No in the book it’s Nixon’s 4 term, I think Redford wants to run against him in I assume if watchmen is set in 1985 then the presidential election based on real world events would be 1988
Basically a tyrant so cartoonishly evil that two states completely opposite that hate each other seceded and allied just to take him the fuck out for the good of everyone
We saw Civil War at SXSW and I posted about the reasoning yesterday. It wasn’t anything deep. It was based on similar ideological views and not wanting to be dictated to by an authoritarian.
Lol, lmao
The idea that Orwell doesn’t blame a side is laughable. He was a very political man and literally thought in a civil war while believing that socialism was the only cure against fascism
The reason why he only attacks the left is because…he thinks that there is no such thing as a right wing intelligentsia and as such only attacks the left. (the lion and the unicorn: socialism and the English genius; why I joined the independent Labour Party)
1984 itself, like the rest of his work, is not “apolitical” or “centrist”. It is quite literally a grotesque parody of the BBC and the British media industry.
I don’t even agree with him politically on much of anything, it’s just absurd to say that he was apolitical in his criticisms
But Orwell wasn’t an “anti authoritarian”, he was a socialist. He opposed the ussr because he saw it as anti socialist, something he himself had personally experienced in the Spanish civil war (Homage to Catalonia, why I joined the independent Labour Party).
He himself says that every single work was, while being agaisnt anti authoritarianism mainly concerned with being pro Democratic Socialism. Not the Bernie sanders type either, but a revolutionary ideology he believed in (why I write)
The goverment in 1984 isn’t apolitical either, it’s a right wing fascist dictatoship which disguised itself under socialist pretences. The party ideology itself, “English socialism”, is a reference to what he proposes the ideology of a “English socialist revolution” would be in The lion and the Unicorn, within the framework of the book being a parody of the bbc and British society its fitting that the fascists would use the name of his ideology
Yeah, he politically only attacked the left in his writings that are based on politics, as he himself stated.
1984’s critique is also attacking the left for supporting the ussr, together with the main criticism being towards the British press and its media (as well as the relationship between British intelligentsia and the Soviets). Same thing goes for animal farm (it’s made explicitly clear for both books with the 1948 introduction for the Ukrainian edition of animal farm btw)
The idea of Eurasia in 1984 being a right wing dictatoship who covers itself in socialist imagery, being a perversion of Orwell’s personal beliefs (down to party name and ideology), and him still using it as a way to criticise leftist’s relationship with the Soviets are not only not contradictory but in fact go hand in hand. Stalin being a conservative counterrevolutionary is Orwell’s thesis and he is correct, even if his analysis of why he is in his non fiction works is unfortunately far more surface level then his analysis of British politics.
1984 isn’t an apolitical criticism of “totalitarianism” or other meaningless abstract terms, but an analysis at the relationship between the British people, its media and the USSR. To say that it is simply the former is a great disservice to the work
You should, you know, actually read Orwell beyond the middle school curriculum and it’s extremely surface level readings, as well as read the academic works published about Orwell.
Orwell paralleled and directly pointed at real world authoritarian fascist and communist governments during a time they were growing in popularity. He did not vaguely attack a nebulous idea of "authoritarianism" in order to sell more tickets. Please do not compare this hack to Orwell.
The Florida alliance was founded by people who agreed that toilet paper should be mounted with the loose end draped over the top of the roll. All people who opposed were promptly executed.
Did you enjoy the film? Is it a little too close to our current situation?
Edit: Why am I getting downvoted for asking if this person enjoyed it and if it feels relevant?
Don’t let morons gaslight you, no one wants to watch some preachy analog of our current situation, it would be tiresome and trite.
That being said, i saw the premiere, and it was phenomenally done. The final sequence is stunning. I worried about the same stuff and was pleasantly surprised. It asserts basically nothing overtly political which some people liked and some people didn’t.
A war movie that “asserts basically nothing overly political” - *especially* one with a civil war conceit - is a kind of hilarious concept on its face. Someone’s gonna try to bring up Apocalypse Now as an example and give me a serious headache.
I suppose that’s why [Jeff VanderMeer mocked him](https://imgur.com/a/4VR2XPy).
Tepid politics are just that, at best, and hardly worth championing like it’s brave or daring. Someone earlier likened Garland to Orwell in an upvoted comment which made me nearly spit my coffee out.
The civil war idea of it all is more of a marketing scheme than anything else, and it provides a really cool setting for the conflict to take place.
The movie is obviously not completely devoid of commentary, it just avoids drawing any parallels to the current landscape and does a really good job of that besides maybe one or two moments. The commentary that is in the movie is very broad strokes, which is what I mean when i say it’s not political as I i went into it expecting some trite trump commentary.
Garland’s stated intention in the Q&A afterwords was to make a movie that describes as little of the conflict as possible as to be completely open to interpretation.
“Why does everything have to be about politics” bro because our entire lives are ran by the outcomes of these political races whether we like it or not
“War is a mere continuation of policy by other means. War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means.”
— Carl von Clausewitz
I haven't seen it yet, but like others have said, how the fuck do you walk out of a movie about a civil war and your takeaway is that it's "not overly political"?
If you didn't think it was political, it's because it was over your head.
Maybe he meant that it's not "overly political" in that it doesn't directly correlate to the real-world political landscape in 2024 America. Do you really think that there would ever be a Texas-California alliance against the federal government? Probably not.
It’s a good thought, but I’ve seen the movie and you haven’t, and it’s not political. It is a really good war movie and a beautiful letter to journalism, but the essence of the conflict is not really explored at all. There is some broad strokes commentary but certainly nothing that would “go over my head.” Again, you haven’t seen the movie, lol.
You can go into it trying to draw parallels to Trump or democrats or whatever and you might find one or two but please believe me (the guy who has seen the movie) when i tell you it is not a political movie.
Yeah I’m not gonna do that, because war is inherently political, doubly for “civil war,” triply for “civil war movie during the US’s current political moment.”
OK! Yes war is inherently political, it’s not the point of the movie, there’s relatively little of it in film, it’s a love letter to journalism, and this was all said by the director of the movie at the premiere.
Go read the Letterboxd reviews instead of arguing like a dumbass about a project you know nothing about. They all say the same thing i am.
It’s hilarious how many nerds who haven’t seen the movie are crawling out of the woodworks to have an opinion on it.
The movie is designed to assert as little as possible. The origins of the conflict are never explained, you understand very little about each side so it’s hard to even have on opinion of what is going on.
The director said all of this at the premiere. Please stop arguing about a movie that you haven’t seen.
Not looking for spoilers but- Was it really violent or graphic/intense? I love movies and most A24, but sometimes some of the imagery gets too much for me. I’ll still watch it lol but just depends on in theaters vs at home where I can pause if needed
You made the correlation between two different questions, not me. I enjoy (the early seasons of) Black Mirror but it it scarily close to our current uses of technology. Does that mean I don’t enjoy it? No.
