So Alex Garland's Civil War has now released in theatres, and I have many thoughts on the
director's latest film with A24. It's once again a thematically rich Garland picture,
that takes quite the unexpected approach to a potential american Civil War,
and while there are many things that I love about the film, like it's incredibly tense scenes,
its filmmaking and its central ideas, there is a weightless feel to it with the direction that
Garland went in. I have some issues with it, but I do think that it's another solid attempt from
one of my favourite filmmakers working today, and I think he's given us a masterclass in cinematic
tension. So in this video essay, I'm going to be giving you my thoughts on Alex Garland's
Civil War and why I think it's a great display of tense filmmaking, but a film that does have
flaws when it comes to its story. There will be brief spoilers in this video, so if haven't
seen the film yet, then I'd recommend watching it before checking out my review. Before I get
into it though, if you want to see more videos on upcoming theatrical releases like Civil War,
then don't forget to support this video by giving it a like rating and subscribing to
the channel. But without further a do, lets dive into my review for Alex Garland's Civil War.
So british born filmmaker Alex Garland has over the years become one of my favourite
directors and screenwritters, making deep sci-fi films and shows like Ex Machina,
Annihilation and Devs and scripting iconic pictures like 28 Days Later and Sunshine.
The only film of his to date that I haven't seen is 2022's Men, and I know that there was
a lot of backlash against that film. But of all the others which I have seen, for me, he's made
and worked on some of the greatest films of the last two decades. Civil War is his latest project,
and my reaction to it is one that is mostly positive, but there are a few things that I
think stop it from reaching the heights of his previous work. Starting with the main positives
of Civil War, one thing I love about Garland's latest film is the tense perspective that the
narrative is shown to us through. The film is generally a thrillingly dark road trip movie,
studying moments of explosive tension and dangerous misjudgment. In this alternate reality,
the film unfolds in a dystopian version of the present day where the US has splintered
into various armed factions due to a mix of authoritarian rule and secessionist movements.
Nick Offerman's president has clung to power, dismantling institutions like the FBI, bombing
cities, and targeting journalists. California and Texas have united as the Western Front, while the
Florida Alliance is another major player. Chaos reigns with smoke billowing from urban centers,
highways are blocked by wrecked cars, and violence erupts in the form of suicide bombings and death
squads. Against all of this chaos, Kirsten Dunst's Lee and Wagner Moura's Joel, both war journalists,
embark on a dangerous journey from New York City to Washington, seeking an exclusive interview with
the president. He has taken refuge in the White House while the rest of the city burns. Joining
them on their journey in a van is Cailee Spaeny's Jessie, a photographer with dreams similar to
Lee's, and Stephen McKinley Henderson's Sammy, an older journalist. To begin with,
Lee is irritated by the both of them, claiming that she thinks Jessie is too inexperienced, and
Sammy is too old. The violent roads of America's divided states are no place for either of them and
when Jessie is traumatized quite early on when she witnesses a man threatening two helpless captives,
Lee reminds her that their role is to capture moments and not to intervene. This is very much
the main critical point of the film. The idea that they take pictures so others can ask the tougher
questions. Lee's reputation as a legend in her field is partly due to her protective approach,
as she focuses on getting the perfect shot and then limits her emotion towards the brutal things
that happen in front of the camera. Jessie is under the watchful eye of Lee, but only because
her presence might hinder their progress. At one moment in the film, Jessie asks Lee, 'If
something happened to me, would you capture that moment?' And Lee replies, 'what do you think?'
