This may be off the mark but what struck me from reading this piece was that perhaps the issue is that people are losing the ability to be nuanced. It seems to me that the prevailing attitude everywhere is that everything is black and white. You need to pick a side on every issue and depending on your outlook, one side is entirely right and one side is entirely wrong. For that reason I suspect many people dislike narratives where clear lines are not drawn and all characters are human and flawed. However, based on your description alone (I have not seen the film), I am slightly flummoxed that reviewers have failed to see where Garland has set out his stall.
You nailed a lot of points right on the head! I dug the hell out of the movie, while my lady said, "It was fine."
What I liked about it is, we're following Journalists, and journalists should be impartial and I felt the film itself was impartial. It just showed us this world that these people inhabit and the way they navigate this world. My favorite films are those that act like photographs, little moments in time. So where these moments and these people. It's art, you know?
And maybe it's because I just watched ALL ABOUT EVE for the very first time this week, but I got a real sense that Jessie was an Eve type character. She's moving in on Lee's world. She wants to become Lee. She wants to learn at her feet, and work to maybe not "Take over" Lee's life, but emulate that life. I love movies that take these two narratives and marry them together.
This was a character piece as well as being a portrait of the potential world to come. Even The United States is a character in this.
Really well done, and what a great essay on a damn fine film.
This was brilliant, Cole. I had the same reaction you did (to both the film, and the weird criticism of it), but struggled to put it into words. Thank you.
This film is very frightening and it is absolutely a warning, the same way "Leave The World Behind" is a warning, though I think "Civil War," is a much better film because it isn't telling us how or what to think (which the other film does via lecturing us). I don't think Garland went far enough with this film though. Many of the foreign lands that have devolved into civil wars in the 20th century did not happen on their own. They happened because the US or Europe or one of either of the two's allies meddled in the course of those countries' development or their stability. There's a line in "Civil War" when the journalists are either at the hotel before the road trip or just starting out on the road trip. It is about the president disbanding the FBI. I noted this. I know we're automatically going to make a connection to this movie and our current political situation. I believe Garland was looking at something deeper than politics that exists in the psyche of America. It's what Philip Roth called "The indigenous American berserk." This is a frenzied energy that can attack from the right or the left (and it seems like it may be attacking from both in our era - but in the film that wasn't very clear and I think that is why people are critical of it - but they shouldn't be). It is a madness that whips through our nation via our puritanical roots. It's why art is no longer allowed to just be art, films have to be agitprop or they are worthless (or they are viewed suspiciously or ignored). "Civil War" is what you come to when the berzerk is not contained. If this culture goes south economically (because a collapse of our economy at this fragile time could have people in the streets fighting each other and fighting the police). Anyway, I think Garland captured the terror of it effectively. I nearly walked out of the theater during the scene with the militia men (Jesse Plemmons) almost murdering everyone on sight. I was very afraid. I think Garland set out to make us afraid and he succeeded.
Excellent piece, Cole — Thanks. I saw Civil War earlier this week and found it riveting and extremely affecting. I was buzzing on the way home and woke up thinking about it the morning after. It's a powerful, chilling film and one that made me think about many things. I appreciated it and have recommended it to my friends. Photography people, in particular, will be interested. But it's a picture that everyone should see. Looking forward to reading more of your posts.
Great points Cole! I've not seen the film yet and have been reluctant to do so because of, yes, how uncomfortable it might make me feel. I think you make some really interesting observations though about cinema, what Hollywood gives us, and how we have to ride with a film based on the filmmaker's intentions not our expectations. When I asked the film majors I teach how many of them saw the film after the first weekend, only one out of 25 raised their hands. The rest did not seem interested in the film at all. Perhaps the idea of war scares them or, more likely, most are still trying to get past seeing films that aren't action-oriented superhero focused or horror based. However, you've outlined some good reasons why they (and I) might really need to see this.
I have so much to say, but I’ll start with it seems that Chang was disappointed that Garland was not ‘world building’ enough, vis a vis, where is the franchise potential…? Maybe not so directly, but his criticism of the lack of post-script to the plot reveals the shallow depth of his creative inquiry. It’s a way of thinking and looking at cinema that is, indeed, frightening. Made more so by the fact that he doesn’t see it.
I learned how to write film and TV by watching film and TV. The guides you mention focus on how the structure of a script is to be built and maintained as a document- they say very little about how to produce them with substance. For that you have to actually look at the work of the real experts- who are NOT studio executives...
