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.
Nuance is something that has become increasingly foreign to Hollywood film development. Many of these screenwriting guides unwittingly or outright suggest such things will hinder your ability to sell your script. People then sell scripts inspired by this thinking. They're successful and it reinforces the rule. Audiences, along the way, get dumber. It's not uncoincidental that commercial-driven TV required regular "check-ins". As TV has become more prevalent in culture, I think this rule has widened to include feature films.
Sometimes I post Facebook comments that are tongue-in-cheek and not meant to be taken literally. There was a video on Red Bull's channel of some skaters on a rooftop skatepark in Dubai. I cheekily suggested that Dubai may be covering up the number of people killed by falling skateboards ("How many skateboards have gone over the side and killed someone?") and as expected, the comment was taken literally by many Gen Z readers. Of course, nobody got killed. We'd have heard about it the world over if that happened. Just some people seemed incapable of seeing that I was being mildly trollish. As you noted, it seems people cannot see the nuance anymore. What I said challenged some readers, and they responded by telling me I was a clown (well, obviously), or telling me to get some kind of life, as if I wasn't getting all the life by laughing at the bites to my bait.
I am not really surprised by these critics' response to Civil War. Americans lost in their dopamine fogs need blatant signposting and if you make people think, they become unmoored. I've lost count of the number of so-called libertarian friends whom I challenge to explain why they're bleating on about X being Y, or why Z is better than X (e.g., the political distortion of one far right party calling the other near far right party "leftist" when both parties are deep into the red and the so-called progressive party isn't progressive by global standards), and they just repeat talking points that aren't based on any kind of facts or even Google university research. That happens among the putative "left" as well as the right among Americans whom I converse with on the Internet.
Nuance is lost when soundbites are king. When doomscrolling for dopamine means that concepts never run very deep. Why spend one hour thinking about something when you can get that 'aha!' hit from a 30-sec hot-take reel?
For sure. I am from New Zealand living in Mexico City and most of my socials is in Line groups mostly populated by Americans, so that's the sample I'm referencing. It's a generation out there.
I’ve just watched Civil War so I’ve come back to read your piece again and my comment. I stand by my initial thoughts and I whole-heartedly agree with you. This is a truly impressive film - probably the best I’ve seen this year - and hugely thought-provoking because you are thrown into the action without really knowing the background and you, as a viewer, have to draw conclusions based on people’s actions rather than what side they stand on. I think it is incredibly effective and I appreciated it immensely. I just wish more modern cinema was this intelligent!
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.
Thanks, Duane. I'm enjoying this "art/culture criticism" turn to my life. Artists used to do this regularly. Then, we convinced ourselves that's reserved for when we become lecturers at universities. But I think critical essays are important.
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.
I think it's perfectly fine to want the film to have gone further in some regards and argue it would've been more effective had it done so, but I think there were also reasons Garland didn't do this. When I consider the effect going further would've had on my own reaction, for example, I think I would've had a lesser experience. I think the film might've been more fixed in time and geographically, when right now I think it's a film that could stand for generations and continue to be debated. But that's part of having a thoughtful debate about it rather than simply saying "I wanted it to be X and I'm going to hate it because it's not." I think that's a dangerous way to approach art myself, especially since who you are today isn't who you'll be in ten or thirty years. Maybe you'll want something else from it in ten years. Maybe what it is will make it the greatest film ever made in thirty years. Anyway, rambling now. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
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.
Thanks, Andy. I agree. It feels like a very necessary film, if only because it might actually inspire real debate about art amongst the casual filmgoer. Most films today don't do that, sadly.
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 would love to read a real, deep study of the film-viewing habits of "young adults" today. I see a lot of bad opinions and a lot of aspersions, but thoughtful analysis seems to be lacking.
I haven't seen Civil War, but I remember being pleasantly surprised by how The Hunger Games: Mockingjay explored this issue--for a teenage audience, no less. The point is not that all sides are bad, but that no side is necessarily good; the political concept of "side" itself is suspect. The revolution is never for your benefit, thanks to the revolutionaries.
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.
Yeah, I don't really understand his review at all. It very much disappointed me. I tend not to find his work shallow, but this one certainly felt that way to me. Looking forward to diving into your piece on this subject, too!
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
Thanks for sharing. Lot to chew on here. I'm not as optimistic as him, if optimistic is the right word. Beyond that, I think my feels become too controversial for Substack. Heh.
