Tag: war photographer

Review: Alex Garland’s ‘Civil War’ is an Exercise in Narrative Emptiness

by Alex Billington
April 15, 2024

“What kind of American are you? You don’t know?” Now that it’s playing in theaters, Civil War is one of these movies where everyone must have a very strong Opinion™ about and make sure everyone else hears it. Every moviegoer just HAS to chime in and join the discussion. So here I am throwing my hat into the ring, so to say, with my own critical thoughts. Does it matter? Will anyone care? I doubt it, but of course I’ve got something to say about this movie. We all do. I’m joining the chorus in continuing to emphasize that I really believe Civil War is an empty movie and that’s not a good thing. Aside from the apolitical narrative of “we’re going to follow these supposedly objective war photographers” there’s really nothing else new or interesting or unique it’s saying about war. It is just another bland war movie, regurgitating every last war movie trope but setting in America this time. Thus the pertinent question becomes, “why?” Why set it in America? What is it saying about America’s might-really-happen next Civil War? Not much of anything at all, unfortunately.

First things first, I cannot say Civil War is a bad movie in regards to the filmmaking. Written & directed by British writer & director Alex Garland, and featuring cinematography from British DP Rob Hardy, this war movie is slick and thrilling. The pacing is riveting and unsettling – going from intense, harrowing scenes to quieter, more peaceful moments. Yet the rumbling of war and the threat of what might be waiting around the corner always looms. Just like every other war movie ever made… This time, however, it’s set in the very possible a-second-civil-war-is-now-underway America. Which is especially relevant & frighteningly realistic as a concept, so much so that I don’t think it’s proper or right to call this movie sci-fi. There is not much imaginative fiction in it beyond the idea that this civil war hasn’t actually happened yet. The performances especially from both leads Kirsten Dunst and Cailee Spaeny are strong and compelling, even if they are the cliche yin vs yang of experienced vs newcomer war photographers. Stephen McKinley Henderson as the wise and hardened Sammy, though, steals the show and is the only really great character in this movie.

This brings me to my primary frustrations with Civil War. It’s especially ironic to say I “enjoyed” the action in this because it seems the only coherent point that Alex Garland wants to make is that all this killing and all this awfulness of war is bad and we should not enjoy it (as we often do in other war movies) because once it comes to your own backyard it will make you want to puke, too. Such an original thought that, well, every other war movie has had, too. As I feared, Civil War is dangerously careless and unpleasant in its apolitical conceit. It’s so bitterly obvious Garland’s pitch was: “you know all those Middle East civil war journalists-go-there movies, I want to make that but set it in America” though it has nothing more to say anyway. War is bad! Yeah, we know. Your friends will die! Yeah, we know. Journalism is important! Yeah, we know. No side wins when everyone is killing each other! Yeah, we know. Every war movie trope ever + America doesn’t make it interesting. That’s what is so annoying about it… Ignoring the crucial politics of WHY war happens (*continues to happen) and thinking if you show us, for the 1000th time in cinema, that both sides are doing bad things by killing the other side, we’ll all stop fighting and prevent more wars is not helpful nor effective.

Let me make a controversial statement – it’s exceptionally naive for anyone to think that just because there’s another movie in theaters now depicting with cinematic realism how very bad and horrible and violent war always is, we’ll all prevent the next one before it begins. Really? After 100 years of other (better) war movies why are we all still ending up in more wars? Perhaps because refusing to address that “why” more honestly (and, let’s be honest, by clearly showing that there is a good and a bad side no matter what some believe) is the reason we’re still all shooting each other in the streets… Just look around right now – the war in Ukraine, the atrocities in Gaza, shootings daily in America, etc. Did any of these war movies before stop any of this? Does showing someone a war movie not make them want to fight for something in the real world that deeply matters to them? Nope. That’s why setting this in America and making it seem more relevant to those who can only be scared because it is set in America weakens the message and the entire concept. And let’s not be so foolish as to think that the journalism they’re depicting in this movie is making a real difference either. Unfortunately that era is over. When in this movie does their journalism actually make a difference? Never.

In one interview, Garland actually said that “polarization is not a good thing” is ultimately the movie’s entire message. Once again, this isn’t anything new or surprising or revealing. Alas, he refuses to grapple with the polarization, where it comes from, how it grows, etc. He never wants to dig into this topic despite making an entire movie set around Americans fighting themselves because of polarization. Once again, what is there left to consider if it’s not enjoyable to watch this action. I find it especially strange how so many people have reacted to Civil War as if it is the most horrifying war movie they’ve ever seen, which speaks to their myopic bias towards America and refusal to consider anything beyond its borders as being as important as whatever is happening in America. I can watch Come and See or Apocalypse Now or The Battle of Algiers and feel as unsettled about war not in America. Even the last few years there have been more interesting war journalist movies – Bruno Dumont’s France or Agnieszka Holland’s Mr. Jones or Matthew Heineman’s A Private War.

There are a multitude of different interpretations and reactions to Civil War and what it means and what it’s really about. Is it actually about America or just set in America? Is it about war? Is it about journalism? Is it about trying to be neutral? No matter what any of these viewers claim, it never seems to really explain why this movie is more effective or engaging than any other war movie. Nor do these reactions justify the movie’s ultimate message that is supposed to be “both sides are bad, polarization is bad, let’s not let this happen.” Showing war photographers doing their job only reminds us that they are a necessary part of covering war, not stopping war, or preventing war, because in all these centuries of humanity having books & newspapers, we still haven’t been able to stop ending up in more wars. I wish there was something more going on in here. I wish it had something more to say about America – or war, or how to prevent it. Much like his last movie Men, it’s so empty and ultimately meaningless I don’t want to discuss it further. So many other war movies have handled this better, so many other movies about war photographers have dug into this better. After a few months we’re all going to forget this movie and go back to reading real life updates on more war anyway.

Alex’s Rating: 5 out of 10
Follow Alex on Twitter – @firstshowing / Or Letterboxd – @firstshowing

Find more posts: Discuss, Review