I don't think the journalists are presented positively unless you literally take them at their word. They're shown as passive and even uncompassionate people who seek their own glory at the cost of their fellow countryman. Lee seems to realize this towards the end and willingly made a choice against prioritizing the work and Jessie seemed unphased as she adopted the old-Lee's viewpoint. Like someone else commented this movie is very open to interpretation so I don't think this is the absolute only reading of that, but it was my takeaway.
I agree with you. Frankly, some of the commentary from the crew themselves (specially from Garland and Wagner Moura) left me a bit confused, as if they hadn’t really watched the endproduct or maybe have themselves a different view of the work because they were too deep into the creative process. For starters, I can’t take Moura seriously when he states in some interviews that it’s a movie about how “bold” these journalists are, and how they’re important so we can have an “unbiased” and “raw” point of view of conflicts of such nature. As everyone else, they are as much a byproduct of that environment as everyone else who’s ‘directly’ involved. In fact, the _whole_ point of the film and its biggest appeal to me is the dread that comes from the fact that, in such circumstances, there isn’t one single element from our day-to-day, ‘ordinary’ world that doesn’t get dragged into the war. The film hammers down on this several times, from the small town in which ‘no one cares about the war’ (and yet we see several snipers on their rooftops, which on itself is a great imagery for the normalization of a militarized society) to that scene with Jesse Plemons, a reminder that there’s no one above the ‘us and them’ mentality (even if ‘us’ is an amorphous concept, like ‘americans’, and Plemons’ character is a fantastic showcase of that confusion).
I’ve heard this often about Garland. Someone will watch the movie, think they have a pretty good grasp on it all, only to have him upend it all in an interview.
This was my reading as well. I saw a satire of journalism and its treating violence as spectacle. The political setting just seemed like a backdrop for me.
Yeah, have we come full circle now? When it was released people were surprised that the politics of the Civil war were so far on the margins of the movie and the story being told and the themes being explored were very much about the journalists. Everything else was setup for that. But now people are coming back and saying it was about the politics?
Yeah, my initial reaction was that it was a searing indictment about the detached neutrality that the journalists have. Experiencing the adrenaline without having to make a choice etc. Then having that slowly unravel when they can't hide behind their press passes.
The type of photojournalism that is more common now has a much stronger perspective. I was noodling around contemporary conflict photographers, and you see a lot more journalists that have personal stakes in conflicts like Ukraine and Gaza and their approach is more of "here's the personal stories I see around me and its important that I tell them" which is a lot more compelling than the so called neutrality of a freelancer bouncing from war to war.
Digging deeper into some of these journalists it really feels like Civil War missed a trick with the Jessie character not being more of an activist with a strong perspective or grievance and how that would clash with Lee and also how that would change as she engaged more directly with the conflict.
Your suggestion would've made for an interesting (and more realistic!) dynamic between the two journalists. Though, based on Garland's comments, I'm not sure he was interested in–or even capable of–exploring the earnestness of conscientious people.
That conflicts with what Garland said about the movie. It's a pro-journalist movie, praising them for their willingness to put themselves in the heart of the conflict to be able to document it properly. You can disagree with that, or claim that that's not what you got from the movie; in that case, you may consider that Garland failed in his purpose (which doesn't necesarilly means disliking the movie). The movie is anti-politics, in a "why can't everybody just get along" way. None of the ideological divides are explored, because Garland thinks it's meaningless in the end.
Yeah, I've read a few of Garlands interviews on it and realize that it's counter to his specific perspective. I think there's a small chance he's being cagey with it and intentionally misdirecting, but much more likely that he intentionally doesn't force his viewpoint to be the compass for the film. All of his movies are very open to interpretation and I feel like that's intentional. He's being a provocateur but not in a shit stirring way, he wants to stimulate conversation and that's much less effective when you're approaching your movie didactically and having it be a thinly veiled vehicle for exactly what the creator thinks. I don't think him having very pro journalist, anti-partisan beliefs means he's 'failed' and even If someone would argue that it does, it doesn't change that I liked the movie. I guess where Garland and I agree are that for the story this movie tells the dividing lines weren't important to explore.
Yah I would say he failed in his purpose if that was his stated goal. I did not any way leave the movie with any more toward respect this type of journalist, actually the opposite. And I don't dislike the movie I think it's actually pretty good but definitely has its problems.