Storytelling and movies in general have become casualty in the ongoing decay of our brains thanks to social media and the endless scrolling on instagram and tick too. Why do I have to wait around for answers when I get them on socia, media in under 30 seconds? Great article!
This is very much true. My nine year old constantly asks questions about films like, "When will we find out what happened to the little girl?" And I inevitably reply in some way such as, "I don't know. Maybe we won't. That's what's called suspense. It's a good feeling to have about a lot of things." Social media has reverted a lot of adults' brains to this childlike state; while social media has prevented a lot of younger adults from ever evolving away from it I suspect.
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
What do you make of the "Wall Street" / "Wolf of Wall Street" criticism? Movies that may have been made for all sorts of reasons, but that are received as "how to" manuals by people who are romanced by these imagined worlds? ... You seem to hope that people will or should aggressively interrogate Civil War, and struggle with the questions the movie raises. But it's entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that by conjuring this world so vividly and dramatically, the film brings us a step closer to creating it.
I think underlying your question is the notion that artists should thought police people, which is how I'm reading it. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But in my mind, art is art and will always be susceptible to reinterpretation with the changing times. If we're meant to create art that neuters any chance of that, then I don't know if we'd actually be creating art. Consider THE MATRIX, which is an incredibly progressive story about free will and, at its heart, a trans allegory. Far Right types have turned it into a much grimmer message, appropriate to their toxic philosophies, much to the creators' chagrin. "BORN IN THE U.S.A.'s" meaning is entirely different than what "patriotic Americans" think it is as they triumphantly sing it. In this case, yes, there are those who could fetishize CIVIL WAR's content instead of be terrified by it. But the only alternative would be to pretend away the world we're living in, and there is a long history of that not going well for our culture, either.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Cole So many possible paths here ... I'm reminded of Abraham Joshua Heschel's observation that "words create worlds." That reality is somehow created by simply the utterance of words. (Very book of Genesis, which is no surprise; Heschel was a rabbi.) ... I'd say the same thing about image making. A movie doesn't simply pose provocative questions to ponder; it offers a world of possibility. If the audience has some firm moral anchors that prevents them from floating away into a maelstrom of violence, then maybe you're safe. But in our world, right now? That moral anchor no longer exists. Which makes movies like Civil War not a question or a provocation, but a match in a world dripping with kerosene. "If you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."
I'm less concerned about that, if only because I think that the Hollywood cinema that's gone to such lengths to not confront the world we're living in today is partly responsible for the situation we're in. American cinema, by way of CEOs, largely abdicated its responsibility to reflect our world and help us navigate it. Any attempt at this point to course-correct is necessary. Running away from that is more of how we got here, I think.
Civil War is not a "reflection." It's a projection, a prediction of a possible future. It's not a "what is" but a "what might be." Very different assignments. And don't take this personally, but screenwriters are generally ill equipped to fill in the blank of "what might be." If you think I'm wrong, give me a few examples of films that imagine a "world to come" that you want to inhabit.
By your definition, science fiction isn't a reflection of our reality, even though it's there to serve as an allegory for social woes otherwise unexplorable in more conventional ways.
Thanks for your reply. I was trying to get at something different. Yes, film, journalism, art can describe social woes. But Civil War is imagining our future, and it’s very dark. What films do the opposite? That is, what films imagine a future that you want to inhabit? Any and all titles welcome.
I think of it less as a review of reviews, and more a commentary on how everyone, from filmmakers to executives to critics, have started thinking and talking about films and TV in increasingly diminished ways. But I know the point you were making and appreciate it.
Excellent essay. As a screenwriter who’s never had a feature made, so much of what you said resonates. My teacher Joan Scheckel would agree with a lot of your points I’m sure.
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.
Nuance is something that has become increasingly foreign to Hollywood film development. Many of these screenwriting guides unwittingly or outright suggest such things will hinder your ability to sell your script. People then sell scripts inspired by this thinking. They're successful and it reinforces the rule. Audiences, along the way, get dumber. It's not uncoincidental that commercial-driven TV required regular "check-ins". As TV has become more prevalent in culture, I think this rule has widened to include feature films.