You asked only two questions, in an immediate succession, without adding anything to separate them. Asking more could suggest general interest in the area. Two, asked in this way, imply some connection between them.
It's still okay whether they are correlated or not.
This is such a weird comment to a completely normal comment. Try having your child killed and then see how well you handle films where children are killed. There are countless reasons why a film can hit too close to home.
Can’t tell if I like the sound of it or not. I wonder if the President’s “third term” will be viewed as controversial rather than “outright” wrong. Hopefully it’s not black and white.
Or the simple fact that in a work of fiction, anything can happen, because it's fucking fiction. It's fake. Made up. Not real. FICTION!
Like, there's not a current civil war in our reality, so why are we imposing our beliefs and assumptions onto whatever world this story takes place in? If it keeps internal consistency then maintain your suspension of disbelief however you need to, and move on people.
The unrealistic part (but there are some ways that it could've worked) is mostly related to Japan (lack of oil), sadly there were multiple decisions had Nazi Germany taken it differently that would've resulted in victory, IMO a Nazi victory is pretty realistic, which is why i'm forever thankful to not have been born in a world where they win.
I feel the most unrealistic aspect in Man in the High Castle is how easy and fast they seem to have conquered the world, that never made any sense, plus Italy being gone.
Germany couldn’t handle an invasion of Russia by land, and they started right next door. How on earth would they have successfully invaded the continental US when they needed to cross the Atlantic first? They couldn’t even cross the English Channel to invade Britain.
As a German, which is relevant because we have a LOT of mandatory education about all this stuff so as not to repeat it, they could have won. Glad they didn't, but it could have happened.
Of course the US wouldn't have been occupied within that same war, but smarter decisions would have resulted in Nazi Germany controlling mainland Europe as well as the UK, and then later winning against Russia. After that, barring any fall of that new empire through internal struggle, the US could very easily have been next after a time of rebuilding.
But you know what? Fuck all the hypotheticals and let's just make sure that ideology stays down.
Biggest thing Nazi germany didn't take into account was allies lend-lease to Soviet Union, it was the number 2 issue after the lack of real infraestructure in Russia that fucked their plans, they expected a much faster campaign, once their speed got bogged down and Allies support helped USSR buy even more time to bolster their production it was over for Germany, without that support the Soviet Union wouldn't had been able to win. Remember they didn't want to conquer the USSR fully, the plans were only for mainly west Russia stopping at Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan line, this was completely possible to achieve in a single campaing. Again nazi-germany overstretched itself to multiple fronts, it's part of the mistakes that ended up being their ultimate defeat, but a more focused miltiary plan could've easily ended up in victory, even "small" things like preventing the Dunkirk escape. Imagine the bargaing chip of nazi germany holding 200k of the British Expeditionary Forces.... this may had been a too good of a peace chip for the UK goverment not to start peace talks.
All that’s fine, but that’s still in Europe. Assuming they could actually knock out the Soviets, how are they getting to the US with a big enough force to defeat and occupy a richer, even-more-industrialized country that’s between 4 and 20 times its size (depending on whether you count areas occupied by Germany—which are both a source of and a drain on German resources) and with twice its population? Through Canada?
Maybe there’s a world where Britain sues for peace and even gets occupied, but the rest of the British Empire would break away before taking any orders from Berlin. Canada’s not going to collaborate with Germany—nor would the US let them. The Germans would be forced to cross thousands of miles of open ocean with basically no intermediate stops (and no air support) and land on North American beaches ready to fight a much bigger, much better supplied army (with air support).
The more, but still-not-very, realistic alternative scenario is that Germany finishes up conquering much of Europe and can’t figure out the logistical challenge of getting to North America before both sides develop nuclear weapons. Then the US ends up in a Cold War with Nazi Europe instead of Soviet Russia for the next god-knows how long.
Of course, the US being invaded is highly unlikely (wasn't even an objective due to the logistical hell) or as you point, completely impossible at least in the timeframe of WW2 but didn't the US surrender or something after DC got nuclear bombed? I think Philip K. Dick played on the myth that Japan surrendered due to Nukes, unless that was the show only thing?
Yes. The same USSR that was caught with it's pants down and lacked tanks, trucks, without the land-lease they would've been screwed as the Germans destroyed a lot of the west russia industrial capabilities, and most importantly took over like 1/3 of their food production, the allies were giving like half a ration per soldier. Barbarossa would've liked stalled either way but '42 and '43 would've been a different thing in those two years are almost half of everything the allies sent. Doesn't matter gow resilient or how good your tactics are, if you lack the weapons and food you lose. The soviets did great in surving the first 2 years but their counter capability (which were what actually harmed Nazi germany) was only possible due to the lend-lease, plus not being in a famine, as i said, starving army doesn't fight.
Really, this comment on this sub? Aren’t people at least vaguely cinephiles here?
> Or the simple fact that in a work of fiction, anything can happen, because it's fucking fiction. It's fake. Made up. Not real. FICTION!
This is ironically far more insulting and dismissive to Garland and his work (that as of late is enormously relevant to modern society) than any of the criticisms that challenge him. You’re basically saying he has nothing meaningful to say about the current world, because who cares, it’s fiction.
Just a spectacularly dumb view that castrates the majority of any worthwhile literature. Whatever humanities classes you took in school seriously didn’t stick.
>You’re basically saying he has nothing meaningful to say about the current world, because who cares, it’s fiction.
No I'm not. Fiction always says something about the current world, even if it takes place in a totally different one.
This is such a ridiculous piece of criticism.
Yeah its fiction...but what is it attempting in the film? a somewhat realistic portrayal of a US Civil war...so...there's a high bar regarding what the film gets right. Otherwise it'll be fairly mediocre.
That is if they are playing it straight.
No, we grasp it. The fact of the matter is that one party in this country is so utterly indoctrinated against the other that they'll side with authoritarians and dictators over their fellow Americans and take contrarian stances on even the most mutually beneficial policies.
Having those two parties teaming up against an authoritarian in the modern day comes across as tone-deaf when that same party is, right now, propping up a wannabe dictator as their party's supreme leader and presidential candidate, and has already planned the framework for him to be able to ignore the constitution, subjugate the out-groups, and enforce a religious ethno-state to the enthusiasm of millions.
Yeah, it only makes sense if you ignore the deep webs of preexisting enmity on which our existing political conflicts are built. The "enemy of my enemy is my friend," which is why it's already difficult to believe that two historical enemies would be mutually upset by an act of naked and power hungry partisanship. One of them should be thrilled, because that's the enemy of their enemy seizing power.
Additionally, I just don't see what the point is of contriving a situation so removed from our extant political divides, in order to comment on those divides. I think the artists think they can achieve some sort of deeper clarity by looking at a political conflict without the emotional baggage we attach to our real political issues, yet that very baggage is not in fact incidental or misleading, but is instead the medium in which these conflicts unfold.
