Preconceived Notions vs Reality
At the time after the trailer for the film Civil War was released, many assumptions emerged in online communities regarding the storyline of the film. Admittedly, the promotional material relies heavily on common tropes with associations of disaster films. This is evidenced by the inclusion of one scene depicting army helicopters descending on Washington, D.C., armored tanks passing through urban streets, and the destruction of the Lincoln Memorial. Discourse on film review sites and Reddit threads revealed much concern among viewers. Many focus on the potential for the film to be deemed irresponsible, especially considering the rising tensions ahead of the upcoming election year with its glorification of violence. Vice versa, discussions on message boards frequently visited by mailing list members express different expectations. Many anticipate a heroic image of bravery fighting against a tyrannical regime that has long been feared.
Subverting Expectations
However, the assumptions proved not to match many people’s expectations and predictions accurately as is always the case in many blockbuster war films. Indeed, Civil War premiered nationally on Friday. However, it cannot be denied that a film contains a significant amount of violence; the events deviate greatly from audience expectations as extended battle sequences and computer-generated explosions are noticeably absent from the film. On the other hand, the narrative spends little time exploring government figures. Almost, the film does not delve into the complexity of the political landscape that sparked the conflict. What we need to understand is how the main antagonist in the film is not driven by any grand ideological vision. Instead, they are portrayed as rebels using their control over a war-torn environment simply to gain power.
In the Supreme Court’s serious consideration of arguments regarding the January 6 Capitol riot, Donald Trump himself faces criminal charges in a Manhattan courtroom. The unsettling juxtaposition has emerged in American cinema. All over the world, audiences were presented with a scene; that depicts a dystopian future without democracy. Composed by writer-director Alex Garland, Civil War depicts how the United States is embroiled in conflict with many rebel forces fiercely involved in an attempt to overthrow the government.
Currently, the film’s release we can’t doubt carries more weight besides being intended as a provocative thought experiment. Ideally, such an exploration could be considered more entertaining when a presidential candidate is absent due to facing 91 serious felony charges and is vying for a second term. However, the political climate demanded box office leadership. Civil War bears the responsibility of providing meaningful commentary on the state of American society.
In part, the burden is rooted in a historical truth. In real life, the Civil War became a conflict sweeping the country in the 1860s; it was not a clean battlefield experience. As Aaron Charles Sheehan-Dean (a historian at Louisiana State University) points out, much of the war’s most horrific and unnecessary violence came not from organized armies. However, those from the current group would be classified as rebels—guerilla fighters in the vernacular of the time.
Loosely speaking, organized but scattered independent actors have become historical precursors for armed militia groups to unaffiliated radical groups ready to embrace their ideology in contemporary society. Many experts warn that if political chaos occurs in the real world, the groups may be the boldest but most uncontrollable. Through its clever magic, Civil War imagines a scenario about a large-scale war. It imagines how the conflict in the film reflects the metaphorical divisions even plaguing American society as they grapple with partisan loyalties.
Civil War addresses themes such as the destructive nature of war, the destructive influence of violence, and the opportunistic behavior that emerges during societal unrest. As exemplified by the inclusion of Florida on the list, the film’s fictional separatist movement offers a thrilling experience. Even though interpretations vary depending on the viewer’s point of view, the film cleverly avoids bias. Therefore, it allows the audience to draw their conclusions. Apart from that, the film also provides a contrasting opinion that the film acts as an empty but fun spectacle of action with explosions. Critically too, the film is intended to provoke liberals into misunderstanding the main purpose of cinema. Despite numerous interpretations in a separate but related event, prospective jurors in the former president’s upcoming hush money trial were instructed this week to maintain confidentiality regarding their data to prevent jury intimidation. Therefore, real events or realism are not explored in the film’s fictional narrative.
The film opens with a jump forward to an unspecified period shortly. The United States is led by a general and strong president. Played by actor Nick Offerman, he was unconstitutionally granted a third term and abolished the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Two factions emerged in three states; each attempted to secede from the United States. One faction was a coalition between Texas and California; they were symbolized by a two-star flag and became known as the Western Front. With distinct regional identities and abundant resources, the countries formed logical alliances against common enemies. The other separatist movement is Florida; they acted independently in a manner consistent with the state’s reputation for eccentricity. Commentators have widely discussed the political anomalies in coalition countries. However, it was a deliberate but shrewd decision on Garland’s part. California and Texas both have strong regional identities and vast economic resources; which makes their alliance a practical response to a common threat.
Civil War is set in a dystopian vision of the United States that reflects our contemporary reality. Though ravaged by bloodshed, a confederation of separatist states (spearheaded by the major states of Texas and California) has been engaged in a protracted struggle against an authoritarian President desperately seeking an unprecedented third term. The tyrannical leader has disbanded the Federal Bureau of Investigation and committed physical violence against his political opponents. Although the film attempts to distance itself from overt allusions to the Trump era, the opening scene featuring Offerman delivering a typically Trumpian speech about the battle gap leaves little room for ambiguity.