Suggesting that the answer is almost certainly a yes. But while Lee limits her emotion and
responses to these situations, there is the odd moment or two where she's alone and we see that
she's caryying the emotional wounds from haunting things that she has witnessed. She looks over and
relives the terrifying images she's captured across the globe, and the film plays these
back to us to make us feel the shock of it to. So although traveling to the capital is tough ask,
Lee and her colleagues can't shake the feeling that they need to be there to cover the story,
even without a good plan to secure an interview with the president in the first place. The idea
of obtaining that groundbreaking scoop is enough to compel them to embark on
a potentially life-threatening journey. And Garland's tension-filled approach to many
scenes in the movie is what keeps the audience on board with that journey. The way Garland presents
Lee's numbness in situations is often quite vivid, and the director skillfully constructs suspense,
presenting shocking violence with the necessary horror. It mainly captivates our gaze with a
multitude of still images, showcasing brutal violence inflicted upon fellow Americans and
the haunting sight of lynched bodies along the freeways. And these images compel us to reflect
on the way we perceive them, shocking us with their visual impact. And the same can be said
about certain sequences in the film too featuring our main characters. The scene with Jesse Plemons
is for sure an absolute standout in all this, as it's really the first time they all fear for their
lives and barely escape with a photograph. Plemons is only in the film for that scene,
but his portrayal of a murdering politically driven figure who constantly asks what kind
of american they are is enough to communicate the fear that Garland wants you to feel in a situation
like this. The director often prompts viewers to reflect on the universal fear and desperation that
underpins all conflicts, and another moment that highlights this is the encounter with the sniper
duo shortly before Plemons introduction. While our photographers ask who is shooting at them,
the snipers clarify that this is not what should be focussed on. And as I highlighted before, the
movie very much delves into that with it's whole approach, trying to limit its context and emotion,
and focus on the mission or what's happening in the moment. And whether the mission is
to get the perfect shot or defeat the enemy in combat, it gives and takes to differing
amounts. I have to say that the filmmaking on display that brings these many moments to
screen is what really works about the film, and Garland is defintely in his prime when it comes
to cutting between wide and close up shots, editing a sequence to perfection and making
you feel every tense-second of a high pressure moment. The production design is also outstanding
for a $50 million film, showing us apocalypic and distopian landscapes that look completely
authentic. And the music by Ben Salisbury and Geoff Barrow perfectly complements the tense,
rebellious atmosphere portrayed on screen too. It evokes memories of classic war movies, like the
intense sound of artillery in a film like Saving Private Ryan and the disorienting journey of a
movie like Apocalypse Now. Garland essentially distinguishes his own landscape and forges a
unique direction for a modern-day combat film. But while the perspective and filmmaking on show
in Civil War is a direction that I think really succeeds in making it all feel like a tense
affair, I also think that the lengths to which Garland goes to surrounding the film's context,
could have been elevated a little further. It's evident in Civil War that Garland has delved
into a multitude of intricate concepts surrounding the potential collapse of the US and the profound
impact on war correspondents documenting the darkest aspects of humanity. But instead of
expressing nuanced perspectives on a nations instability or the crucial role journalists hold
in society, Civil War seems reluctant to convey a substantial message. Garland's script draws
inspiration from key moments in US history, but the details leading up to the Civil War's pivotal
confrontation are intentionally left vague. The film doesn't delve into details like the massacre
covered by Lee or even reveal the political party of the current president. Instead, the focus is
on how journalism can either clarify or confuse people's understanding of reality during stressful
times. Now I get what Garland was doing here, because the lack of context is really the point
of the movies perspective to begin with. But I do think a little bit more context on the sides at
war or the intense moments that Lee was involved with in the past, could have helped accelerate
the momentum and tension of everything we see on screen. Now yes, by doing that there would
be many different political reactions to the film and you would probabaly cause a crazed political
debate over everything unfolding. But honestly, I think it occasionally feels too weightless, and
the characters can seem too detached at times. Now I'm not saying that the film needs to explicitly
outline the characters political beliefs or take a definitive side in their fictional struggle. But I
think knowing a bit more about that background could have stregthened the weight that moments
in this film already had. It's a film with incredible sequences and tense situations,
but I found myself more shocked than compelled by what was happening. And to a certain degree
this approach was unique and did work, but as we reached the conclusion, I just felt too detached.
So Civil War goes beyond the idea of a war happening in the US or the sorrow of such a
possibility. It delves into our tendency to shield ourselves from the impact of images from conflicts
like this. And rather than act as a cautionary tale, it serves as a prompt for introspection,
urging us to empathize more with others. It's a weird one because I think it would have
been more effective with some added context, but I do appreciate the distinct direction it took.
But they were my thoughts on Alex Garland's Civil War movie. Overall, the film presents a
captivating exploration of journalists, capturing the essence of a society in turmoil through their
lens. While the film's perspective is unique, the filmmaking is succesfully tense and the imagery
is striking, the film doesn't quite deliver on the effectiveness of its narrative. The film is
insistent on leaving out the context behind the war, and it becomes hard to build our connection
with it. I get that this was mostly the point, but I think just a bit more could have allowed for
an even deeper study of the themes that Garland put to screen. He acknowledges the exploitative
nature of using people's images and voices for journalistic purposes. But while the film presents
thought-provoking concepts, it lacks a desire to delve into them further. As a whole though,
I did enjoy the filmmaking on show and respected the approach that was taken. I'm giving Civil
War a rating of 8 out of 10. But to those who have seen the latest movie from Alex Garland,
what were your thoughts on how the director approached the ideas he tackled. Let me know
down below in the comments section. For more videos and reviews surrounding
the latest thetrical releases like Civil War, then subscribe to the channel and turn on your
notifications. Also if you enjoyed this video remember to leave a like rating and
follow me on social media via the links in the description. But anyway, I hope you guys enjoyed
it, I've been Cortex and as always make some noise.