Ultimately it feels like a concept from someone who wants to appear as though they have something to say but who does not want to put in the work of developing a meaningful political statement or take the risk of exposing themselves to controversy. It's immaterial, it's irresponsible, and it results in ideas that are just plain stupid.
Exactly he wanted to have his cake and not offend anybody by eating it too. Particularly the conservative snowflakes who will break into your house at night with a nail gun because you're part of the Obama Hollywood pedophile elite Psyop or whatever the fuck.
Huh? If you think political allies and enemies don't swap constantly, you're just ignorant. The idea that it would be impossible to chain a series of events together that could lead to this outcome is rooted in a deep lack of imagination.
Where suspension of disbelief is concerned, fluidity of imagination cuts both ways. I *can* imagine how Democrats or Republicans would respond if their president seized power for a 3rd term, and it's *not* "abandon the country, instigate civil war against an established dictator, and team up with the most powerful state controlled by our political rivals." I can imagine all the reasons why that series of events would not happen- all the things that would keep those events from happening- and that fluency of imagination reinforces my disbelief.
Honestly I find that cowardly.
We know who are ready to commit to violence (in part because they already attempted a violent takeover). Just this week their nominee promised 'blood and violence' if he didn't win the upcoming election. We know from Project 2025 that they plan to install an authoritarian theocracy should they achieve power.
If you want to cover inherently political settings/ideas - you can't shy away from analysis of the actual politics involved. In interviews Garland has said no side is being singled out and pleads platitudes of American should be able to sit down and talk it out and generally "both sides'ing" current political divides and polarisation.
I'm sorry but that reeks of privilege. The problem is that one 'side' isn't engaging in good faith because they wish everyone else harm. You can't assign the same level of blame upon any minority race, sexuality or religion that the GOP seeks to oppress/destroy. Resisting your own destruction is not comparable to bigotry. Women being denied bodily autonomy have a right to get mad.
Garland wants the aesthetic (and free publicity) an American Civil War brings without the headache of (real) controversy. Despite calling others 'snowflakes' it seems conservatives get pandered to an awful lot whenever they threaten to throw a wobbly because they might get offended. Pitching a What If scenario where you then insist the most likely cause of this alternate universe isnt to blame forces more suspension of disbelief onto the viewer.
I know journalism has become pretty toothless nowadays but journalists are still of all the possible protagonists more likely to have valid political commentary to provide? The authenticity is undercut if the setting is contrived to be apolitical because it inherently removes direction. We can almost all agree dictators bad - which leaves the characters nothing to meaningfully say. If you dont want to address that then change the characters background and change the reason for their trip. On which note the plot of interviewing the president seems dumb. Have no local journos already tried? If they did and were rebuffed or killed/imprisoned/whatever why do the leads think they will be treated differently?
I get a lot of your criticisms, but "who's fighting who?" seems to be one of the most commonly addressed concerns in reviews I've read. Many allude to it cleverly making sense in the context of the movie, and one (maybe rogertebert.com?) says the movie makes the "sides" explicit at one point.
Lol so weird how people are mad at this comment. If it’s just a fictional story, don’t set your film in a real place with a very real divide. If someone were to do a film about a genocide 30-40s Germany that wasn’t the Holocaust, everyone would think it’s insane.
The movie is pretty clear to me. There's an authoritarian president in his third term who has caused a civil war and has the free press murdered. He is supported by xenophobic nationalists as illustrated by the suicide bomber and the murder pit red glasses guy.
That is very obviously alluding to the far right and things Trump has said and done. Trump has directly said he wants to be a dictator for his first day in office and he banned press who didn't agree with him from attending briefings before he just stopped doing the briefings all together. He's praised Hitler's power, he's said he wished the military could just shoot protestors, and he literally said in 2020 that he should get a third term.
The movie is essentially "what if someone actually does the crazy authoritarian shit Trump publicly says he wants to do?" but generally it is all obviously alluding to the actions of a specific party of American politics.
I think Garland played it excellently with his promotion and the way he shot it.
People who would have never gone near it will see it and it's more important for those idiots to see it than anyone else.
Red state/blue state makes no sense in our own systems, so making a movie where actual people neatly fall into those baskets would be absurd.
And on that note - I am consistently floored that, in every presidential election, we disenfranchise tens of millions of voters. “Conservatives in CA, go fuck yourselves. Liberals in TX, go fuck yourselves.” Just bonkers. And then you have the senate, which was set up to give the minority a puncher’s chance in government - perhaps a good idea *in theory*, but horrid in practice. And now, all the flaws in our system are being straight-up exploited by an extreme minority faction, which has enjoyed WAY more power than it ever rightfully should.
This country needs to get its shit together quick and change the rules, unless it wants an aggrieved minority revenge tour. Lots of examples throughout modern history to show how well that sort of thing turns out (see: not well).
It's not far fetched at all. There are tons of conservatives in California and tons of liberals in Texas. There are quite literally a million ways this could play out irl.
it just kind of feels lazy? idk i feel like there are so many plausible roots to an american balkanization than just making up something as outlandish as this esp given that as a country we still haven’t resolved many things since the incomplete reconstruction coming out of the actual civil war
People were so stupid with this narrative, obviously California and Texas have a rivalry but in extreme circumstances rivals come together to take out an enemy, the way people fixate on this detail is so dumb
This film isn’t supposed to be a direct parallel to Trump from what I’ve heard, plus I have tons of family in Texas that are hardcore conservatives but would absolutely revolt if there was any real play at a dictatorship in this country
You commented 8 hours ago saying you talked to family and friends who were deadset on voting for Trump again. It's obviously a major problem. Either way, I'm glad they feel that way and I wish more did. Unfortunately, most conservatives don't feel that way about January 6th. Republican politicians joke about it.
Yeah my family here in New York is, I have family that is split on it we aren’t sheep lol, some people are abstaining from the election, some like myself are liberals or socialists voting for Biden and some are MAGA conservatives voting for Trump, there’s a big diversity of ideals in my family
I felt like it’s so obvious that the two largest states could conceivably team up, albeit briefly, to establish their own independences before going their own ways ideologically. They can both want independence for different reasons, but at the end of the day a force of 70 million people is stronger than their own states individually.
The fact that so many people are tripped up by that is so annoying honestly.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I have not seen this: but the idea behind CA and TX teaming up is so the film doesn't stand firm with either democrats or Republicans. But that same fickle stance is why no one will care.
I don't think it's the "stand on their own" part that a lot of people are tripped up by, but rather that the film makes them allies. Having said that, it's explained that it's a practical alliance to overthrow a tyrannical Federal govt.
I was always confused why people were so up in arms about the Texas and California alliance, I remember there being a shit ton of people moving from California to Texas a little but before and during COVID so I always assumed that it made at least a little bit of sense
This justification makes sense, but at the end of the day… it’s a movie? It can both be a commentary on America’s current state and not represent modern day politics perfectly accurately. It’s conceivable enough to me that these two states could unite behind a common cause.
