anything that’s already been discussed about these issues. He absolutely has a goal and a point in mind, but he’s not making the film if it’s a point that’s ever been discussed before. Side note: I’m not a fan of annihilation, but it’s clearly got a lot more to do with Stanislaw Lem & Tarkovsky than Kubrick or Arthur C Clark. Also, are you aware Alex Garland isn’t an American?

[@danielfrome3962]

Consider that you may not have hit the nail on the head this time around. Not sure objectivity is the goal here. It’s probable that it’s an incredibly subjective film, but it’s just taking a position entirely outside the parameters by which we might expect it to abide.

[@noheroespublishing1907]

Being "Apolitical" and not "choosing a side" is an ideological choice towards Conservatism; not actually wanting to fix the problem, but telling everyone to just "Get Along & Grow-up", by appealing to a form of Vulgar Humanism (appealing to our common humanity without making any distinction between victim and victimized). * Harriet Beecher Stow would be astounded at such moral cowardice.

[@JimmyEatDirt]

You can make moderates sound evil if you frame your radicalism as reasonable.

[@noheroespublishing1907]

@@JimmyEatDirt Often "Radicalism" is the United States is simply basic Human Dignity, so yeah, the people who want to be "Moderate Compromisers" are fairly shitty; especially the ones wanting to compromise with the people actively taking away such dignity.

[@pepperidgefarmsremembers92]

EEPHUS

[@theleap2946]

I think most people have forgotten how to read nuance in their media. We have been spoon fed for so long we tend to forget that small revelations have huge implications. Joel is simply a frat bro, in the lens of a Stephen Crowder or Kyle Kulinski. He loves chaos and will seek whatever the most profitable route will be, which since we are to imply he is a Cuban-American, he might lean toward the conservative. How do I deduct this? He desires clicks even in a world where the clicks are disappearing. He chases way younger women and loves the guys dressed as Boogaloos at the fire fight. He makes himself the center of attention at the end and is completely desensitized. It’s Chinatown is what I would say, because much like that film, you have to pay attention to understand the full context of the words. While people say the film is hollow and lacks real messaging, I think it is the contrary. Just like with my Joel deduction, you can see plenty of reasons why the world is the way it is. The overall message is as a country, we will not be the powerhouse we think we are. California and Texas can boast all they want about their economies, but without the rest of the country bolstering them, without the water supply, human brain power, consumption of culture and most importantly, a vastly devalued currency, these states will be forced to bring the country together. Texans and Californians hate each other, but they need each other much like a villain needs his foil. Our country would not be the same if we broke apart, and we would be a weakened war and economic power. The world hasn’t gotten involved because they know better. Like roommates fighting over what type of pizza to get, keep the harmony and put the money into multiple pizzas. Of course, that is what my head would tell me. While some call it lazy, I call it rather engaging.

[@Existential8Ball]

The usual anemic springboarding works well with 'Civil War' and gives it (some) spring. Garland's unfocused flirtation with existentialist, non-material concepts leaves the burden at the audience's feet not as present in 'Civil War.' I agree 'the horrors of war' leaves room for desire, but it functions well enough to make it bounce. Sitting two people down with a basic, but unnerving, "War bad m'kay" message usually wouldn't punch... unless one of them is fantasizing about it. Only one major US party is calling for civil conflict, the GOP. It's "reality breathes the political into 'neutral' art" until we don't want it to. The child screaming monster and shrinking can work if there's actually a monster outside. I agree with most of the analysis, but I give it some credit.

[@djdoc06]

This video feels like you being disappointed that he didn’t make the specific movie that YOU wanted. I can’t agree that it would have been better to imbue the major stakeholders with specific politics. The smug tone is very off putting as well. Whatever Garland did or didn’t do right, his characters were believable and I don’t think you give him enough credit for how well observed they are. Though some of that could be attributed to the amazing actors who seem to appreciate his writing and very much want to work with him.

[@the_golden_bough8541]

I am reminded of the meme of Griswold drinking a beer in the desert and telling his son how he's a meme lord and how humanity is getting dumber, that soon he'll have to post naked women with 1-word comments. I don't know if Garland has the chops to be Kubrick. But I doubt Garland knows his audience any less than Kubrick did. There are still millions of people who think 2001 is about E.T.s, space, and a wormhole traveling astronaut. Garland, through his characters saying aloud the words of the script, literally tells you the individual factions fighting alongside each other will turn on each other a soon as they defeat D.C. and an hour later, his characters, again, literally say, "Oh, I get it. You're r-tarded. You can't understand the words I'm saying." The movie is Garland showing how journalists have both failed to be unbiased and have lost their humanity.