This is really on point. I've noticed for a long time now the style of criticism that can only be described as the "how I would've done it" model. Where did this trend come from? Is it just good old-fashioned entitlement, or are people so warped by their political allegiances now that they need and want every form of media and expression out in the world to mirror their own worldview back to them? It's fucking gross. And it is actually the opposite of what good art ought to do
haven't seen the movie yet, but from what i've read, it seems the point of the movie is much the same as Peter Capaldi's tirade in Doctor Who:
“When you fire that first shot, no matter how right you feel, you have no idea who's going to die. You don't know whose children are going to scream and burn. How many hearts will be broken! How many lives shattered! How much blood will spill until everybody does what they're always going to have to do from the very beginning -- sit down and talk! Listen to me, listen. I just -- I just want you to think. Do you know what thinking is? It's just a fancy word for changing your mind.”
i think Garland is saying, be careful what you wish for, and chill the fuck out, and talk
I think a good story let's you work things out and isn't obliged to give you all the answers. In real life we aren't given all the answers packed up in a tidy denouement. I haven't seen Civil War yet. Long story short is that I've been picking up on the brewing potential for Civil War here in the US since 2016 and it's been nerve wracking. My family also left Iran during the onset of 1979 Iranian revolution. We were there because my dad was hired by Bell Helicopter as a flight instructor. Anyway, my radar has been on alert for awhile and when I saw the preview for Civil War, something felt too real about it. I guess I need to get my courage up and watch it. I think part of American exceptionalism is the flaw of thinking "it could never happen here". I hope it never does.
Cole Haddon, I love this piece. You are right: Garland’s take on things is all there, beautifully revealed, without the heavy-handed exposition that, yes, we screenwriters are supposed to avoid at all costs. (Does it need to be mentioned here that Alex Garland makes movies and writes novels? He’s a storyteller, not a political philosopher.)
Civil War is about what happens to tyrants, and it’s ugly. Maybe the title itself has confused some of those reviewers: when tyrants like Ceaușescu (whose name is dropped in Civil War, as I recall) are overthrown by force, we don’t generally refer to that as a “civil war”; we’re more likely to use a word like “revolution.”
The action in the movie Civil War is the military overthrow of a tyrant. And yes, he is executed and yes, the soldiers responsible pose with the body. It is ugly for sure, but at least they don’t carry his head around on a pike.
Let’s hope that our real world doesn’t travel the same path as Garland’s fictional one. But if our world does travel down that path, let’s hope the dramatic arc of our real-world tyrant culminates in the same climax as the fictional tyrant in Civil War, who meets his end in a White House that he has converted into a Führerbunker.
Uncomfortable can be good but it’s not the only feeling you should have. You have to watch out for self-fulfilling prophecies. A popular idea gets in people’s heads and they might see the world a specific way.
This may be off the mark but what struck me from reading this piece was that perhaps the issue is that people are losing the ability to be nuanced. It seems to me that the prevailing attitude everywhere is that everything is black and white. You need to pick a side on every issue and depending on your outlook, one side is entirely right and one side is entirely wrong. For that reason I suspect many people dislike narratives where clear lines are not drawn and all characters are human and flawed. However, based on your description alone (I have not seen the film), I am slightly flummoxed that reviewers have failed to see where Garland has set out his stall.
You nailed a lot of points right on the head! I dug the hell out of the movie, while my lady said, "It was fine."
What I liked about it is, we're following Journalists, and journalists should be impartial and I felt the film itself was impartial. It just showed us this world that these people inhabit and the way they navigate this world. My favorite films are those that act like photographs, little moments in time. So where these moments and these people. It's art, you know?
And maybe it's because I just watched ALL ABOUT EVE for the very first time this week, but I got a real sense that Jessie was an Eve type character. She's moving in on Lee's world. She wants to become Lee. She wants to learn at her feet, and work to maybe not "Take over" Lee's life, but emulate that life. I love movies that take these two narratives and marry them together.
This was a character piece as well as being a portrait of the potential world to come. Even The United States is a character in this.
Really well done, and what a great essay on a damn fine film.
This was brilliant, Cole. I had the same reaction you did (to both the film, and the weird criticism of it), but struggled to put it into words. Thank you.
This film is very frightening and it is absolutely a warning, the same way "Leave The World Behind" is a warning, though I think "Civil War," is a much better film because it isn't telling us how or what to think (which the other film does via lecturing us). I don't think Garland went far enough with this film though. Many of the foreign lands that have devolved into civil wars in the 20th century did not happen on their own. They happened because the US or Europe or one of either of the two's allies meddled in the course of those countries' development or their stability. There's a line in "Civil War" when the journalists are either at the hotel before the road trip or just starting out on the road trip. It is about the president disbanding the FBI. I noted this. I know we're automatically going to make a connection to this movie and our current political situation. I believe Garland was looking at something deeper than politics that exists in the psyche of America. It's what Philip Roth called "The indigenous American berserk." This is a frenzied energy that can attack from the right or the left (and it seems like it may be attacking from both in our era - but in the film that wasn't very clear and I think that is why people are critical of it - but they shouldn't be). It is a madness that whips through our nation via our puritanical roots. It's why art is no longer allowed to just be art, films have to be agitprop or they are worthless (or they are viewed suspiciously or ignored). "Civil War" is what you come to when the berzerk is not contained. If this culture goes south economically (because a collapse of our economy at this fragile time could have people in the streets fighting each other and fighting the police). Anyway, I think Garland captured the terror of it effectively. I nearly walked out of the theater during the scene with the militia men (Jesse Plemmons) almost murdering everyone on sight. I was very afraid. I think Garland set out to make us afraid and he succeeded.