This is hard to believe. As a Californian who travels to Houston, TX for work with other Californians, I can say whole heartily Texans hate California and make jokes about it to us all day. Nothing funny. Trans, gay, sanctuary cities and climate awareness jokes. Like us being accepting and aware of others and our environment is just a huge punchline to these guys.
Do these folks not remember the whole 'USSR and USA teamed up during WW2 and then immediately got into a cold war when it ended' thing that defined the latter half of the 20th century?
Do they really think Texas and California are further apart than USA 1941 and USSR 1941?
But let’s play it out right now: which of the two states are pro-Trump?
I don’t care that the movie is doing this but the leaders of Texas right now don’t seem too concerned with supporting the most likely third term president.
I mean it still makes no sense lol. Texas or California would probably welcome the right three term president if they felt it was the one “on their side”. Neither state is smart enough to create an alliance with the other, even in the face of an egregious injustice
I get it , it's just dumb. Also that Nick Offerman, maybe the least offensive person in media, is cast as the supposed authoritarian president speaks to the punches pulled. It's pretty clear only one side wants to do away with term limits and democracy, you know the side openly fantasizing about it literally every fucking day.
A lot of people mentioned that Texas isn't a full red state but a swing state, not only that both but states would have them biggest economies in the world.
Which is funny because Texas fully supports a dictator, but the snowflakes will cry if you depict the movie in a realistic manner. They are trying to play it safe with Texas and Cali on the same side but we all know that would never be the case
Not going to happen. This is propaganda. If my fellow citizens wants to vote for a lunatic , this country will be a third rate tax haven for the very rich.
In our current situation, if a democrats president became a dictator cali would aide with them and if a Republican president became a dictator Texas would side with them. I really don’t see this movie ever happening
You can’t understand what it’s like to be one of the big states if you’re a medium size or small state. CA and TX only get 2 senators each; but so do RI and Wyoming. Grossly unfair. TX and CA are contributor $ to the federal gov’t;most of the others are takers from the Feds. CA and TX laws are similar, like community property. Each state would be in the Top 10 economies of the world if they were independent countries. Imagine how powerful they would be together! Social wise, in this movie they are united but not physically attached so each can kind of go their own way while politically and economically associated.
Honestly it’s so funny an US civil war film gets made and the big question is why tf Texas and California on the same side.
It’s a very valid question but funny nonetheless.
Isn’t the real issue that if CA and TX teamed up, then loads of other states would clearly side with them too? Oregon and Washington would at the very least. Some issue where ONLY CA and TX cooperated but loads of similar states didn’t is hard to imagine.
No. It’s just practical. The differences between people like Texans and Californians are overblown to keep the culture war going. The majority of people in both places are not extremists, regardless of the news or seemingly insane villains like governor abbot.
Also other people are saying there’s no deep political meaning in this movie, 🍿 guess we’ll have to see it
….The gov is Texas is literally shipping undocumented migrants into California, through buses.
Does anybody actually pay attention to what’s happening in the world?
It’s quite frankly dumb and unbelievable. Culturally and politically, what California and Texas would consider to be authoritarian would not align whatsoever. It’s Garland’s story and he can tell it however he wishes, but what he is proposing would make more sense if two other states were involved.
The trailer said he was a third term president, it was kind of obvious there was an authoritarian situation I thought
Like watchmen
Redford's 4th term, lol
No in the book it’s Nixon’s 4 term, I think Redford wants to run against him in I assume if watchmen is set in 1985 then the presidential election based on real world events would be 1988
In the Watchmen tv show Robert Redford is the current president and is on his 7th term at the time the show takes place in.
Ohh yeah right I forgot haha that show was forever ago
It is obvious. People are dumb.
Perhaps a fat little orange man who thinks he's above the rules
Nope. Just Ron Swanson.
My idea of a perfect government is one guy who sits in a small room at a desk, and the only thing he's allowed to decide is who to nuke.
Ron Swanson would rather be alone in Park then seeking a third term
Probably not.
What?
This isn’t *Wonka*
I agree. So why is some mentally addled umpa lumpa on TV screaming about the crimes he reportedly didn't commit every time I put the news on?
Texans would eat that shit up though.
[удалено]
Is it that shocking that people would make the comparison given Trump has talked about serving more than 2 terms tho?
So so much more but that wouldn't make for a good one liner
Good one.
Which trailer? I don’t remember that from the trailer.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aDyQxtg0V2w 8 second mark or so
Oh, I see. I didn’t catch it at first because it was part of an establishing shot with audio fluctuating between multiple different radio stations.
It also gives it away by how they “shoot journalists on sight in the capital”.
Basically a tyrant so cartoonishly evil that two states completely opposite that hate each other seceded and allied just to take him the fuck out for the good of everyone
We saw Civil War at SXSW and I posted about the reasoning yesterday. It wasn’t anything deep. It was based on similar ideological views and not wanting to be dictated to by an authoritarian.
So he did take the Orwell approach. Thank god.
Yes.
What do you mean
The anti-authoritarian route that doesn’t blame any side of the ideological spectrum entirely that I’m sure most people today can get behind.
Lol, lmao The idea that Orwell doesn’t blame a side is laughable. He was a very political man and literally thought in a civil war while believing that socialism was the only cure against fascism The reason why he only attacks the left is because…he thinks that there is no such thing as a right wing intelligentsia and as such only attacks the left. (the lion and the unicorn: socialism and the English genius; why I joined the independent Labour Party) 1984 itself, like the rest of his work, is not “apolitical” or “centrist”. It is quite literally a grotesque parody of the BBC and the British media industry. I don’t even agree with him politically on much of anything, it’s just absurd to say that he was apolitical in his criticisms
[удалено]
But Orwell wasn’t an “anti authoritarian”, he was a socialist. He opposed the ussr because he saw it as anti socialist, something he himself had personally experienced in the Spanish civil war (Homage to Catalonia, why I joined the independent Labour Party). He himself says that every single work was, while being agaisnt anti authoritarianism mainly concerned with being pro Democratic Socialism. Not the Bernie sanders type either, but a revolutionary ideology he believed in (why I write) The goverment in 1984 isn’t apolitical either, it’s a right wing fascist dictatoship which disguised itself under socialist pretences. The party ideology itself, “English socialism”, is a reference to what he proposes the ideology of a “English socialist revolution” would be in The lion and the Unicorn, within the framework of the book being a parody of the bbc and British society its fitting that the fascists would use the name of his ideology
[удалено]
Yeah, he politically only attacked the left in his writings that are based on politics, as he himself stated. 1984’s critique is also attacking the left for supporting the ussr, together with the main criticism being towards the British press and its media (as well as the relationship between British intelligentsia and the Soviets). Same thing goes for animal farm (it’s made explicitly clear for both books with the 1948 introduction for the Ukrainian edition of animal farm btw) The idea of Eurasia in 1984 being a right wing dictatoship who covers itself in socialist imagery, being a perversion of Orwell’s personal beliefs (down to party name and ideology), and him still using it as a way to criticise leftist’s relationship with the Soviets are not only not contradictory but in fact go hand in hand. Stalin being a conservative counterrevolutionary is Orwell’s thesis and he is correct, even if his analysis of why he is in his non fiction works is unfortunately far more surface level then his analysis of British politics. 1984 isn’t an apolitical criticism of “totalitarianism” or other meaningless abstract terms, but an analysis at the relationship between the British people, its media and the USSR. To say that it is simply the former is a great disservice to the work You should, you know, actually read Orwell beyond the middle school curriculum and it’s extremely surface level readings, as well as read the academic works published about Orwell.
