The best way to start talking about “Civil War” is to level expectations. Alex Garland‘s latest (and possibly final directorial effort) is NOT an epic war thriller. It is NOT A24‘s foray into the blockbuster space, nor is it a nonstop action thrill ride the way the marketing would have you believe. For reasons that will become clear as we get deeper into unpacking the film, this film isn’t really about war at all. At its core, it is a poisoned pen love letter to journalism, particularly photo journalism, and the moral quagmires that arise from those tasked with objectively documenting the worst events of human history.
“Civil War” is also a road trip movie, one that follows 4, one-note characters who represent a different facet of journalist mentality as they navigate a war-ravaged landscape. Each new scene is more of a vignette than a contribution to an overall narrative, purposefully punctuated by the interpretations of our protagonists as each stop captures a different side of a larger conflict.
Written and directed by Alex Garland (“Ex-Machina,” “Annihilation,” “Dredd“), “Civil War” stars Kirsten Dunst, Wagner Moura, Cailee Spaeny, and Stephen McKinley Henderson as 4 journalists documenting the civil war raging across America. Lee Smith (Dunst) is the jaded journalist, an award-winning hero in her circles who has seen so much, she feels nothing now. Joe (Moura) is her colleague, a thrill-seeking and mostly irresponsible journalist who seems to only feel alive when his life is in danger. Sammy (Henderson) is the wise old man journalist, the father like professional who is always choosing pragmatism over improvisation. And lastly there’s Jessie (Spaney) a young up and coming journalist who idolizes Smith and wants to be like her. The four of them set out on a road trip to the capitol in hopes to be the first to capture the Western Forces taking over DC as well possibly get an interview with the 3rd term president (who hasn’t been seen in 14 months). Jessie Plemons (Dunst’s real-life husband), Nick Offerman, and Sonoya Mizuno also star.
It is vital you know this ahead of time.
Spoilers be damned.
The trailer would have you believe you are sitting down for an entirely different movie, and intentional or not it will inevitably skew your viewing experience. Thankfully, due to colleagues having seen the film prior and sharing some of their thoughts with me, I was able to approach “Civil War” knowing what it really was which properly shaped my expectations.
Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean it made the film better. Like its title, “Civil War” has raised a civil war conflict inside my mind. The film approaches its politically charged subject matter with apolitical distance, which in turn fails to make any definitive statements about journalism OR politics. Garland offers almost zero commentary on his own subject, unconcerned with giving viewers any kind of intention and forcing us to imprint our own politics and views onto a blank canvas. It is all but impossible not to start asking unanswered questions that feel as though there should be something said about them. It is not about right vs left, libs vs conservatives, even democracy vs tyranny. And yet, by exaggerating the divisive political landscape of today and using it as the backdrop while simultaneously refusing to engage with it forces YOU to chose a side based on who you are in the present and how you view the world right now.
This is a stark contrast from “Civil War’s” apparent true intentions, which is to highlight the moral ambiguity of journalists. It begs the question, if you didn’t want us to think of this film as being about our current state but rather what it takes to be a journalist, why choose this setting in the first place? If you genuinely have nothing to say about civil war in America in a movie called “Civil War,” then why do it at all? Garland has always been a filmmaker with complex intentions, and A24 thrives with his kind of filmmaking style. I really enjoy Garland’s filmography. Hell, I’m one of the few people that gave a positive review to “Men,” so my rather harsh analysis of this film is just as surprising to me as it may be to you. Here, I feel Garland is unable to truly communicate what he wants to say by saying nothing at all. This film is a voiceless void of visceral visuals, a film constantly at odds with how well it is made juxtaposed by how disengaged it is from its own narrative.
One could argue that this framework is meant to demonstrate a deeper layer of how a journalist would view a dystopian American conflict, but the unanswered questions detract from these themes rather than enhance them. “Civil War” would but vastly improved by just dropping our protagonists into an unnamed conflict in a made up country. If you’re not going say anything about a world that is clearly inspired by current events, then just abandon them altogether so we can focus on the real story. Because even if you wanted it to be an anti-war movie or a cautionary tale about what could happen if we head down this path or looking back at the last 8 years and satirizing them, “Civil War“would require you to at the very least address the conflict in some way. Instead, we are given nothing. It is the audience imbuing the material with their own ideas instead of Garland’s ideas being shared with the audience to interpret. That’s not even ambiguity, that is just an outright refusal to say anything about your own film.