Excellent piece, Cole — Thanks. I saw Civil War earlier this week and found it riveting and extremely affecting. I was buzzing on the way home and woke up thinking about it the morning after. It's a powerful, chilling film and one that made me think about many things. I appreciated it and have recommended it to my friends. Photography people, in particular, will be interested. But it's a picture that everyone should see. Looking forward to reading more of your posts.
Great points Cole! I've not seen the film yet and have been reluctant to do so because of, yes, how uncomfortable it might make me feel. I think you make some really interesting observations though about cinema, what Hollywood gives us, and how we have to ride with a film based on the filmmaker's intentions not our expectations. When I asked the film majors I teach how many of them saw the film after the first weekend, only one out of 25 raised their hands. The rest did not seem interested in the film at all. Perhaps the idea of war scares them or, more likely, most are still trying to get past seeing films that aren't action-oriented superhero focused or horror based. However, you've outlined some good reasons why they (and I) might really need to see this.
I have so much to say, but I’ll start with it seems that Chang was disappointed that Garland was not ‘world building’ enough, vis a vis, where is the franchise potential…? Maybe not so directly, but his criticism of the lack of post-script to the plot reveals the shallow depth of his creative inquiry. It’s a way of thinking and looking at cinema that is, indeed, frightening. Made more so by the fact that he doesn’t see it.
I learned how to write film and TV by watching film and TV. The guides you mention focus on how the structure of a script is to be built and maintained as a document- they say very little about how to produce them with substance. For that you have to actually look at the work of the real experts- who are NOT studio executives...
This is really on point. I've noticed for a long time now the style of criticism that can only be described as the "how I would've done it" model. Where did this trend come from? Is it just good old-fashioned entitlement, or are people so warped by their political allegiances now that they need and want every form of media and expression out in the world to mirror their own worldview back to them? It's fucking gross. And it is actually the opposite of what good art ought to do
I enjoyed this take by Sam Kriss on Civil War. https://open.substack.com/pub/samkriss/p/baby-wants-bloodshed?r=56vz&utm_medium=ios
haven't seen the movie yet, but from what i've read, it seems the point of the movie is much the same as Peter Capaldi's tirade in Doctor Who:
“When you fire that first shot, no matter how right you feel, you have no idea who's going to die. You don't know whose children are going to scream and burn. How many hearts will be broken! How many lives shattered! How much blood will spill until everybody does what they're always going to have to do from the very beginning -- sit down and talk! Listen to me, listen. I just -- I just want you to think. Do you know what thinking is? It's just a fancy word for changing your mind.”
i think Garland is saying, be careful what you wish for, and chill the fuck out, and talk
Thanks, Cole. Haven't seen the film yet, but excited to do so.
I think a good story let's you work things out and isn't obliged to give you all the answers. In real life we aren't given all the answers packed up in a tidy denouement. I haven't seen Civil War yet. Long story short is that I've been picking up on the brewing potential for Civil War here in the US since 2016 and it's been nerve wracking. My family also left Iran during the onset of 1979 Iranian revolution. We were there because my dad was hired by Bell Helicopter as a flight instructor. Anyway, my radar has been on alert for awhile and when I saw the preview for Civil War, something felt too real about it. I guess I need to get my courage up and watch it. I think part of American exceptionalism is the flaw of thinking "it could never happen here". I hope it never does.
Cole Haddon, I love this piece. You are right: Garland’s take on things is all there, beautifully revealed, without the heavy-handed exposition that, yes, we screenwriters are supposed to avoid at all costs. (Does it need to be mentioned here that Alex Garland makes movies and writes novels? He’s a storyteller, not a political philosopher.)
Civil War is about what happens to tyrants, and it’s ugly. Maybe the title itself has confused some of those reviewers: when tyrants like Ceaușescu (whose name is dropped in Civil War, as I recall) are overthrown by force, we don’t generally refer to that as a “civil war”; we’re more likely to use a word like “revolution.”
The action in the movie Civil War is the military overthrow of a tyrant. And yes, he is executed and yes, the soldiers responsible pose with the body. It is ugly for sure, but at least they don’t carry his head around on a pike.
Let’s hope that our real world doesn’t travel the same path as Garland’s fictional one. But if our world does travel down that path, let’s hope the dramatic arc of our real-world tyrant culminates in the same climax as the fictional tyrant in Civil War, who meets his end in a White House that he has converted into a Führerbunker.
Uncomfortable can be good but it’s not the only feeling you should have. You have to watch out for self-fulfilling prophecies. A popular idea gets in people’s heads and they might see the world a specific way.
The idea of control through Government and State is coming under attack from all the internal individual problems it is creating^^