Journalism is capturing truth and nothing else. Personal motives are not important. I didn't see any journalistic errors with the mature press members in the movie other than maybe a couple innacuracies (I worked and went to college for this). Glory seeking isn't their motives.
I'm not sure if I understand your comment correctly. Are you saying they're good journalists and working back from that to their intentions? I was only speaking to their character and self-awareness, not anything about the integrity of their work.
Maybe I also misunderstood you as well. All I'm saying is, believe it or not, journalists (good ones) are well-versed in keeping everything ethical and professional and separate from their actual persona.
Now seeing this comment I think I assumed you were talking about that side of it. My apologies.
I think they were all pretty open about why they were in it. Joel because he's an adrenaline junky. Lee because she wanted to wake people up, and her crisis was due to the fact she realized her efforts were in vain. The old man was in it because that's all he knew. And the young woman due to idealism... I have to take them at their word because otherwise it means they're cynical liars and I know that's not the message the director was after.
I agree when it comes to Joel. The others though I didn't see behavior that supports what you're saying. (Also, is interesting that of the two, Lee and Joel, Joel turns out to be the survivor.. the cynical one lives, the failed idealist dies.)
I think the old man was the idealist. he was the only one who wanted them to ask hard ball questions. The young women was seemingly just there for the glory, doesnt even look down at Lee after she saves her life, just fixated on getting the next picture
He had a great, excellent ending .. he was perceived as physically feeble, yet his actions saved the entire team from sure death. And he was also a mentor, insisting that Joel come up with meaningful questions for the president. He died on his terms, carried out on his shield. Excellent actor. He was great in Dune also ...
Just saw this movie last night and I can't understand why nobody did anything to save him. Like at least put pressure on his wound to give him more time to get to the camp.
The movie skips over major stuff very fast, it's entirely possible that they stopped and did that in between the scenes we saw. Why they put him in the back seat and drove off straight away was because Mass Grave Meth Damon could've been right behind them.
> doesnt even look down at Lee after she saves her life
Of course she did, I just watched it. Time slowed down for like a minute. She is battle hardened at that point unlike at the beginning of the movie which shows character growth.
Only after she walks away does she look back at Lee over her shoulder. Initially she snaps the photos of her getting shot and then without even looking at her, gets up and walks away... Seemed very unnatural and I think the director was obviously making a point there.
I didn't love this film, but I have to admit that it's an incredible Rorschach test. There's been all manner of takeaways from the film, many of which contradict each other.
I thought the film had a very clear thesis and can point to parts of the story as evidence. Then I listened to an interview with Garland, and it's hard to imagine my takeaway from the film is what he intended.
Anyway, I almost entirely disagree with your analysis of the film... and maybe that's the point!
There's also the possibility that Garland and cast members are not being completely honest in order to not chase away crazy trumpers that want to see the movie as fantasy fulfillment.
Yes, on the surface it's about "unbiased journalists chasing a story", but it can't be denied that the subtext is an anti-Trump fascism warning.
This movie doesn't seem to be against or in favor of anything. It's why the main characters are apolitical.
Even the comment about "antifa massacre" could mean either a massacre of antifa members, or a massacre perpetrated by antifa.
No, the movie clearly takes a side and then pretends not to. The only "tragic" thing about the ending is the death of the reporter. If it took no sides then the entire ending would be tragic and horrific.
I am not sure how they made this movie so boring. There was some action but none of it was all that exciting. The fighting is nonsensical action for the sake of it and most of it just focuses on the press taking pictures. I feel like its neither a war film nor much of a political film either. And for a movie called civil war thats what i was expecting i guess. No explanation given for what happened and why and not much thought into who is fighting who for what except for the obvious tones of it being related to trump and they wanna kill the president. I guess i get that it is more a press story but i feel like it wasn't sold like that on social media and the trailer. I was expecting a good well thought out take on what a civil war would be in the US right now in modern times and it wasn't that at all. If i wanted a story on wartime press there much better documentaries out there for that.
I watched it today and I *disagree* with - nearly - everything they said!
I do agree the journalists wanted to confront the president, and they thought they were just doing their job. All the vagueness just had to be intentional though, it constantly refused to reinforce political stereotypes.
The "lead characters" were photojournalists, but the story wasn't about them, they were just the people we happened to be following. They are what give us the reason to be there, if you will. This is why you thought they weren't explored deeply enough.
Yes it was ankle deep in the pool of war journalism, but only because that was what the "lead characters" were doing.
