Civil War

Civil War

Released April 14, 2024

Written and Directed by Alex Garland

* No Spoilers - but some discussion of techniques used at the end of the movie *

Alex Garland’s Civil War is more prediction than fiction, as it follows a group of journalists on a road trip tour through the formerly “United” States of America. Unlike the name might imply, this is not a blockbuster action film glamourizing war and using devastation as spectacle. On the contrary Civil War is a multifaceted and pointed critique of society’s penchant for consuming war as a source of titalation and entertainment. 

Set in an alternate present where various factions are vying are for control, yet the audience is given little information about why. Aside from a few brief throwaway lines about an unprecedented third Presidential term or the dissolution of certain Federal institutions, we don’t actually know what each side stands for. I was curious to know more, but the story is all the better to omit those details as it furthers it’s critique of our desire to be constantly fed political drama. Garland himself described the film as an argument of implication. He clearly does not want to promote any particular stance because the message of the film goes beyond party politics. It doesn’t matter which side is right or wrong or whom you favour, it’s about how conflict is served to us and how we crave to consume it.  As a photographer in the film puts it, “we don’t ask, we record so other people can ask”. We the audience are expected to engage in a dialogue about what the movie depicts. 

The plot follows a group of journalists at various levels of experience covering the ongoing war. While we get our fair share of bullets and explosions, it’s more subdued and mundane in it’s depiction of violence. Not everything is bombs and rubble. A lot of the country appears fine, with characters expressing their desire to conveniently ignore what’s going on. We don’t see many decimated cities or crumbling buildings, but rather a nation whose social fabric has been ripped apart. What’s most powerful about Civil War is how little separation there is between this fiction and the current reality. America seems dangerously close to becoming something that looks like this movie. The current facade of the “United” States serves as a necessary prologue to this film. Garland’s themes are timeless but they hit deeper because of the current context. This story would be far more shocking if it were released 15 years ago and I fear in another 15 years we might look back at it as historical fiction. 

The road trip format is perfect for building the world and its context in subtle ways. Each stop or setback serves as a small glimpse into that part of the country, the greater conflict, and on a larger scale the themes of the story. There’s loads of environmental storytelling, where just driving past a building can open up a world of questions. Brief lines about the cost of a sandwich and the value of Canadian currency are rich with lore and tell the audience so much.

Garland sets up multiple story threads and his ability to foreshadow is impressive. Giving the necessary hints to create a sense of dread but also being subtle enough to not be in your face. I have only seen the film once but expect that a second viewing would make this even better. Although it’s not an experience I want to jump into again right away, not because it’s bad but because it does such a great job of creating an atmosphere of discomfort. 

When violence and death are shown they aren’t presented with excess melodrama, nor are they modestly implied off screen. They are depicted with a clinical impartiality that makes it all the more chilling. Combat is frightening, loud, and overwhelming, but rarely heroic. It’s raw and the direction at times feels almost too real. Seeing violence documented with the dispassionate lens of realism makes it feel inconsequential. I’ve never seen a mass grave or injured soldiers portrayed so painfully flat. It feels odd and off putting in the most disturbing of ways. 

Like his previous films, Annihilation or Ex Machina, Garland shows his expertise at building tension. The film has an ever present quiet dread. Characters are constantly cautious because no situation, no matter how simple, is truly safe. I felt an underlying distrust of every character and the movie even maintains ambiguity with our lead character’s morality. All of this is done with limited dialogue. No one tells you what to be worried about, you are shown an open door or a stopped vehicle and through the music and cinematography it is implied that something is wrong.

The four main characters are all journalists. Each is at a different stage in their career, and representing a unique perspective on their work and thus the greater themes of the movie. There is a strong commentary on the war photographer as a bystander, an observer who is not participating in the violence but is still present. Through them we are forced to ask what witnessing and documenting these moments of horror does to a person. Can we maintain a conscience? Is there an obligation to intervene or do we sit idle as silent bystanders? If the later, does that then make them (and us) complicit? Or is it just part of their duty to convey what they see to the public? Regardless of why, the greater question is how far one might go to get “the shot”.

