Movie Review: Civil War

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Alex Garland's Civil War would be a lightning rod for discourse and a wide array of impassioned reactions. As any cinephile that's immersed in the current movie climate would tell you, Garland's films are always magnets for strong opinions, so naturally his take on a dystopian near future where the United States is involved in their second civil war would elevate this phenomenon to soaring new heights. 

Even if a less polarizing filmmaker were to take this on, people were bound to go into and come out of this film with some violently strong feelings. The prospect of a civil war breaking out in the United States isn't all that far-fetched in a political climate where the right wing is openly fascist, the left wing doesn't seem interested in doing anything about the rise of violent extremism among the right and the overwhelming majority of people living in the country have seen their quality of life decrease considerably over the past decade or so as both sides fail to pass any legislation that doesn't further attack whatever rights they have left or help corporations/the ultrawealthy further line their pockets while the world crumbles around them. Choosing to enter such a high-profile, daunting political octagon takes a real sense of conviction and willingness to take huge risks-which tracks since Garland has established himself as a filmmaker who isn't afraid to roll the dice. For me at least, Garland's journey into the pressure cooker of American politics proved to be a pretty big success.  

What will make or break Civil War for many viewers is how Garland chooses to frame the titular conflict. The film follows four journalists (Kristen Dunst, Wagner Moura, Cailee Spaeny, Stephen McKinley Henderson) as they make the drive from New York City to Washington DC with the intention of interviewing the president of the United States (Nick Offermann) before the successionist movement led by the Western Forces of Texas and California-who are gathered at a military base in Charlottesville, Virginia-launch an attack on DC on July 4th. No significant explanations are given as to why the successionist movement took place/what their political goals are, how the president went to serve a 3rd term, etc. Instead, Garland elects to drop you in the middle of an ongoing military conflict and lets you draw your own conclusions based on what the journalists capture and experience during their harrowing journey down the East Coast. While this lack of context and thorough examination of the motivations behind such a brutal conflict will prove to be maddening for some, I found Garland's decision to tell a story of a war through the sights and sounds of the battlefield to be deeply unnerving and more insightful than it likely would've been if it had focused more on the origins of the conflict.      

The thing about warfare that seemingly gets glossed over when its being discussed is that the why isn't all that important while the bullets and bombs are flying. Widespread destruction and the constant threat of violence and/or displacement are the new normal for the people living in the affected areas and everyday becomes a harrowing fight for survival. 

Think about what living in that kind of environment does to the human psyche. In some, it will unlock a greater level of empathy and compassion for their fellow man. For others, it will cause them to revert to their animalistic tendencies where the only thing that matters is the thrill of the hunt and protecting their life and resources by any means necessary. Finally, you have the journalists who elect to run towards the violence in the name of reporting the facts to the people, an obsession to "get" the story, seeking out a sadistic thrill in order to feel alive or some combination of the three. 

Over the course of the film, Garland shows us how this environment breeds all of these things and more. Unlikely heroes are made. Unspeakable atrocities are committed in the name of country, liberty or simply what the person pulling the trigger or hitting the button believes is right. Action or inaction often triumphs over emotion. It's really a striking encapsulation of the unwavering fluidity of morality, all the great and awful shit humans are capable of doing when their lives are at risk and the pointless cruelty that the whole charade of war causes. Using the framing device of a road trip provides an organic way to see how our protagonists react when they're confronted with a string of different situations with people who've been impacted by the conflict in radically different ways and by the time film has reached its conclusion, it's stunning to reflect on not only what they've seen, but how many sides of them we've seen over the course of a handful of days. If the narrative were less ambiguous, I'm not sure we would've gotten a film that was so richly detailed in its depiction of a modern American warzone and got such nuanced performances from the exceptional primary cast who see their long-held philosophies challenged during this harrowing trip.                   

Another fascinating element of Civil War is how it examines just how many people choose to sit by idly while destruction and death ravages parts of the country. It's alluded to several times in the dialogue and through one particularly disarming scene in the second act where the journalists stop in a small town that has seemingly been completely untouched by the combat that there are people just kind of sitting on the sidelines while this civil war happens. This is an incredible depiction of a belief I've long had: People in the United States do not give a shit about problems that don't get in the way of them living their day-to-day lives. Rugged individualism is a core value of this country (and most others for that matter) whether we like to admit it or not, so of course the people in the places where there's not corpses, charred vehicles and decimated roads as far as the eye can see aren't invested in the lives of the people who died there or those that have to continue to live in those conditions. The devaluing of human life is a key part of any war campaign and until that belief stops being instilled so strongly during times of peace; these vicious cycles of violence will never stop.

As for the actual moments of combat depicted in Civil War, they serve as this kind of dread-filled finale to the relentlessly disturbing house of horrors Garland is taking the viewer through as each war sequence is designed to be a super visceral, unexpected burst of violence. Every round of gunfire and explosion hits like a shock to system (the sound design does an outstanding job of making these things sound horrific). The ugliness and brute force that the loss of life causes is felt to the fullest extent. Even when a "victory" has been declared, the only emotion being conjured up is the repulsion stemming from all the senseless, horrific acts of violence that were just committed. In terms of conveying an anti-war message through action, few films have done it with more unsettling force and potency than Civil War.        

Civil War is a film that demands to be chewed on and will be interpreted a million different ways depending on the individual's perspective. As nauseating as some of the discourse has already proven to be, it's great that a film operates in enough shades of gray to provide so many varying reads on its themes and messaging. Garland was the perfect creative to deliver such a divisive film that operates in such a tricky space, and I urge people to check this movie out to reach their own conclusions instead of just reading a couple of takes about it online and treating them as gospel.                                              

Grade: B+