Film Review: Civil War

Throughout his short but striking directorial filmography, Alex Garland has a way of delivering something you don’t quite expect given the setup and ideas that he presents you with at the start. Ex Machina seemed like it would be another warning about the dangers of A.I., only to turn into a whole treatise on gender dynamics. Annihilation seemed like it would be a form of alien invasion thriller only to be an examination on depression and self-destruction. Men sets itself up as a folk horror film about toxic masculinity only to…well, I’m still not entirely sure what that was, to be honest.

The same goes for his latest, and most ambitious film yet, Civil War. It presents itself as a work of speculative fiction taking place in the not-too-distant future in which the United States is engaged in a battle involving a few separatist collectives, led primarily by the Western Forces – Texas and California. The current administration is led by a President (Nick Offerman) who is in his third term, and taking a brutal stance against all the armies trying to make their way to Washington D.C., and taking as much control of the war’s narrative as he can. At one point a character mentions that journalists in D.C. are shot on sight.

What the film ends up being is more of a mood piece than a traditional action movie. Being closer to a road trip movie as we follow a group of journalists making their way to Washington D.C. There’s Lee Smith (Kirsten Dunst), Joel (Wagner Moura), Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson), and Jessie (Cailee Spaeny). Joel and Lee are attempting to go to D.C. to interview the President, and plan to drop off Sammy at the front lines in Charlottesville, Virginia while Jessie – a younger, inexperienced photographer who idolizes Lee – is just along for the ride.

The film has already garnered a lot of befuddled reactions due to its take on the titular civil war, and the infamous map that showcases the different factions in this conflict. I’m just going to spoil this one thing, if you are expecting the film to explain itself and make sense of the whole California-Texas alliance or even the cause of the war itself, I’m afraid this movie will leave you hanging. The film isn’t really speculative fiction in the traditional sense, it isn’t about the logistics behind what a modern civil war looks like or even what leads this situation to happen. It’s not really a “what would happen if there was a civil war tomorrow?” It’s mainly a thought exercise on the human cost of war, and the ethics of journalism in wartime.

In a strange, roundabout way, the film that popped into my mind more often than any war journalism movie is the Dan Gilroy film Nightcrawler. These journalists have the best of intentions – to report the truth, to showcase what most people will not see for themselves, and bear witness to the ugly underbelly of how things are done in the world. Lee has a ruthlessness in her pursuit for a great shot, one that after so many years has left her a shell of her former self. And Joel is someone who finds a sick thrill in witnessing the awesome mighty of military combat, often getting a high on the adrenaline rush that comes with putting himself in great danger. Meanwhile you have Sammy, a veteran New York Times reporter who is all too aware of the risks that come with the job, and Jessie, an absolute idealist, eager to follow in the footsteps of her heroes like Lee. But how far can she go to let go of her humanity, and should she?

The fact the film doesn’t get into the nitty-gritty of the politics will likely frustrate many, and less forgiving observers might even consider it thematic and artistic cowardice on Garland’s part. However, it’s obvious there is purpose to this. I was amused by the thought that, “wow, so this is how it must feel to people from other countries whenever Hollywood uses one of their conflicts as a backdrop?” But like with many of those movies, this backdrop is serving other thematic purposes that go beyond liberal versus conservative, which I feel would’ve been a touch reductive for a movie like this.

Of course, Garland tackling the power and truth in capturing images isn’t just a literal plot element, it very much touches on the point of storytelling and filmmaking as well, especially when it comes to films like this, particularly as someone not from the United States to begin with. There is something kind of insidious about fantasizing about a scenario in which you potentially justify brutalizing your fellow man, and I feel that’s a big reason why Garland largely avoids the overt political references. Because at the end of the day, it’s all arbitrary, nothing justifies this, nothing makes any of this OK, and anyone who seriously thinks about how a civil war would be a good thing for us is going to be in for a rude awakening if they actually got their wish. And Garland is himself wrestling with the meaning like the way some of the characters wrestle with their participation in capturing war footage.

On a technical level, the film is stellar. The cinematography from Rob Hardy brings an immediacy to the imagery that is very visceral. The score from Ben Salisbury and Geoff Barrow is very atmospheric, and the song choices are really strong and biting. Plus, the performances from the cast are stellar across the board. Dunst is delivering some of her finest work, and Spaeny brings a good energy to the proceedings, even if her character will occasionally do things that make you want to pull your hair out. The sound design in the film is standout, really immersing you in some of the action sequences. This is definitely a film to see big and loud.

Is Civil War either a masterpiece or an artistic failure – a question I’m sure some will humor as more people see the film – given everything it’s doing? I’m honestly not comfortable picking either. I’m still wrestling with some of its ideas, and the way it explores politics without getting specifically political. There’s a difference between “both sides are bad, actually” and the purposefully vague approach that Garland goes for here, but the film does make it bit of a hurdle for many viewers to not see the intent in the film’s approach. I admire what it’s doing, but it’s still a bit of a challenge for me to say whether I’m 100% all in on the way the film touches on gun culture, political division, and the horrors of imperialist violence when committed within a nation’s borders. However, for a film to get me to think about stuff like this for as long as it has been is notable. If I had to pick between “good” and “interesting,” I would always choose interesting. Civil War has a lot going on in its mind, and it’s worth digging into everything because it is a lot more compelling than the basic red states versus blue states that some were both worried and expecting this to be. I think a lot of people could use a moment like this to reflect because sometimes we really need to see this kind of ugliness or else we’d be doomed to repeat it.

Civil War is now out in theaters.