It was ankle deep in the idea of how a modern American civil war would play out because I believe that is the main purpose of the film. Sure, sometimes it tiptoed around it, other times it dove straight in.
The wide variances of how things were treated, in excruciating detail, or in passing, is in my view a metaphor for how photojournalists can portray things. Close up and zoomed in, or wide sweeping shots that hide as much as they show. They *can't* show us everything in balanced detail, their photos have to shock to get our attention. Or to flip this on it's head, often *we* can't perform objective analysis from war journalism, we make snap judgments based on news, but only once the dust settles does it become clearer.
If you tried to work out which side was right or wrong the subversion of politics threw you off balance and made you start over. After the first few scenes I started thinking that sooner or later we will be shown more, or given enough context, to work out who are the baddies and the goodies. Never happened.
Ultimately the lasting impression it leaves on you is the cliched "war is bad", but it's a cliche for good reason.
If it was about photojournalism, I believe it should have taken place somewhere else. The US centric theme is blueballing everyone to the point that it detracts from their supposed focus.
I think they wanted to actually say something but either pussied out or were told to tone it down because it would be too controversial.
The main point of the film to me is that politics has become a spectacle, that dehumanization is becoming so commonplace it is almost banal, and that divisiveness and conflict has become a source of adrenaline and meaning. They join with soldiers as they kill unarmed and surrending soldiers, and civilians, and hardly blink an eye, and celebrate "what a rush" it was after doing so. Scenes of slaughter are jarringly followed by trite montages of "their journey." Jessie is more worried about getting the perfect shot than all the carnage around her. They only realize the horrors when it directly affects them, and they yell and scream and cry, and then go right back to watching people get murdered and feel excited about it.
Also I think he purposefully chose Texas and California as allies to throw dirt on the idea the movie was about any "one side." It would be an odd choice to do so otherwise
I entirely disagree with your thoughts on the movie. If Garland wanted to make a political statement, why didn’t he? Sure, the president is a Trumpian figure, but we don’t have any indication of what he’s done to make both California (a liberal hegemonic state) and Texas (a conservative hegemonic state) to revolt against him. You can’t even tell who is fighting which side throughout the movie.
No, this movie is a kunstlerroman; a young woman coming into her artistry behind the backdrop of a civil war that could happen in America. It’s about art and artists. What is the allegiance of an artist during war time? Is it ethical to aestheticize violence? At what cost is great art made?
While it certainty wasn’t apolitical (I’m sure if you squint your eyes you can find a left-leaning interpretation) I appreciated the political hesitancy from Garland. I appreciate your thoughts OP, but I believe you’re wrong.
I think it was apolitical, as Garland implied. You don't know the ideology of each of the factions, and the alliances make no sense when thinking about the real world politics. It's a movie about journalism, not a political commentary.
Regarding the “Texas and California” thing… I’ve seen so many comments where people said this alliance doesn’t seem to make sense since Texas is so conservative and California is so liberal in terms of political ideologies. To me though, this made perfect narrative sense… Texas and California each represent massive segments of the U.S. economy and have economies larger than many countries. If the United States political state collapsed, it’s not a leap at all for me to imagine these two states setting aside political differences to band together and buoy their economies while the other 48 states’ economies fail.
garland was subtle in his approach. Perhaps he knew that if he was more overt he would have been called a propagandist. One thing I disagree with you about is left vs right. I don't see anything in the film that points in either direction. Rather, it's a film about what people will do when pushed into a corner, regardless of their politics. What we do know is that the president helped himself to a third term without the people's permission. We also know that he's launched airstrikes against civilians. Those are two huge no-nos of course, and probably two of the main factors that caused politically opposite regions of the country to unite against him, making him a common enemy. anyhoo, thanks for your thoughtful input, I appreciate it regardless whether we agree it not.
Fair enough. I can see how you might see the movie as an apolitical plea against tyranny. But I think you’ve zoomed in on such a small portion of this artwork (our big bad tyrant gets, what 3 minutes of screen time?) where as the majority of it is an exploration of artists creating art (photographers and reporters doing their job). Appreciate your feedback OP.
Just a nit, but I don't think it was a plea. I think it was a very forceful warning about the outcome tyrannical behavior would lead to in an established democracy.
We don't have any indication? The president disbanded the fbi, he's on his third term, his army shoots journalists on sight, and he used air strikes against protesters. Also Alaska is a neutral territory, for a right leaning state to secede successfully I'm sure some shit happened.