[@alovesodeep]

You know Alex garland isn’t from America right?

[@sigvebeyer9765]

OHHH my god thank you for this, I've been looking for this take since the movie came out. And a scandinavian journalism education made the movie such a strange watch.

[@furtsmagee1513]

This video was so up its own butt

[@johns123]

Did you see the film? These criticisms apply to the trailer, but miss the point of the film completely

[@widewatching338]

It will take time for it to CLICK to general public, and even frequent “movie-goers.” Great Film.

[@YT-Ozymandias]

Highly doubt that a dedicated film review channel would make a video without watching the film first

[@iansaint-germain7992]

I think you and a lot of other people completely missed the point of the movie which was clearly stated by garlands many interviews. This isn’t a movie about THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR, which was fought by two opposing sides with a clear good guy, but about modern civil wars, which are often fought by many opposing groups fighting against tyrany or a failing state. The ideologies of these groups are completely irrelevant, as the point is that furthering authoritarianism in this country will inevitably lead to a horrifically messy battle fought by extremists. Authoritarianism may be considered fundamentally right-wing, but groups like the Sandinistas and even the French Revolution prove that the revolutions they inspire will canibalize the old governments and become just as brutal if not more so. There are no good guys in these types of battles because everyone has blood on their hands. In addition, I think the actual civil war being fought in the background IS INTENTIONAL, as it’s not so much an anti-war movie as it is a PRO JOURNALISM MOVIE, WHICH IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR WHEN YOU CONSIDER WHO TF THE LEADS ARE. The struggle being fought in this movie is the battle between journalists humanity and their integrity, and the sacrifices they make while covering conflict. Both Lee and Sammy die while listening to their humanity and trying to intervene, whereas Joe and Jessie both lose their humanity as the story progresses for the sake of the story or shot. In the end, it doesn’t really amount to much BECAUSE it’s entirely up to their audience (and by extension, us) to interpret their work. Lees entire existential crisis is based around this issue and is clearly stated 20 minutes in. Her death CEMENTS the fact that covering these stories IS IMPORTANT given the power of journalism as she literally dies saving the next generation. Even if it seems like it doesn’t amount to much in the end, pursuing a story is still important BECAUSE it can change the hearts and minds of the audience, namely US. The reason why all the shots taken throughout the film cut from these battles because Garland is trying to impact the audience with the brutality shown on seen, the same way journalists do. Photos like the napalm girl or the ones from Kent State may have seen inconsequential at the time, but they linger in our collective consciousness BECAUSE of the power of journalism. The movie ends with a shot of the dead president being surrounded by smiling soldiers BECAUSE of how disturbing that picture would be when applied to the real world. The movie is impactful because journalism is impactful and this type of war isn’t really addressed in most war films. Vietnam, Iraq and the real Civil War have clear good guys and bad guys, whereas civil wars like the ones fought in Liberia have no heroes, only villains. I feel like you literally went into this movie with bad faith and completely ignored the obvious points it’s making just to make this smarmy ass review. I usually fuck with your content but goddamn you really didn’t try with this one at all and it really makes me question your takes and media literacy. Going in expecting a “MAGA BAD TRUMP NO GOOD MOVIE” is beyond juvenile. I don’t understand how you can be so confidently wrong while assessing this movie but it sure is impressive. I hope you’ll put on ur big boy pants for your next review and have an actual honest conversation about what you’re covering. Comparing this film to Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket just proves how off base you are and is beyond disappointing. In short, you just posted cringe my guy take this shit down and try again.

[@michael.471]

That idea of photographers not having an opinion annoys me a lot. I study journalism and the first and most important thing I was taught is that journalists cannot be neutral. That what you focus on and decide is of importance is inherently political.

[@Colin-kh6kp]

I can't believe you didn't like Annihilation, its his finest film in my opinion. One of the few films better than its source material(which was still very good)

[@asmodeusguys4472]

Banger after banger dude, dont know what to say, yt is cursed for not granting you the proper views

[@asmodeusguys4472]

@@shiven513 funny, can say the same thing about garland

[@dessi-xx3gs]

This movie gave me that vibe of that centrist meme with a bunch of klan members like “we want to kill black people” and a bunch of people on the other side like “we want civil rights” and a guy in the middle holding a sign saying “compromise?”