Sometimes I post Facebook comments that are tongue-in-cheek and not meant to be taken literally. There was a video on Red Bull's channel of some skaters on a rooftop skatepark in Dubai. I cheekily suggested that Dubai may be covering up the number of people killed by falling skateboards ("How many skateboards have gone over the side and killed someone?") and as expected, the comment was taken literally by many Gen Z readers. Of course, nobody got killed. We'd have heard about it the world over if that happened. Just some people seemed incapable of seeing that I was being mildly trollish. As you noted, it seems people cannot see the nuance anymore. What I said challenged some readers, and they responded by telling me I was a clown (well, obviously), or telling me to get some kind of life, as if I wasn't getting all the life by laughing at the bites to my bait.
I am not really surprised by these critics' response to Civil War. Americans lost in their dopamine fogs need blatant signposting and if you make people think, they become unmoored. I've lost count of the number of so-called libertarian friends whom I challenge to explain why they're bleating on about X being Y, or why Z is better than X (e.g., the political distortion of one far right party calling the other near far right party "leftist" when both parties are deep into the red and the so-called progressive party isn't progressive by global standards), and they just repeat talking points that aren't based on any kind of facts or even Google university research. That happens among the putative "left" as well as the right among Americans whom I converse with on the Internet.
Nuance is lost when soundbites are king. When doomscrolling for dopamine means that concepts never run very deep. Why spend one hour thinking about something when you can get that 'aha!' hit from a 30-sec hot-take reel?
I’m not sure you can lay this entirely at the door of the US. There’s plenty of blinkered thinking in the UK too if not elsewhere.
For sure. I am from New Zealand living in Mexico City and most of my socials is in Line groups mostly populated by Americans, so that's the sample I'm referencing. It's a generation out there.
I’ve just watched Civil War so I’ve come back to read your piece again and my comment. I stand by my initial thoughts and I whole-heartedly agree with you. This is a truly impressive film - probably the best I’ve seen this year - and hugely thought-provoking because you are thrown into the action without really knowing the background and you, as a viewer, have to draw conclusions based on people’s actions rather than what side they stand on. I think it is incredibly effective and I appreciated it immensely. I just wish more modern cinema was this intelligent!
I'm so glad you enjoyed it (if that's the right word)!
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.
As I said elsewhere, I think this ALL ABOUT EVE observation is really damn interesting and I'm going to think about that one for a while!
I had that thought independently on my own, and just googled it. I'm so stoked I'm not the only one who connected "Civil War" & " All About Eve!!"
I haven't had a chance to Google it yet. If you find anything academic or similar on the subject that you really like, please send it my way.
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.
Thanks, Duane. I'm enjoying this "art/culture criticism" turn to my life. Artists used to do this regularly. Then, we convinced ourselves that's reserved for when we become lecturers at universities. But I think critical essays are important.
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.
I think it's perfectly fine to want the film to have gone further in some regards and argue it would've been more effective had it done so, but I think there were also reasons Garland didn't do this. When I consider the effect going further would've had on my own reaction, for example, I think I would've had a lesser experience. I think the film might've been more fixed in time and geographically, when right now I think it's a film that could stand for generations and continue to be debated. But that's part of having a thoughtful debate about it rather than simply saying "I wanted it to be X and I'm going to hate it because it's not." I think that's a dangerous way to approach art myself, especially since who you are today isn't who you'll be in ten or thirty years. Maybe you'll want something else from it in ten years. Maybe what it is will make it the greatest film ever made in thirty years. Anyway, rambling now. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
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.
Thanks, Andy. I agree. It feels like a very necessary film, if only because it might actually inspire real debate about art amongst the casual filmgoer. Most films today don't do that, sadly.
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 would love to read a real, deep study of the film-viewing habits of "young adults" today. I see a lot of bad opinions and a lot of aspersions, but thoughtful analysis seems to be lacking.
I haven't seen Civil War, but I remember being pleasantly surprised by how The Hunger Games: Mockingjay explored this issue--for a teenage audience, no less. The point is not that all sides are bad, but that no side is necessarily good; the political concept of "side" itself is suspect. The revolution is never for your benefit, thanks to the revolutionaries.
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.
Yeah, I don't really understand his review at all. It very much disappointed me. I tend not to find his work shallow, but this one certainly felt that way to me. Looking forward to diving into your piece on this subject, too!
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...
But-But-But if you just follow the assembly instructions, you'll get a great and successful film, David. (Sigh.)
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 shall continue to explore the idea, as it's a subject very important to me as an artist.
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
Thanks for sharing. Lot to chew on here. I'm not as optimistic as him, if optimistic is the right word. Beyond that, I think my feels become too controversial for Substack. Heh.