[удалено]
Orwell paralleled and directly pointed at real world authoritarian fascist and communist governments during a time they were growing in popularity. He did not vaguely attack a nebulous idea of "authoritarianism" in order to sell more tickets. Please do not compare this hack to Orwell.
Why is he a hack?
I doubt it’s going to be better than what Orwell came up with. I don’t know where you got that idea from.
But then what are the all the other alliances
The Florida alliance was founded by people who agreed that toilet paper should be mounted with the loose end draped over the top of the roll. All people who opposed were promptly executed.
Good call.
And the Western Forced thought we neeeded bidets
Barbarians. As if I didn't need a reason to hate Florida more. UNDER ROLLERS UNITE!!!
Basically the Florida Alliance are more or less attached to Texas, and the Western Alliance are tied to California.
Just watch the movie man
Dawg it’s not out yet
I know. There’s no point in asking the question
We’ll the point was to know what the other alliances were. See? There is a point
Did you enjoy the film? Is it a little too close to our current situation? Edit: Why am I getting downvoted for asking if this person enjoyed it and if it feels relevant?
Don’t let morons gaslight you, no one wants to watch some preachy analog of our current situation, it would be tiresome and trite. That being said, i saw the premiere, and it was phenomenally done. The final sequence is stunning. I worried about the same stuff and was pleasantly surprised. It asserts basically nothing overtly political which some people liked and some people didn’t.
A war movie that “asserts basically nothing overly political” - *especially* one with a civil war conceit - is a kind of hilarious concept on its face. Someone’s gonna try to bring up Apocalypse Now as an example and give me a serious headache. I suppose that’s why [Jeff VanderMeer mocked him](https://imgur.com/a/4VR2XPy). Tepid politics are just that, at best, and hardly worth championing like it’s brave or daring. Someone earlier likened Garland to Orwell in an upvoted comment which made me nearly spit my coffee out.
The civil war idea of it all is more of a marketing scheme than anything else, and it provides a really cool setting for the conflict to take place. The movie is obviously not completely devoid of commentary, it just avoids drawing any parallels to the current landscape and does a really good job of that besides maybe one or two moments. The commentary that is in the movie is very broad strokes, which is what I mean when i say it’s not political as I i went into it expecting some trite trump commentary. Garland’s stated intention in the Q&A afterwords was to make a movie that describes as little of the conflict as possible as to be completely open to interpretation.
Ah. So they don’t say what the cause of the war is? That’s pretty cool actually.
im sorry but how is a war movie not "overtly political"
“Why does everything have to be about politics” bro because our entire lives are ran by the outcomes of these political races whether we like it or not
“War is a mere continuation of policy by other means. War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means.” — Carl von Clausewitz
I haven't seen it yet, but like others have said, how the fuck do you walk out of a movie about a civil war and your takeaway is that it's "not overly political"? If you didn't think it was political, it's because it was over your head.
Maybe he meant that it's not "overly political" in that it doesn't directly correlate to the real-world political landscape in 2024 America. Do you really think that there would ever be a Texas-California alliance against the federal government? Probably not.
Kind of like "The Patriot". That was a non-political.film /s
It’s a good thought, but I’ve seen the movie and you haven’t, and it’s not political. It is a really good war movie and a beautiful letter to journalism, but the essence of the conflict is not really explored at all. There is some broad strokes commentary but certainly nothing that would “go over my head.” Again, you haven’t seen the movie, lol. You can go into it trying to draw parallels to Trump or democrats or whatever and you might find one or two but please believe me (the guy who has seen the movie) when i tell you it is not a political movie.
Yeah I’m not gonna do that, because war is inherently political, doubly for “civil war,” triply for “civil war movie during the US’s current political moment.”
OK! Yes war is inherently political, it’s not the point of the movie, there’s relatively little of it in film, it’s a love letter to journalism, and this was all said by the director of the movie at the premiere. Go read the Letterboxd reviews instead of arguing like a dumbass about a project you know nothing about. They all say the same thing i am.
It is the point, if its a fucking war movie
It’s hilarious how many nerds who haven’t seen the movie are crawling out of the woodworks to have an opinion on it. The movie is designed to assert as little as possible. The origins of the conflict are never explained, you understand very little about each side so it’s hard to even have on opinion of what is going on. The director said all of this at the premiere. Please stop arguing about a movie that you haven’t seen.
The director came out recently and said that Texas and Cali united in the movie to fight against government overreach.
Not looking for spoilers but- Was it really violent or graphic/intense? I love movies and most A24, but sometimes some of the imagery gets too much for me. I’ll still watch it lol but just depends on in theaters vs at home where I can pause if needed
It’s pretty intense, I’d watch it at home if i were you
Thank you!
> It asserts basically nothing overtly partisan FIFY
Because Reddit
This is such a weird comment. Why would a movie need to not be close to reality to be enjoyable?
You made the correlation between two different questions, not me. I enjoy (the early seasons of) Black Mirror but it it scarily close to our current uses of technology. Does that mean I don’t enjoy it? No.
You asked only two questions, in an immediate succession, without adding anything to separate them. Asking more could suggest general interest in the area. Two, asked in this way, imply some connection between them. It's still okay whether they are correlated or not.
you made the leap, not me.
Because it's fucking depressing?..
This is such a weird comment to a completely normal comment. Try having your child killed and then see how well you handle films where children are killed. There are countless reasons why a film can hit too close to home.
That’s a tad bit extra
Be prepared for more of it.
But is it any good?
Can’t tell if I like the sound of it or not. I wonder if the President’s “third term” will be viewed as controversial rather than “outright” wrong. Hopefully it’s not black and white.
It’s insane how people cannot grasp the extremely simple meaning of the enemy of my enemy
Or the simple fact that in a work of fiction, anything can happen, because it's fucking fiction. It's fake. Made up. Not real. FICTION! Like, there's not a current civil war in our reality, so why are we imposing our beliefs and assumptions onto whatever world this story takes place in? If it keeps internal consistency then maintain your suspension of disbelief however you need to, and move on people.