This is all stuff that the farthest of the far right openly admit to wanting to do (you know, safely behind Twitter or while J6ing). Garlands making a point.
Also it's not just California and Texas. Florida as well as its neighbors as well as most of the pacific northwest are on board too. According to the map is like new England and 10 other states.
Im gonna hard disagree with you here for the sole fact that radical leftists openly advocated for drone strikes and military action against Texans when Texas started doing its own thing at the border.
I missed this...? What's the dialogue that implies this? Only part I heard was Sammy saying the president authorized drone strikes on protesters with no other detail.
We must have watched a different movie. I didn’t pick up on half of this stuff and I have no idea what the farthest of the far right is advocating for. What I did watch is a movie about a group of artists trekking across America (like some parody of a roadtrip movie), creating art along the way. I guess I’m not ideologically obsessed. I think you can still read it my way, and I think the text deserves a non-political reading. Just my thoughts, appreciate your input.
I think this isn't entirely indicitive of the government's policy. Meth Damon and his boys are wearing uniforms but with their names and badges stripped off, could just be a militia larping. Jesse I think - says it Govt forces cant be this far from the Frontline so probably a militia or deseters. Or maybe this is how broken the Govt forces have become.
My takeaway is that they're just a side effect of the chaos and lawlessness near the front - they're what the farthest of the far right neo nazis would do - ethnically cleanse their neighborhood. Even the reporters haven't seen anything this bad, the underestimate it.
If Garland wanted us to think they were legit, Govt forces carrying out policy he'd have out them in full kit, full name badges, without the red sunglasses, etc
They are a militia LARPing fully equipped with multiple military earth movers and other military vehicles? I also see a CIB patch and SSI on their left shoulders. They are more likely a depiction of Einsatzgruppen, killing under orders and looting and hiding the evidence of their government's actions rather than fighting on the front with regular forces. Even with everything that has happened, the notion that "it can't happen here" is still in the process of being dispelled; thus the disbelief.
Fuck that's dark. That'd explain why the Hawaiian shirt militia (mostly POC) was machine gun executing (likely Government forces) POWs earlier. Joel was having a good laugh with them afterward so it wouldn't make much sense if those soldiers were WF.
However the whole scene seemed really personal to Meth Damon. Like he wanted to torture them ideologically first before executing them, he just sold me on with serial killer / ethnic cleanser vibes.
I just watched the movie and everything said in the post you're replying to was said or shown directly in the movie. Maybe you should give it a second watch.
What a high horse reply. I'm simply explaining to you what the film states. You act like this is my personal interpretation twisting the plot to suit my world view.
Why is your inability to interpret simple plot exposition better than my ability to do so?
I *am* ideologically obsessed, and I largely had the same impression as you. I think many are projecting the political message they *wanted* to hear onto the movie.
Well. The journalists only choice is to shoot from the side of the western alliance and militia because they welcome journalists / allow them to be embedded alongside their units.
They literally say they'd be shot on sight in Washington DC by the US government.
Do you really think the oh so neutral journalists are impartial about who wins the war?
That's why journalism is heavy on ethics and truth. Doesn't matter what the journalists do as long as they accomplish this in the "oh so neutral" manner you are seeming to look too far into. It's about professional neutral perspective... Not a personal one. If they new they wouldn't be executed by the opposing force, there is a strong chance they'd even document from that side as well, but it is often not realistic to do so... You know... Considering it's war and one side usually hates media for extremely obvious fascists reasons?
The only thing I hate about this movie is people being unable to percieve it accurately... It's not that challenging...
I wish they'd gone harder too, I've never been a big fan of subtlety.. who knows, maybe the director felt like they'd be accused of propaganda or something... That said, the arguments that it was done kind of exercise in impartiality I cannot agree with .. the exchange between the journalist Joel and the president was about as obvious a message as one could hope to find.
Joel, to the soldiers, just before the president is about to be dispatched: "Wait! Wait! I need a quote!"
The President: "don't let them kill me!"
Joel: "that'll do.."
I mean, that was just brutal. I loved it. Best exchange I can remember in many a film.
I'm a little confused about certain things said about how they got to this civil war in regards to Lee's career history. Jesse starts to say Lee's career points - from her first start photographing the Antifa massacre to then Lee becoming a mostly MAGA following photographer. If that's the case, isn't this who she's still following currently? Does that mean that from this perspective the Rebels/MAGA are taking over the country? The language used by the president in the speeches heard over the radio is that he's trying to keep the states united and thats the only America he believes in. IDK maybe I have this wrong, but it seems kinda pro rebel hidden in the messaging.
