Alex Garland is a writer I’ve admired for a long time, as his writing always takes interesting approaches to a concept or tells a message in a particularly unique way. This doesn’t always work for me (Men wasn’t a bad film, but it was one that didn’t so much have a point as beat you over the head with it) but, upon hearing the concept for his new film Civil War, I couldn’t help looking forward to it.
Civil War is set in a nondescript time in a hypothetical, future version of America. An authoritarian president is in charge for a third term and the only thing we know going into the film is that some American states are against his rule, hence the civil war. You honestly aren’t given much more to go off in the set up for the film which, for me, makes it all the more impactful.
You see, there’s been a common misconception about this film that I find fascinating. It seems that quite a lot of people going into the cinema were expecting either a lampooning of Democrats or Republicans or, at the very least, the film to choose a side between the two. In interviews, Garland has stated that it isn’t a “political” film. This has angered some who have accused Garland of not “picking a side.” This, however, misses the entire point of the film.
When Garland says that it isn’t a political film, what he means is that he doesn’t care about Republicans or Democrats within the fictional space of this story. At no point in the film do any of the main characters declare themselves as supporting either political party. This shows that the film doesn’t want to get bogged down in Partisan politics – it has broader, far-reaching subjects that it wants to discuss and it’s clear Garland didn’t want to put off a huge chunk of his audience by having the narrative fall on either side of the line.
Let’s talk about the story a bit more: Lee Smith (Kirsten Dunst) is a renowned war photographer who saves Jessie Cullen (Cailee Spaeny) from a suicide bombing. Cullen also wants to be a war photographer; a subject that Smith is particularly blunt about. Smith and her colleague Joel (Wagner Moura) want to drive to Washington to interview the president about the state of the war. The day after Lee saved her, Cullen and Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson) end up joining them on a potentially dangerous journey through a country perilously close to self-destruction.
Now, it’s a fair comment to wonder, if the politics have largely been removed from Civil War, what exactly do you have left? What is Garland trying to say? The beautiful thing about interpretation is that everyone has an opinion. Having seen the film and really enjoyed it, here’s my breakdown of what exactly Garland is saying:
- The perils of war – Think of all of the great war films. Often with them, a lot of the storytelling comes from haunting and shocking imagery that truly highlights the perils of war. Civil War is no different. By removing the political aspect, the narrative is able to focus on the people who are dying from the war. We see people set on fire, people shot, in one horrific scene, there is a pit of dead bodies. It puts the political bullshit aside to say “Look at what is happening here. Look at how awful this is.” It forces you to look and, in that, truly consider the events that are unfolding.
- The desensitisation to violence – One of my favourite aspects of the movie is that Kirsten Dunst and Cailee Spaeny’s characters are photo journalists. Why? Because we see them reckon with the violent actions of this war. Particularly through Dunst’s nuanced, world-weary performance, we see someone who has become desensitised to the violence around her. She sees the world as she has to; as a series of photographs that need to be taken. In a way, she represents us because we are all spectators to violence. Think of how we turn on the news and are able to be so detached from the violence and horror on display. We have to be because it’s how we survive. It’s the same with Dunst’s character. It reinforces the neutrality of the film because a photo journalist isn’t interested in sides. It also asks if we, like her, would just be spectators to the violence happening.
- There is no victory – Without spoiling the end of the film, there isn’t really a “victory” for either side, or at least the film doesn’t dress it as such. There are no fist bumps, no cheering, no victory parades. The events are brilliantly directed but there is no feeling of catharsis at the end of it. It doesn’t pretend that either side really wins because the film isn’t interested in who wins. It doesn’t pander to our sensibilities; it doesn’t turn to us and tell us whether something is “good or bad.” It simply shows us the events that unfold and then abruptly ends.
Garland has written and directed an excellent film here. Whilst, of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion, it seems baffling to me that people aren’t seeing the point of the film. Civil War is a cautionary tale – an angry, frustrated howl at the current state of the modern world and the absolutes some of us live by. By washing away the politics, it becomes a universal tale; one about the state of humanity, as a whole.
This is shown in a haunting scene involving Jesse Plemons. He plays a nameless man and asks every cast member if they’re from America. To him, there is only one right answer. He summarises the entire film and the reason for its very existence. To be so totalitarian, so set in your ways, so adamant in your own beliefs is, to Garland, how you end up in this mess. It may not be political, but it does have a message. It is: we need to make sure this isn’t our future.
faultycharacters 