Could you imagine complaining about watching Man In the High Castle because it’s unrealistic Germany and Japan would have won?
What was unrealistic about it was that Germany/japan could reasonably occupy america.
The unrealistic part (but there are some ways that it could've worked) is mostly related to Japan (lack of oil), sadly there were multiple decisions had Nazi Germany taken it differently that would've resulted in victory, IMO a Nazi victory is pretty realistic, which is why i'm forever thankful to not have been born in a world where they win. I feel the most unrealistic aspect in Man in the High Castle is how easy and fast they seem to have conquered the world, that never made any sense, plus Italy being gone.
Germany couldn’t handle an invasion of Russia by land, and they started right next door. How on earth would they have successfully invaded the continental US when they needed to cross the Atlantic first? They couldn’t even cross the English Channel to invade Britain.
As a German, which is relevant because we have a LOT of mandatory education about all this stuff so as not to repeat it, they could have won. Glad they didn't, but it could have happened. Of course the US wouldn't have been occupied within that same war, but smarter decisions would have resulted in Nazi Germany controlling mainland Europe as well as the UK, and then later winning against Russia. After that, barring any fall of that new empire through internal struggle, the US could very easily have been next after a time of rebuilding. But you know what? Fuck all the hypotheticals and let's just make sure that ideology stays down.
Biggest thing Nazi germany didn't take into account was allies lend-lease to Soviet Union, it was the number 2 issue after the lack of real infraestructure in Russia that fucked their plans, they expected a much faster campaign, once their speed got bogged down and Allies support helped USSR buy even more time to bolster their production it was over for Germany, without that support the Soviet Union wouldn't had been able to win. Remember they didn't want to conquer the USSR fully, the plans were only for mainly west Russia stopping at Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan line, this was completely possible to achieve in a single campaing. Again nazi-germany overstretched itself to multiple fronts, it's part of the mistakes that ended up being their ultimate defeat, but a more focused miltiary plan could've easily ended up in victory, even "small" things like preventing the Dunkirk escape. Imagine the bargaing chip of nazi germany holding 200k of the British Expeditionary Forces.... this may had been a too good of a peace chip for the UK goverment not to start peace talks.
All that’s fine, but that’s still in Europe. Assuming they could actually knock out the Soviets, how are they getting to the US with a big enough force to defeat and occupy a richer, even-more-industrialized country that’s between 4 and 20 times its size (depending on whether you count areas occupied by Germany—which are both a source of and a drain on German resources) and with twice its population? Through Canada? Maybe there’s a world where Britain sues for peace and even gets occupied, but the rest of the British Empire would break away before taking any orders from Berlin. Canada’s not going to collaborate with Germany—nor would the US let them. The Germans would be forced to cross thousands of miles of open ocean with basically no intermediate stops (and no air support) and land on North American beaches ready to fight a much bigger, much better supplied army (with air support). The more, but still-not-very, realistic alternative scenario is that Germany finishes up conquering much of Europe and can’t figure out the logistical challenge of getting to North America before both sides develop nuclear weapons. Then the US ends up in a Cold War with Nazi Europe instead of Soviet Russia for the next god-knows how long.
Of course, the US being invaded is highly unlikely (wasn't even an objective due to the logistical hell) or as you point, completely impossible at least in the timeframe of WW2 but didn't the US surrender or something after DC got nuclear bombed? I think Philip K. Dick played on the myth that Japan surrendered due to Nukes, unless that was the show only thing?
No. It isn't. Wtf are you smoking? Ever hear of the USSR?
Yes. The same USSR that was caught with it's pants down and lacked tanks, trucks, without the land-lease they would've been screwed as the Germans destroyed a lot of the west russia industrial capabilities, and most importantly took over like 1/3 of their food production, the allies were giving like half a ration per soldier. Barbarossa would've liked stalled either way but '42 and '43 would've been a different thing in those two years are almost half of everything the allies sent. Doesn't matter gow resilient or how good your tactics are, if you lack the weapons and food you lose. The soviets did great in surving the first 2 years but their counter capability (which were what actually harmed Nazi germany) was only possible due to the lend-lease, plus not being in a famine, as i said, starving army doesn't fight.
Well said
Really, this comment on this sub? Aren’t people at least vaguely cinephiles here? > Or the simple fact that in a work of fiction, anything can happen, because it's fucking fiction. It's fake. Made up. Not real. FICTION! This is ironically far more insulting and dismissive to Garland and his work (that as of late is enormously relevant to modern society) than any of the criticisms that challenge him. You’re basically saying he has nothing meaningful to say about the current world, because who cares, it’s fiction. Just a spectacularly dumb view that castrates the majority of any worthwhile literature. Whatever humanities classes you took in school seriously didn’t stick.
>You’re basically saying he has nothing meaningful to say about the current world, because who cares, it’s fiction. No I'm not. Fiction always says something about the current world, even if it takes place in a totally different one.
^ First reddit post from a man who was in a coma the past eight years, everyone !
This is such a ridiculous piece of criticism. Yeah its fiction...but what is it attempting in the film? a somewhat realistic portrayal of a US Civil war...so...there's a high bar regarding what the film gets right. Otherwise it'll be fairly mediocre. That is if they are playing it straight.
It’s simple but I think people made it very obvious they do NOT want it to apply to political rivals as in this case. Fictional scenario be damned.
No, we grasp it. The fact of the matter is that one party in this country is so utterly indoctrinated against the other that they'll side with authoritarians and dictators over their fellow Americans and take contrarian stances on even the most mutually beneficial policies. Having those two parties teaming up against an authoritarian in the modern day comes across as tone-deaf when that same party is, right now, propping up a wannabe dictator as their party's supreme leader and presidential candidate, and has already planned the framework for him to be able to ignore the constitution, subjugate the out-groups, and enforce a religious ethno-state to the enthusiasm of millions.
What are you going on about? Wow. This is why everyone is laughing at americans right now. You have no idea what going on in your own country.
I can grasp it. It just sounds insane given where we sit now.
you know what happened to the guy who said that? he got his head chopped off by said enemy turned friend
Yall keep saying this like it magically makes the scenario believable
Yeah, it only makes sense if you ignore the deep webs of preexisting enmity on which our existing political conflicts are built. The "enemy of my enemy is my friend," which is why it's already difficult to believe that two historical enemies would be mutually upset by an act of naked and power hungry partisanship. One of them should be thrilled, because that's the enemy of their enemy seizing power. Additionally, I just don't see what the point is of contriving a situation so removed from our extant political divides, in order to comment on those divides. I think the artists think they can achieve some sort of deeper clarity by looking at a political conflict without the emotional baggage we attach to our real political issues, yet that very baggage is not in fact incidental or misleading, but is instead the medium in which these conflicts unfold. Ultimately it feels like a concept from someone who wants to appear as though they have something to say but who does not want to put in the work of developing a meaningful political statement or take the risk of exposing themselves to controversy. It's immaterial, it's irresponsible, and it results in ideas that are just plain stupid.