Storytelling and movies in general have become casualty in the ongoing decay of our brains thanks to social media and the endless scrolling on instagram and tick too. Why do I have to wait around for answers when I get them on socia, media in under 30 seconds? Great article!
This is very much true. My nine year old constantly asks questions about films like, "When will we find out what happened to the little girl?" And I inevitably reply in some way such as, "I don't know. Maybe we won't. That's what's called suspense. It's a good feeling to have about a lot of things." Social media has reverted a lot of adults' brains to this childlike state; while social media has prevented a lot of younger adults from ever evolving away from it I suspect.
Yes!!! My 8 year old son too!! All through Star Wars - what’s going to happen dad?? lol
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 would not disagree with you. (Also, that monologue was an remains terrific.)
Thanks, Cole. Haven't seen the film yet, but excited to do so.
Come back and share your thoughts when you do!
What do you make of the "Wall Street" / "Wolf of Wall Street" criticism? Movies that may have been made for all sorts of reasons, but that are received as "how to" manuals by people who are romanced by these imagined worlds? ... You seem to hope that people will or should aggressively interrogate Civil War, and struggle with the questions the movie raises. But it's entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that by conjuring this world so vividly and dramatically, the film brings us a step closer to creating it.
I think underlying your question is the notion that artists should thought police people, which is how I'm reading it. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But in my mind, art is art and will always be susceptible to reinterpretation with the changing times. If we're meant to create art that neuters any chance of that, then I don't know if we'd actually be creating art. Consider THE MATRIX, which is an incredibly progressive story about free will and, at its heart, a trans allegory. Far Right types have turned it into a much grimmer message, appropriate to their toxic philosophies, much to the creators' chagrin. "BORN IN THE U.S.A.'s" meaning is entirely different than what "patriotic Americans" think it is as they triumphantly sing it. In this case, yes, there are those who could fetishize CIVIL WAR's content instead of be terrified by it. But the only alternative would be to pretend away the world we're living in, and there is a long history of that not going well for our culture, either.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Cole So many possible paths here ... I'm reminded of Abraham Joshua Heschel's observation that "words create worlds." That reality is somehow created by simply the utterance of words. (Very book of Genesis, which is no surprise; Heschel was a rabbi.) ... I'd say the same thing about image making. A movie doesn't simply pose provocative questions to ponder; it offers a world of possibility. If the audience has some firm moral anchors that prevents them from floating away into a maelstrom of violence, then maybe you're safe. But in our world, right now? That moral anchor no longer exists. Which makes movies like Civil War not a question or a provocation, but a match in a world dripping with kerosene. "If you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."
I'm less concerned about that, if only because I think that the Hollywood cinema that's gone to such lengths to not confront the world we're living in today is partly responsible for the situation we're in. American cinema, by way of CEOs, largely abdicated its responsibility to reflect our world and help us navigate it. Any attempt at this point to course-correct is necessary. Running away from that is more of how we got here, I think.
Civil War is not a "reflection." It's a projection, a prediction of a possible future. It's not a "what is" but a "what might be." Very different assignments. And don't take this personally, but screenwriters are generally ill equipped to fill in the blank of "what might be." If you think I'm wrong, give me a few examples of films that imagine a "world to come" that you want to inhabit.
By your definition, science fiction isn't a reflection of our reality, even though it's there to serve as an allegory for social woes otherwise unexplorable in more conventional ways.
Thanks for your reply. I was trying to get at something different. Yes, film, journalism, art can describe social woes. But Civil War is imagining our future, and it’s very dark. What films do the opposite? That is, what films imagine a future that you want to inhabit? Any and all titles welcome.
I confess that I became very suspicious of image makers after working for 20+ years at National Geographic. >> https://youtu.be/uF2SU3ChA8A?si=53Awu8P61jnxu0iB
Great review of reviews. I am honestly shocked how obtuse so many of those reviewers are.
I think of it less as a review of reviews, and more a commentary on how everyone, from filmmakers to executives to critics, have started thinking and talking about films and TV in increasingly diminished ways. But I know the point you were making and appreciate it.
Excellent essay. As a screenwriter who’s never had a feature made, so much of what you said resonates. My teacher Joan Scheckel would agree with a lot of your points I’m sure.
I'm glad to hear anything about the read spoke to you. Thanks, Josh.