Unanswered Questions and Moral Ambiguity
Despite the initial depiction of conflict taking place, the film quickly moves away from war scenes; it leaves Offerman and the broader feud largely absent from the narrative. The protagonists are not soldiers involved in the fight. Rather, it was a keen observer: a cadre of war correspondents. Among them is Lee Smith (Kirsten Dunst); she is a veteran photographer at Reuters who is exhausted from witnessing world tragedies. The intrepid journalists piled into a beat-up SUV emblazoned with “PRESS” and began the treacherous journey from New York City to Washington, D.C. with the ambition to get an interview with the President before his regime collapses. However, their search turns dangerous as they are warned how venturing into Washington is tantamount to a suicide mission; it is because journalists face the death penalty when crossing city limits.
Avoiding the battlefield (with stern warnings to avoid venturing near Philadelphia) the journalists embarked on a circuitous route through Pittsburgh, West Virginia, and finally Charlottesville, Virginia; it is the base of operations for Western Front troops. Their journey mirrors the dangerous journeys depicted in zombie films. As they traversed the eerily desolate streets, it was filled with abandoned vehicles and deserted storefronts. Every turn has the potential for unexpected danger. A group of men armed with threats occupied a gas station; they tortured their neighbors with unpredictable torture for unknown motives. Elsewhere, a pair of individuals wearing professional camouflage engage in a standoff with an unseen sniper hiding inside a deserted “winter wonderland” amusement park. A flamboyant thug wearing strange sunglasses (played by Jesse Plemons) stands guard over a dump truck filled with a large number of corpses. Although some of the armed individuals wore military attire, their allegiance was still shrouded in ambiguity. So, they do not realize the purpose of their struggle. Their motivation is driven by a thirst for power; it is a sense of selfishness or simply a desperate need to survive in a world on the brink of destruction.
The film exposes critical narrative gaps. The report failed to reveal the whereabouts and actions of the President’s supporters. There is no explanation at all about the President’s rise to power, how he ascended to the White House or the fate of the popular movement that initially pushed him to the highest office in America. Instead, it centers on a group of intrepid photojournalists led by Dunst’s charming performance as they survive their perilous journey from New York to the capital; they are determined to document the fall of Washington, D.C. political commentary leaves the audience with unanswered questions. Despite references to the “Portland Maoists,” the “Antifa massacre,” and the presence of the Western Front in Charlottesville as an allusion to the real-life white supremacists protesting in the city in 2017, the film does not provide a clear explanation of the group’s evolution fringe group.
The film’s effectiveness in conveying an anti-war message stems in part from the rebels’ lack of clearly defined ideology. Such ambiguity prevents the film from appearing too simple or moralistic. Civil War is a powerful argument against war; the audience is not intended to take sides with a particular party but rather to empathize with journalists being witnesses to the conflict.
What contributes significantly to the intensity of the film is the fact of how the narrative unfolds in an inherently comprehensible manner. Garland emphasized how the dynamics depicted in Civil War did not only occur in the United States. However, if he tried to make a similar film set in his home country, namely England, a much more complicated narrative framework would be needed to depict how citizens fall into fratricidal murder. Not to mention, the origins of the extensive weaponry. In the American context, not much explanation is needed to describe the potential for national collapse resulting from the state’s current anxiety.
The depiction of refugee camps in the film is very similar to the tent cities that have become a feature of many American cities. The paramilitary character (dressed in uniform and wearing striking red sunglasses) could easily be mistaken for a member of a right-wing extremist group. The climax of the fighting in the nation’s capital was a more intense version of the disturbing scenes we witnessed on January 6.
It’s the depiction of a more localized threat that makes Civil War so unsettling but more cringe-inducing than a political allegory. Despite its elements of both, the film critically examines the widespread fascination with violence: camouflaged individuals engage in warlord fantasies, eager journalists plunge into war zones fueled by a thirst for adrenaline, and moviegoers are willing to pay to witness the destruction of American symbols There’s a big difference between being captivated by computer-generated combat and experiencing sensations akin to explosions and gore on screen and thinking about the possibility of encountering someone like Plemons armed with an AK-47 on a deserted street. Such an encounter will force a person to grapple with his or her own identity and place in the frightening scenario. The character is very confident in his truth and does not want to submit to anyone’s power.
Conclusion
Early in the film, Lee utters the line, “Every time I survive a war zone and get a photo of it, I think I send a warning home: Don’t do this.” In the same way, Civil War serves as a stark warning. The film so closely reflects the current state of affairs in America that it eliminates the need for extensive explanations on the part of the director.
Bibliography
- Collin, R. (2024). Civil War, review: Alex Garland’s Apocalypse Now for centrists thrills at every turn. The Daily Telegraph.
- Complex, V. (2024). Civil War Review: Alex Garland’s Journey Through War’s Desolation Loses Its Way – SXSW. Deadline Hollywood.
- Dargis, M. (2024). Civil War Review: We Have Met the Enemy and It Is Us. Again. The New York Times.
- Debruge, P. (2024). Civil War Review: Alex Garland Tears America Apart, Counting on Divided Audiences to Prevent His Worst-Case Horror Show. Variety.