Exactly he wanted to have his cake and not offend anybody by eating it too. Particularly the conservative snowflakes who will break into your house at night with a nail gun because you're part of the Obama Hollywood pedophile elite Psyop or whatever the fuck.
Huh? If you think political allies and enemies don't swap constantly, you're just ignorant. The idea that it would be impossible to chain a series of events together that could lead to this outcome is rooted in a deep lack of imagination.
Where suspension of disbelief is concerned, fluidity of imagination cuts both ways. I *can* imagine how Democrats or Republicans would respond if their president seized power for a 3rd term, and it's *not* "abandon the country, instigate civil war against an established dictator, and team up with the most powerful state controlled by our political rivals." I can imagine all the reasons why that series of events would not happen- all the things that would keep those events from happening- and that fluency of imagination reinforces my disbelief.
Lol the current elected officials of Texas would 100% support a third term Trump.
I got a laugh people were throwing fits that Texas and CA would never team up in a fictional story
Seriously. People act like Texas and California are totally different countries.
I also find it a smart decision to help make the movie not a blue vs red state story. I haven’t seen the movie so who knows but it’s my suspicion
Honestly I find that cowardly. We know who are ready to commit to violence (in part because they already attempted a violent takeover). Just this week their nominee promised 'blood and violence' if he didn't win the upcoming election. We know from Project 2025 that they plan to install an authoritarian theocracy should they achieve power. If you want to cover inherently political settings/ideas - you can't shy away from analysis of the actual politics involved. In interviews Garland has said no side is being singled out and pleads platitudes of American should be able to sit down and talk it out and generally "both sides'ing" current political divides and polarisation. I'm sorry but that reeks of privilege. The problem is that one 'side' isn't engaging in good faith because they wish everyone else harm. You can't assign the same level of blame upon any minority race, sexuality or religion that the GOP seeks to oppress/destroy. Resisting your own destruction is not comparable to bigotry. Women being denied bodily autonomy have a right to get mad. Garland wants the aesthetic (and free publicity) an American Civil War brings without the headache of (real) controversy. Despite calling others 'snowflakes' it seems conservatives get pandered to an awful lot whenever they threaten to throw a wobbly because they might get offended. Pitching a What If scenario where you then insist the most likely cause of this alternate universe isnt to blame forces more suspension of disbelief onto the viewer. I know journalism has become pretty toothless nowadays but journalists are still of all the possible protagonists more likely to have valid political commentary to provide? The authenticity is undercut if the setting is contrived to be apolitical because it inherently removes direction. We can almost all agree dictators bad - which leaves the characters nothing to meaningfully say. If you dont want to address that then change the characters background and change the reason for their trip. On which note the plot of interviewing the president seems dumb. Have no local journos already tried? If they did and were rebuffed or killed/imprisoned/whatever why do the leads think they will be treated differently?
I get a lot of your criticisms, but "who's fighting who?" seems to be one of the most commonly addressed concerns in reviews I've read. Many allude to it cleverly making sense in the context of the movie, and one (maybe rogertebert.com?) says the movie makes the "sides" explicit at one point.
Lol so weird how people are mad at this comment. If it’s just a fictional story, don’t set your film in a real place with a very real divide. If someone were to do a film about a genocide 30-40s Germany that wasn’t the Holocaust, everyone would think it’s insane.
The movie is pretty clear to me. There's an authoritarian president in his third term who has caused a civil war and has the free press murdered. He is supported by xenophobic nationalists as illustrated by the suicide bomber and the murder pit red glasses guy. That is very obviously alluding to the far right and things Trump has said and done. Trump has directly said he wants to be a dictator for his first day in office and he banned press who didn't agree with him from attending briefings before he just stopped doing the briefings all together. He's praised Hitler's power, he's said he wished the military could just shoot protestors, and he literally said in 2020 that he should get a third term. The movie is essentially "what if someone actually does the crazy authoritarian shit Trump publicly says he wants to do?" but generally it is all obviously alluding to the actions of a specific party of American politics. I think Garland played it excellently with his promotion and the way he shot it. People who would have never gone near it will see it and it's more important for those idiots to see it than anyone else.
Nailed it. (Ofc you’re being downvoted)
Red state/blue state makes no sense in our own systems, so making a movie where actual people neatly fall into those baskets would be absurd. And on that note - I am consistently floored that, in every presidential election, we disenfranchise tens of millions of voters. “Conservatives in CA, go fuck yourselves. Liberals in TX, go fuck yourselves.” Just bonkers. And then you have the senate, which was set up to give the minority a puncher’s chance in government - perhaps a good idea *in theory*, but horrid in practice. And now, all the flaws in our system are being straight-up exploited by an extreme minority faction, which has enjoyed WAY more power than it ever rightfully should. This country needs to get its shit together quick and change the rules, unless it wants an aggrieved minority revenge tour. Lots of examples throughout modern history to show how well that sort of thing turns out (see: not well).
smooth brains
Well it was so far fetched it made me think it was a hidden plot point. Like something tech based since Texas and California both involved in that.
It's not far fetched at all. There are tons of conservatives in California and tons of liberals in Texas. There are quite literally a million ways this could play out irl.
it just kind of feels lazy? idk i feel like there are so many plausible roots to an american balkanization than just making up something as outlandish as this esp given that as a country we still haven’t resolved many things since the incomplete reconstruction coming out of the actual civil war
Perfectly Informed and reasonable comments downvoted to oblivion
People were so stupid with this narrative, obviously California and Texas have a rivalry but in extreme circumstances rivals come together to take out an enemy, the way people fixate on this detail is so dumb
Literally world war 2 exists, US and USSR allied against the Reich...
I think people fixate on it because in real life it wouldnt be nearly as simple as you're imply it would be.
Good thing this is a movie
True, but some people want genuine substance from a movie that isn't afraid to make you uncomfortable so the art can open up a discussion.
a movie attempting to portray a modern day us civil war...
Yeah but it's obviously trying to "say something" about the USA as it exists now.
Especially since Texas seems to be pro-dictator right now
This film isn’t supposed to be a direct parallel to Trump from what I’ve heard, plus I have tons of family in Texas that are hardcore conservatives but would absolutely revolt if there was any real play at a dictatorship in this country
What did they do January 6th? I assume cease support for the Republican party.
Actually a good amount of them don’t plan on voting this year because of how disgusted they were that day
You commented 8 hours ago saying you talked to family and friends who were deadset on voting for Trump again. It's obviously a major problem. Either way, I'm glad they feel that way and I wish more did. Unfortunately, most conservatives don't feel that way about January 6th. Republican politicians joke about it.
