Alex Garland's Civil War is- Sorry About the Cliche- Painfully Real ︱Movies
By JackOnReality
Most of the time, I stay away from terms like "raw," "no-nonsense," and "painfully real" in movie reviews because they are just so overused. But for Alex Garland's new film "Civil War," I find I have no choice. If you want an example of what "painfully real" means (something writers who use the phrase would have struggled to find until now), then this is the movie to go to. Everything from the characters to the effects to the setting feels real. And that is frightening, considering that this film is about a second American civil war. But that is just what Alex Garland wants us to feel- fear. He wants us to recognize the dark side of humanity, and fear it until our fear motivates us to change it. In "Civil War," Garland plays with our divisions today, mixes them with our fears of tomorrow, and creates what will surely be one of the best movies of the year.
"Civil War" thrives in subtlety. Garland and his writers bring a "show don't tell" approach to pretty much every aspect of the film. And I think this is the biggest thing critics complain about. The characters never discuss their backstories or their beliefs. To understand them, the audience must watch the actors closely. And Garland never goes out of his way to explain the context of the war, or describe the factions involved. Instead, he hands the audience snippets of information.
The problem with this is that modern audiences expect everything to be spelled out for them. When theaters are filled by "Godzilla x Kong" and "Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire," it's a bit of a shock when a movie actually tries to make you think. But if you are one of the few people who enjoy thinking, then you will appreciate the delicacy of "Civil War."
Here is an example. From a couple brief conversations, we can discern that the President killed American citizens and dissolved the FBI. So, he isn't a great guy. But New York seems to be on his side in the war. So either New York has discarded its standards of moral correctness, or the federal forces managed to capture New York (most likely for Wall Street) during the war. From a few conversations, I have discovered a minute part of life in this Civil War. To establish a fuller picture, audiences just need to listen and think, and stop expecting movies to force-feed them information.
The premise of the film–that right-wing Texas and leftist California join forces to push back the federal government–has also riled up many critics. But in an interview, Garland explains that, in the film, the U.S. is under the rule of a fascist president, and Texas and California have put aside their differences to fight back. And if audiences can't believe that it is possible for two states to form an alliance despite sharing different political beliefs, then that says something about the state of humanity, doesn't it? What an intelligent way to attack and expose political polarization.
I also found it interesting that Garland maintained a neutral perspective throughout the story. This seemed to be an issue at first, but soon I realized it made sense. War photographers are placed in a painful situation. They have to watch as people murder each other, but can't do anything about it. When on a battlefield, the sheer death and destruction makes it impossible to take sides. All that matters to the photographs is capturing the moment. That is all they can do. I think Garland conveyed this situation by staying neutral. That is brilliant.
I mentioned earlier that an understanding of the characters depends a lot on the actors. So, do the actors deliver performances with enough presence and emotion to make the writing work? Yes. Yes, they do. Cailee Spaeny is great as Jesse, a young wannabe war photographer. Wagner Moura, Stephen McKinley Henderson, and Nick Offerman all turn in equally superb performances. But Kirsten Dunst steals the show as Lee, an experienced photographer and the main character of the story.
Dunst does not have many lines in the film, but her performance alone is enough to give us an idea of who Lee is. Lee Smith is tired of seeing war, and has lost her love of journalism. She still has a glimmer of love for life in her, but by the end, that glimmer is gone, as Smith seems to completely give up hope. Perhaps there is one line in the film that mentions these characteristics, but our understanding of Lee is mainly driven by Dunst's incredible acting. Again, "Civil War" thrives in subtlety.
Finally, my favorite part about "Civil War" might just be the effects. Every war scene feels so real and immersive. I have seen gunfire on the news before, but this film puts me right next to the gunfire. And that is a both shocking and painful experience.
"Civil War" is the best film I have seen all year. Unfortunately, it seems to be receiving a lot of negative reviews. So I urge readers to watch this film, and make up their own minds about it. Its message is one worth listening to. And yes, it is "painfully real."