[@jesusramones1]

Don’t come after elevated horror

[@zambooza13]

Your review was a lot like the movie itself. Full of a lot of words and effort, but you didn't really make many points.

[@Meddling_Mage]

just finished the last of us, so this is very interesting news. a fine video, as usual!

[@ericclaptonsrobotpilot7276]

But that last half hour was worth it.

[@newscoulomb3705]

Based on the reviews I've seen, I'm really looking forward to watching Civil War. From what I've gathered, it appears that your biggest hang up in this review is believing that the main characters are "heroes," when it appears that Garland purposely placed them in the role of anti-heroes or even anti-villains. It also seems that the film itself is meant to act as a mirror for the audience, so those who found it vapid and overly simplistic might need to do a little bit self-reflection. Perhaps it does rely too heavily on the audience's being smarts who have overcome the U.S. propaganda machine, and perhaps, too, it was a mistake to market it primarily to the marks. In that way, your criticism could be valid: Those who have the most to learn from the film are those who are the least likely to understand its message. If nothing else, I expect it to offer a refreshing juxtaposition to the actually vapid, propagandistic "Leave the World Behind."

[@marocat4749]

A representation isnt bad, but its really dishonest to not have actual good war journalists who do it, because they think its giving people in a senseless conflict a voice. That people are heroes, like its good to deal with ta cynicism that often comes with sthere, but that good war journalists that do it out of duty deserve to be reppresented too. Hell test that in the journalists while some still hold on for their own reasons.

[@Jchasser]

Nice shirt, you look like you could barely throw an eephus pitch

[@blondefisk]

Read Annihilation

[@S.R.B.G.]

Just saw this movie yesterday and thought it was a letdown myself, and I went in with zero expectations. Really well made though.

[@AlexanderHernandez-sb7lq]

Love this movie though

[@andrewdiaz3529]

"To me this movie is more exploitative than war-exploitation movies, because at least those are honest about being driven by profit"

[@ohnoourtableitsbroken6527]

I see your points and agree that the politics are centrist and defeatist in their aim of not touching the politics as much as possible, by removing a fa**ist regime the country’s issues get solved may or may not have been a point he’s making. But I do think the script was tight when it comes to the characters even though it’s not groundbreaking at all, I thought it was still very entertaining and I enjoyed it.

[@johnnotrealname8168]

That almost never happens. What is more likely is infighting for a couple years.

[@ohnoourtableitsbroken6527]

@@johnnotrealname8168 ☝️🤓

[@micahtewersofficial]

I couldn't agree more. My god. the analogy of a kid screaming to get attention then shying away once he gets it = Garland

[@NelsonStJames]

You’ve earned my subscription for that “imitation crab” line alone. Good overall critique of Garland and his work.

[@andrueanderson8637]

I'm gonna have to disagree that having too high level of a view on a topic like Civil War does is a cop-out. The truth is, there is no provable objective reality. History is written by the victors. No one perspective is going to be intellectually interesting because it's going to be rooted in a necessarily limited subset of the possibilities of what might be "reality". That's why it's actually more important to tackle these issues on a "quantum" level so to speak, keeping "facts" that no one can actually confirm in a sort of "quantum superposition" in your head while grappling with the concepts. "Collapsing" the "facts" as a means to form "your opinion" is essentially equivalent to adopting a religion and, as the movie indicates, is the source of division in the US and the world.

[@filipealmeidapt]

"There is no provable objective reality" - How can we know this sentence describes reality if there's no provable objective reality?

[@andrueanderson8637]

@@filipealmeidapt As soon as you start saying "No, I KNOW what is real" you're denying innumerable other people's reality that doesn't match up with yours. Just because we THINK we understand each other when we "use the same language" doesn't mean what you and I think is actually the same or even similar when we speak and hear. In fact, if you really truly get to know someone on a deep level, you'll see this for yourself

[@filipealmeidapt]

You are absolutely right and I don't disagree with your claims in your second response. You still did not answer my first question. Believing there is an external reality outside human consciousness (or that we can be relatively certain about SOME things in the world) does NOT deny the importance of subjective experience at a personal and/or cultural level.

[@Undone545]

I agree with you the films that this takes inspiration from dont sit comfortably with each other. The undetailed reasons for the war would have fit perfectly with a child protagonist like come and see. Less so for a story where following people whos express purpose is procure and produce details on the war.