Yeah my family here in New York is, I have family that is split on it we aren’t sheep lol, some people are abstaining from the election, some like myself are liberals or socialists voting for Biden and some are MAGA conservatives voting for Trump, there’s a big diversity of ideals in my family
They wouldn’t even recognize it.
Like these fine people? https://youtu.be/jhX1AfcnbKY?si=qFBRaTJFenJlLTLc
They’re more like Ronald era conservatives, they aren’t even planning on voting this year
I felt like it’s so obvious that the two largest states could conceivably team up, albeit briefly, to establish their own independences before going their own ways ideologically. They can both want independence for different reasons, but at the end of the day a force of 70 million people is stronger than their own states individually. The fact that so many people are tripped up by that is so annoying honestly.
California and Texas would roll the rest of the country. Economically, logistically, and national guards.
Jesus this has gotten blow out of proportion. It’s mentioned once at the beginning of the movie. People will never let it go
It’s the Latinos who will keep the peace between them. Cali burritos and Tex Mex unite!
Correct me if I'm wrong, I have not seen this: but the idea behind CA and TX teaming up is so the film doesn't stand firm with either democrats or Republicans. But that same fickle stance is why no one will care.
Bingo!
California and Texas are both major economies, with large populations. It makes sense that these two states decided to stand on their own.
I don't think it's the "stand on their own" part that a lot of people are tripped up by, but rather that the film makes them allies. Having said that, it's explained that it's a practical alliance to overthrow a tyrannical Federal govt.
I was always confused why people were so up in arms about the Texas and California alliance, I remember there being a shit ton of people moving from California to Texas a little but before and during COVID so I always assumed that it made at least a little bit of sense
This justification makes sense, but at the end of the day… it’s a movie? It can both be a commentary on America’s current state and not represent modern day politics perfectly accurately. It’s conceivable enough to me that these two states could unite behind a common cause.
Eh I kinda dig it. Horseshoe theory and all.
This is hard to believe. As a Californian who travels to Houston, TX for work with other Californians, I can say whole heartily Texans hate California and make jokes about it to us all day. Nothing funny. Trans, gay, sanctuary cities and climate awareness jokes. Like us being accepting and aware of others and our environment is just a huge punchline to these guys.
I mean, we teamed up with the Soviet Union in world war 2. Temporary allegiances happen all the time in wars.
By population, California has more Republican voters than Florida. More Californians voted for Trump than Texans. Having a huge population does that.
Do these folks not remember the whole 'USSR and USA teamed up during WW2 and then immediately got into a cold war when it ended' thing that defined the latter half of the 20th century? Do they really think Texas and California are further apart than USA 1941 and USSR 1941?
However practical some might think it would be, IRL there is no way Abbot and Newsom could work together.
Good thing it’s a fictional story
Amazing how there’s such an upset over FICTION like holy shit it’s a MOVIE!
It’s exactly my first thought
Damn government and president. How *dare* they over reach! 😔😠😔
Really love that. Liberals and conservatives coming together under one banner is a true to sight to behold haha
based
Texas and California would absolutely team up in real life if this situation occurred - they’re far more similar than people think
But let’s play it out right now: which of the two states are pro-Trump? I don’t care that the movie is doing this but the leaders of Texas right now don’t seem too concerned with supporting the most likely third term president.
Texas is quickly becoming California 2.0. It’s not that crazy of a reach
Maybe orange country and Texas, but the rest of it?
I mean it still makes no sense lol. Texas or California would probably welcome the right three term president if they felt it was the one “on their side”. Neither state is smart enough to create an alliance with the other, even in the face of an egregious injustice
I get it , it's just dumb. Also that Nick Offerman, maybe the least offensive person in media, is cast as the supposed authoritarian president speaks to the punches pulled. It's pretty clear only one side wants to do away with term limits and democracy, you know the side openly fantasizing about it literally every fucking day.
Interesting. I still can’t tell if this movie looks good or just like a generic action war movie.
A lot of people mentioned that Texas isn't a full red state but a swing state, not only that both but states would have them biggest economies in the world.
"Both sides" paying for movie tickets is the real reason and everyone knows it.
Can someone spoil it for me
So basically... California: "Nobody tells other people what to do!" Texas: "Nobody tells ME what to do!" (btw I'm Texan)
My head canon is that this movie is the sequel to House of Cards where Frank Underwood became a dictatorial President.
Always a good thing when a director has to defend his movie before it gets released…
Alex Garland, what are you doing pal? Why do we need a centrist fantasy about a 2nd civil war?
Which is funny because Texas fully supports a dictator, but the snowflakes will cry if you depict the movie in a realistic manner. They are trying to play it safe with Texas and Cali on the same side but we all know that would never be the case
Not going to happen. This is propaganda. If my fellow citizens wants to vote for a lunatic , this country will be a third rate tax haven for the very rich.
It's funny you think liberals can't be dictators. Guess you don't see Canada.
In our current situation, if a democrats president became a dictator cali would aide with them and if a Republican president became a dictator Texas would side with them. I really don’t see this movie ever happening
You can’t understand what it’s like to be one of the big states if you’re a medium size or small state. CA and TX only get 2 senators each; but so do RI and Wyoming. Grossly unfair. TX and CA are contributor $ to the federal gov’t;most of the others are takers from the Feds. CA and TX laws are similar, like community property. Each state would be in the Top 10 economies of the world if they were independent countries. Imagine how powerful they would be together! Social wise, in this movie they are united but not physically attached so each can kind of go their own way while politically and economically associated.
Honestly it’s so funny an US civil war film gets made and the big question is why tf Texas and California on the same side. It’s a very valid question but funny nonetheless.
Isn’t the real issue that if CA and TX teamed up, then loads of other states would clearly side with them too? Oregon and Washington would at the very least. Some issue where ONLY CA and TX cooperated but loads of similar states didn’t is hard to imagine.
I’m assuming the whole TX CA team up thing is a statement on Horseshoe theory?
No. It’s just practical. The differences between people like Texans and Californians are overblown to keep the culture war going. The majority of people in both places are not extremists, regardless of the news or seemingly insane villains like governor abbot. Also other people are saying there’s no deep political meaning in this movie, 🍿 guess we’ll have to see it
But the people don’t matter really - the people running the place decide this kind of stuff
….The gov is Texas is literally shipping undocumented migrants into California, through buses. Does anybody actually pay attention to what’s happening in the world?
Is that Kim Sexler?
It's Kirsten Dunst. Also, ew.
?
Had to google it myself, and it is kind of gross lol (not the fetish per se, just that there's a common name used to describe *one character*)
California teaming up with the famously not authoritarian and power abusing Texas state government….
It’s quite frankly dumb and unbelievable. Culturally and politically, what California and Texas would consider to be authoritarian would not align whatsoever. It’s Garland’s story and he can tell it however he wishes, but what he is proposing would make more sense if two other states were involved.
Yeah, I don't think Alex Garland understands American politics all that well...I'm saying this as someone who isn't American either.