Cailee Spaeny (Priscilla) plays Jessie Cullen, an aspiring amateur photographer. She is the audience’s surrogate and like her we are woefully unprepared for the world we are stepping into. She is thrown into the action and through her we experience both the horrors and adrenaline of war. At times her character is frozen by fear but also wishing to prove to herself as a journalist. That internal tension makes her character so fascinating. Spaeny plays both of these forces so well, feeling vulnerable while simultaneously embodying a burning resolve to succeed. 

Kirsten Dunst (The Power of the Dog) plays Lee Smith, an experienced war photographer who is famous for her work overseas. She is hardened, burned out, and a bit jaded. Though detached and dispassionate she shows a pained concern for Jessie, who looks up to her with an undeserved adoration. Lee clearly sees her younger self in Jessie and worries for what this career might do to her. Dunst is great casting and if you haven’t seen her recent work you might be surprised by how well suited she is for the role. She embodies a broken and traumatized woman who has seen too much. Dunst conveys a sense of solemn defeat after seeing the same cautionary tales from across the globe become a reality in her own country. 

Sammy, played by Stephen McKinley Henderson (Dune: Part One), is the veteran of the group and a mentor to Lee. Few actors can embody wholesome with a darker edge like Henderson. As the seasoned elder, he adds an experienced caution to every interaction. Even the most maverick journalists with the best of intentions have editors and an audiences to please. It’s the classic case of an idealist who must give up some of their convictions because it’s just part of playing the game. 

Wagner Moura (Narcos) plays Joel, a reporter from Reuters who is also a colleague of Lee’s. Unlike her, Joel exudes a giddy excitement at the idea of chasing a soundbite and craves getting closer to the action for the sake of the story. I love how Moura captures Joel’s desire for the adrenaline rush of combat. He represents our sick and voyeuristic lust for violence. Joel doesn’t feel broken like Lee, nor does he have the wise caution of Sammy. His character is full of mystery bubbling beneath the surface. It’s never overtly explained but so much is expressed with subtext and implication. Through subtle glances and expressions, we are left with an intriguing and troublesome tension for his character. 

On a technical level the presentation of this movie is incredible. Every sequence is unique in its aesthetic and takes advantage of camera placement as a storytelling device. Whether putting you inside of a crowd, overwhelmed and claustrophobic, or seeing an approaching vehicle through the rear view to induce anxiety. Garland’s aesthetic direction is one of the highlights of the movie. I particularly liked how much the movie played with shallow depths of field and switching focus to rack rapidly from background to foreground. One of the most visually striking scenes takes place as the character slowly drive past a burning forest.  The bright orange glow of the flame was haunting and the bokeh effect on the floating embers was incredible. A later scene also plays with the bokeh effect when two characters are sitting on a bench by the water. The bright sunlight causes the water to shimmer and each glint of light expands because of the bokeh effect. These moments where we stop and see little details in nature are powerful, blurring out the surroundings and finding a small glimpse of beauty in an otherwise broken world.

Action scenes are frightening mainly because of the varied and well crafted sound design. Bullets and explosions aren’t just a mess of loudness, they are distinct and clear and the silence before and after a gunshot made everything more intense. Similarly whenever the movie stops to show a photograph one of the characters took, we hear the sharp click of the shutter and then silence, right before jumping back into the action. Like the photographers themselves, the audience is trapped in that single moment, transfixed in the instant being immortalized. The music was intense. The quieter scenes were accompanied by ominous bells and eerie wind instruments. On the other hand some of the more harrowing scenes were devoid of all sound effects. Leaving only tense off-key strings and blaring guitar riffs as we see the pained faces of characters screaming in anguish.

Civil War depicts the horrors America has imposed on the rest of the world brought home by it’s own people. The violence and chaos is a cinematic manifestation of “the chickens coming home to roost”. It doesn’t take on a particular partisan perspective but it does show where a divided nation could end up. I won’t spoil the ending but so many of the themes come to a climax in a series of incredible photographs that depict  heroism, disappointment, and death. The conclusion served as a powerful exclamation point recontextualizing everything that came before. A final photograph fades into view showing the macabre triumph, and I couldn’t help but ask how many times we’ve seen America do this to the rest of the world. 

9/10 - A scathing and tense critique the media’s role in covering war and conflict, and our desire to consume it. Stellar direction and amazing technical execution elevate this to another level. A powerful and poignant story that may take on a whole different meaning in the coming future. Though it has its fair share of explosions and gunfire, this isn’t an action blockbuster as some of the marketing may have you think, so adjust your expectations accordingly.