[@michaelrc6282]

this waa a brilliant film and you have absolutely no appreciation for film and crearive writing. in a world of remakes, Civil war was so refreshing to experience.

[@daninogil]

It's funny that you compare Alex Garand to Martin McDonough because i have the same problem with Ex Machina and all of McDonough (except seven psychopaths) that you kind of didn't mention. they both use stereotypes as the base for their message so anything they say about human nature is render mute. as such i hate all of the film i mention equally and think they are the worst "quality films" I've seen (three billboards especially) . except seven psychopaths which i adore because it talk just about the struggle of a writer to bring poetry to the screen the poetry by itself is beautiful and the conflict is about the struggle of balancing it with human elements, personal trauma and pandering to both the audience and the director/writer himself.

[@dustycomputer1806]

yeah i’m definitely not seeing this. an apolitical civil war is beyond my ability of suspending my disbelief

[@jatzi1526]

@@blyndblitz Why fund shit movies? Just pirate it later

[@dustycomputer1806]

@@blyndblitz i’m just gonna see challengers instead

[@xrxwearebetterthancapitalism]

​@@dustycomputer1806Challengers is my Civil War

[@tjenadonn6158]

​@@blyndblitz So is Plan 9 From Outer Space. Doesn't make it good.

[@widewatching338]

low IQ

[@6XXBANSHEEXX8]

What were your thoughts upon hearing of the 'Antifa Massacre'?

[@Revealingstorm.]

there's something off puttingly pretentious about this guy reviewing the movie

[@daymi7300]

yeah I noticed too

[@fragout9575]

So I've seen a multitude of takes on this film, from the gooberish far right fetishization being highly disappointed by NOT talking a side and lambasting liberalism of the film, (their take). To the middle of the road, "it's an apolitical stance and warning against war" take. Now, there's this cerebral take..... The list of "United States of America" dystopian president movies is long and can date back to a movie called "Gabriel over The White House". You can add in a litney of other war films and general dystopian themed films to contextualize your own personal viewpoint as well. At the end of the day, you're opinion is that, an opinion. And several people, regardless of however highbrow or lowbrow they may be, are making money off the sensationizism of this film, let's not fool ourselves into thinking otherwise. It's just a movie.... Carry On!!

[@eskybakzu712]

Reading Foucault has ruined shit like this

[@handsomeandviolent]

Devs is my favorite thing I've seen from him

[@astro4671]

wow, said literally everything i was thinking but couldn’t put into words

[@Thomas...191]

The critics high pitched as the castrao. This one seems tone deaf as well... oh dear

[@Hoosier765]

An apolitical civil war movie is waste of time and money.

[@tabletbooks4967]

So, not having seen this, but...there seems to be this argument that the movie is actually about photography, but the coveted career making final photo is from what I understand *SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS* soldiers posing with the corpse of a combatant? Like, that's a literal war crime. You can be charged as a photographer as a party in that offense. A veteran war photographer would lay this down as one of the first rules they have to follow to their pupil. Absolutely insane if that's actually the final photo.

[@vitorgross9254]

this was great, cheers from Brazil

[@clay-pixels]

Wow. I actually like some of your critiques but you really don’t seem to understand Garlands work. Civil War isn’t about war, it’s about journalism and humanity’s natural perversions.

[@plaguedoctorjamespainshe6009]

Then why create an whole fucking map with factions and promises of lore and deeper exploration of the world if that wasn't the point ?

[@clay-pixels]

@@plaguedoctorjamespainshe6009 there were no promises of lore? Literally the opposite. Listen to an interview of Garland on his intent. The map is a small Easter egg that’s seen for a second and also doesn’t give anything away.

[@yehonathan]

As always, surgical

[@shushunk00]

9:20 libs

[@TheWetCatFish]

Annihilation broke my heart - the southern reach trilogy deserves so much better

[@nbeutler1134]

So the 2nd and 3rd books are worth reading? I read Annihilation and liked it a lot but wasn’t really sure where else it needed to go knowing it was only the first volume of a trilogy.

[@TheWetCatFish]

@@nbeutler1134 I really really enjoyed the whole trilogy but I also understand why it’s a polarising read

[@SuperPal-tr3go]

Yeah I don't know why I should give a shit about any of these characters. I felt nothing for them and was bored by then talking up space while there was literal civil war going on.