And for all its posturing and potential anti-war reads and wanting to examine journalism in a grounded way, “Civil War” exists in the same world as “20 Days in Mariupol,” a film that does everything Garland thinks he’s doing and saying but for real and better. I understand that fiction and documentary don’t necessarily overlap, but because the former is so lacking in its intention it becomes impossible not to draw comparisons. “Mariupol” may be one of the most disturbing films I’ve ever seen, but it is able to communicate everything “Civil War” thinks it’s trying to say about war and journalism, and this really hinders its overall effectiveness. This is where the craft and performances come in, because both are impeccable. Minus a few rage inducing scenes in the final moments that are blocked so poorly it feels like bad community theater, “Civil War” is a tense visual feast elevated by a terrific cast. Though thematically void, each encounter along the road is packed with tension and beautifully captured shots. I’m still not sure why Garland chose photo journalism instead of video and digital journalism, but I think we’ve established his choices aren’t the best in “Civil War” so I’ll let that dated nitpick slide.
The photos captured as our characters brazenly rush towards danger to get the shot are the best parts of “Civil War.” Dunst is delivering some of her best work, serving us all a big bowl of reminder that she’s been here and can do this very well when she wants to in case we forget. Moura andSpaeny are both great even if there paper thin character outlines hold them back slightly. The cast of “Civil War” are good enough to distract you from the previous issues discussed at length most of the time. Yes, Plemons is a scene stealer for the 5 minutes of screen time he gets. It isn’t just the best scene in “Civil War,” it just may be one of the best scenes of the year. That boy is GOOD.
Rob Hardy’s (“Mission Impossible – Fallout“) cinematography is gripping and vibrant, instilling the film with the much needed tension to want to continue following this ragtag group of journalists through a war torn country. Even for all its faults, the third act of “Civil War” is so gripping and tense and well shot the narrative criticisms almost melt away entirely.
Almost, but not quite. For all its tension, stellar performances, and beautifully arresting imagery, it just can’t escape its detrimental neutrality. Something as simple as setting the film in Wakandonia or whatever immediately changes the entirety of the film and sheds the burning questions and personal world views we bring with us to the theater. Whatever you wanted to say about war and journalism can now be understood because we aren’t blinded by our ideals, and we immediately stop wondering how the hell California and Texas are partnered together in a military coup. That question is never answered, because Garland doesn’t seem to care about it in the first place. We wouldn’t question it if it didn’t exist, but because it does and he expects us to just accept it and move on, we can’t. We’re now stuck on things that shouldn’t matter but do because they’re included. If this film is inspired by current events that has no interest in those inspirations, it leaves us asking why for the wrong reasons.
The final fix is strangely….time; the removal of our current time and a viewing with hindsight strips it of its distracting unanswered questions and let’s the film breath a little bit more. If in 5 years America doesn’t descend into civil war and we are almost a decade removed from Jan 6th and Donald Trump and all of the real world controversies that clearly sparked this film, “Civil War” is better. It requires some distance to align with the distance of its filmmaker, and becomes easier to tell ourselves this is a made up country instead of constantly trying to figure how this is an exaggeration of the one we know.
“Civil War” is both a bad film and a great one, a film fighting with itself at all times and not always for the right reasons. There are probably some better reads and takes of the film that maybe capture Garland’s true heart, but for me I just don’t think the text is rich enough to truly extrapolate those ideas, and I don’t think they’re on the page with intention. Not for nothing though, it does beg discussion and even if it doesn’t have much to say for itself becomes impossible to not have a lot to say about it with others. This will probably have a revisionist resurgence 5-10 years from now, once it’s had time to either manifest into reality or drift off into a less relevant and personal fantasy. For now it is a film stuck in its own time, unable to capture the meaning of the moment in its still images.
And yeah- give me Plemons in everything.
Rating: 3 out of 5 Stars
“Civil War” is now playing in theaters. You can watch the trailer below.
