The film Civil War is set in a not-so-distant future in which Americans are in the depths of a brutal conflict with each other. It features bloody violence, military combat, journalists willing to risk their lives, and a tyrannical president. Yet, many audience members left the theater wondering what, if anything, writer/director Alex Garland was trying to say. Why is that?
Inarguably, Garland—whose previous works include Ex Machina, Annihilation, and Men— exhibited some of the most immersive, exhilarating, and technically brilliant filmmaking in recent memory with this film. At the same time, he made it abundantly clear that he is not that interested in using his art to communicate the viewer’s own personal politics back to them. In fact, it wouldn’t be unfair to say that the most provocative thing about Garland’s film, which promised audiences to be one of the most provocative of the year, was its lack of provocation. This somewhat surprising approach was not done by accident though. Garland wisely knew that a movie called “Civil War” which deeply examined the factors that led some Americans to secede, and established clear good guys and bad guys, probably would’ve—somehow—resulted in more eye-rolls from both sides than one that appeared to not take a strong political stance.
With Civil War, Garland actually followed a formula he has utilized in the past—he stripped down a big, complicated idea in an unexpected way and refused to provide clear answers. Did this leave some audience members feeling frustrated, perplexed, or disinterested? Yes. But, whether or not a positive opinion emerges, there is clearly a value in letting viewers decide for themselves what this film is about. In fact, it would have been unproductive to spoon-feed audiences a simple and obvious message in a film which is based upon such a complex overarching premise.
Still, given the title of this film contrasted with what and who Garland ultimately decided to focus his story on, I understand why some are wondering if he has anything insightful to say here. However, I think those critics, who were turned away by their desire to see their own politics approved in this film, missed some of his intent.
It’s easy to dismiss Civil War as a cowardly piece of storytelling due to its unwillingness to condemn those on one side of the political spectrum. But, I think there is something deeper to be found when you question why Garland chose to do this. Perhaps he felt that in order to best relay the idea that we are not communicating or understanding each other nearly enough, he needed to not fully represent either side in great detail. Or more likely, as evidenced by the fact that the main characters of Civil War are all journalists covering this fictional war and not those causing or participating in it, maybe he really was just more interested in the people who cover these events and the people who consume that coverage, rather than the events themselves.
I am legitimately curious if more people would have been receptive to this film being about the role of journalists and where the obsession with “getting the story” leads us if it just had a different title. Undeniably, Garland takes a complicated, and sometimes critical, look at modern journalists in this film. He examines the effects that can stem from their chasing of tragedy, as well as how their commitment to objectivity can actually sometimes be unfruitful. In doing so, he forces viewers to reckon with the part they play in all of this. What is it that we really are looking for from those who deliver our current event coverage? And, in an age when we can all constantly document and comment on what is going on around us, how different are we from the characters played by Kirsten Dunst, Wagner Moura, and Cailee Spaeny in this film? He may not have taken a stance on some of the things people were hoping or expecting him to, but he didn’t leave audiences with nothing to consider.
I get why people would want a film called “Civil War” to have stronger political ideas. I also get why people might feel that this film presents itself as political but chooses not to offend anyone by not actually having any politics of its own. I understand being frustrated by that. But, I think it is ungenerous to label this film as disposable or empty just because it doesn’t tackle certain issues that are prevalent in modern America. It is not a perfect film by any means, but Garland gives viewers much more to ponder than some are giving him credit for.
Rating: 3.5 out of 5
Not A Real Person Yet 