[@suicune7712]

you're one of the few amazing youtube film guys, great work man

[@lucascastro2732]

100% on board. I wrote in my LB review that Civil War went for the war critique with existencial nuances of Coppola and Kubrick but landed on "Olympus Has Fallen" with a certified arthouse stamp. Another thing that bugged me is that Garland seems to mix up journalistic impartiality with outright amorality. All that moves our lead characters has little to do with the conflict at stake, which results in a progressively less interesting plot until all that is left are the bursts of gratuitous violence and pyrotechnics. While there certainly are attempts at character progression (the most evident ones are Dunst and Spaeny's conjoined arcs), they're so lazily sketched out and, like the film itself, so unconnected to the grander scheme of the armed conflict at hand that they have very little impact. Ultimately, characters are discarded, the plot is dropped and the film tries to end on an auto-parodic note, but it just feels like its trying to shade the fact that it doesn't really have anything substantive to say, or that its indignation with "all this" that it depicts is a meaningful enough of an assessment. In the end, Garland has a lot of big ideas and some very interesting ones, but - as it seems to be the case with all his films I've watched thus far - doesn't really know what to do or where to go with them. Almost as if the ideas themselves in their brute state are enough... (also, Wagner Moura is a better actor than this film does him justice, look for his work & cultural significance in Brazilian cinema.)

[@greggoat6570]

“I wrote in my Letterboxd review” Opinion discarded, thrown into the sun

[@TheAngryBirdMadeMe]

Great video as always, but your hair looks amazing!

[@lxo88]

I really appreciate this review!

[@blakemeads9225]

Thank you, you itemized my complaints with this film better than I could. Haha When I got out of the theater, I turned to my buddy and said “If you want to make a movie about wartime journalism, make a movie about wartime journalism.”

[@stephennootens916]

Well than you wouldn't ignore the other flaws with the movie like the fact that the two just reporters are never shown taken notes and not counting the one time in the begining you never see them report into their new services. Also they most likely would never just decide on their own to make road trip to interview the president without their respective editors giving them the ok. Also the one who is along for the ride to the front line would have long since been pulled from conflict reporting due to his health. And finally this an all sides American conflict and if there is one great truth it is since Vietnam the American Military knows how to control the news media. They only report what the military wants them to report.

[@johnnotrealname8168]

@@stephennootens916 That assumes the military can control them. The world is increasingly disparate so that is unlikely. Also pressure, you got embedded reporters in Iraq for example.

[@stephennootens916]

@@johnnotrealname8168 when it comes to American reports in conflicts which the American military is involved they are in a way control. There is a book Taliban Shuffle by Chicago newspaper report about her time in Afghanistan and you get a clear sense that the reports had a sort of base of operations in the capital. It has vary gonzo reporting and doesn't give you the nuts and bolts of the war but it does give a sense of what it is like for American reporters in combat zones. Side note also the us military as shocking as it sounds does not approve of war crimes and given both side largely behave and look like trained American soldiers the fact that they not only commit what are clearly war crime and in front of the press is bit of a bridge top far. Plus as general rule Americans don't shoot press people they are not the IDF.

[@johnnotrealname8168]

@@stephennootens916 Yes because people always follow rules. I am not a rabid hater of the U.S. military, quite the opposite, but they can be cruel to their enemies.

[@stephennootens916]

@@johnnotrealname8168 I have no doubt that they can be cruel but they are well trained and disciplined to go as far as the movie shows them going unless there massive break down.

[@Erosgates]

“Based communist” feels like an oxymoron hahahah

[@jmichaeldeane9966]

Im not familiar with your reviews but i have a feeling you must be disappointed quite a bit. It’s just a movie man! I hope you are also writing directly about how to solve any of the world’s countless problems and not just ripping Alex Garland to shreds. Film criticism might be a waste of your intellect.

[@daninogil]

don't worry it's 50/50 on the disappointment scale.

[@atticusv668]

I've been listening to the audiobook of Susan Sontag's 'On Photography' essays. I think it gets at why I found how this film approaches photography to be somewhat insidious. Watching Civil War, I felt like Garland almost had the bones of what Sontag was basing her essays on but with none of the meat that makes her work so relevant, even fifty years later. Her interpretation of war journalism and photography as voyeristic is really striking and I think Garland is so, so painfully close to doing something interesting with it.

[@stephentyree9296]

The vast majority of bad reviews I’ve seen for this movie are partisan people unhappy that the movie did not cater to their point of view. I guess the movie wasn’t for them.