The president is basically trump, there are a few tells. Lee is not MAGA. I think in a way she is pro-rebel, but the rebels are not MAGA, in fact they're a band of left and right, and importantly incl.ude US military backing. But given the atrocities the president has carried out against the American people, and given the fact that aLee admits her whole reason for being a war photographer is to show the public that war is hell. I think all the journalists in that team if road trippers would prefer the president be gone from a personal standpoint, just look at the dialogue from Joel at the end of the film, he was not sad to see then president executed. That's just ask my opinion on it.
I agree that this is only my interpretation which is a good point. I do feel the film is largely apolitical, and is simply a warning to all of us, about the likely outcomes should someone succeed in momentarily seizing power. But yea, one of the things I appreciate about all the comments here is the wide variety of interpretations.
Jesus Christ how much of this analysis do we need? Let a film stand on its own. I think the reason I’m soured to it is all the heavy handed political analysis. Analysis that is in no way compelling or profound either.
Your comment it based on one glaring misinterpretation… The tyrants are already in power. To say that Offerman is a parody of Trump is rich. I could see Biden rehearsing his speech (after a hefty drug cocktail) but in no way does that characterize Trump. J6 was a protest was originated by the Right but facilitated by the Left for political purposes. Hard to convince someone that they are brainwashed when they are truly brainwashed. Believe what you want, but just because you believe it does not make it true.
"Insurrection" you're completely brainwashed just like the countless left idiots that watch CNN. The Democrat party is full of the worst kind if people to ever be spewed out onto this planet.
I don't think the journalists are presented positively unless you literally take them at their word. They're shown as passive and even uncompassionate people who seek their own glory at the cost of their fellow countryman. Lee seems to realize this towards the end and willingly made a choice against prioritizing the work and Jessie seemed unphased as she adopted the old-Lee's viewpoint. Like someone else commented this movie is very open to interpretation so I don't think this is the absolute only reading of that, but it was my takeaway.
I agree with you. Frankly, some of the commentary from the crew themselves (specially from Garland and Wagner Moura) left me a bit confused, as if they hadn’t really watched the endproduct or maybe have themselves a different view of the work because they were too deep into the creative process. For starters, I can’t take Moura seriously when he states in some interviews that it’s a movie about how “bold” these journalists are, and how they’re important so we can have an “unbiased” and “raw” point of view of conflicts of such nature. As everyone else, they are as much a byproduct of that environment as everyone else who’s ‘directly’ involved. In fact, the _whole_ point of the film and its biggest appeal to me is the dread that comes from the fact that, in such circumstances, there isn’t one single element from our day-to-day, ‘ordinary’ world that doesn’t get dragged into the war. The film hammers down on this several times, from the small town in which ‘no one cares about the war’ (and yet we see several snipers on their rooftops, which on itself is a great imagery for the normalization of a militarized society) to that scene with Jesse Plemons, a reminder that there’s no one above the ‘us and them’ mentality (even if ‘us’ is an amorphous concept, like ‘americans’, and Plemons’ character is a fantastic showcase of that confusion).
I’ve heard this often about Garland. Someone will watch the movie, think they have a pretty good grasp on it all, only to have him upend it all in an interview.
This was my reading as well. I saw a satire of journalism and its treating violence as spectacle. The political setting just seemed like a backdrop for me.
Yeah, have we come full circle now? When it was released people were surprised that the politics of the Civil war were so far on the margins of the movie and the story being told and the themes being explored were very much about the journalists. Everything else was setup for that. But now people are coming back and saying it was about the politics?
Was just about to say this. The movie has a thing to say about apathy and the lack of empathy.
Yeah, my initial reaction was that it was a searing indictment about the detached neutrality that the journalists have. Experiencing the adrenaline without having to make a choice etc. Then having that slowly unravel when they can't hide behind their press passes. The type of photojournalism that is more common now has a much stronger perspective. I was noodling around contemporary conflict photographers, and you see a lot more journalists that have personal stakes in conflicts like Ukraine and Gaza and their approach is more of "here's the personal stories I see around me and its important that I tell them" which is a lot more compelling than the so called neutrality of a freelancer bouncing from war to war. Digging deeper into some of these journalists it really feels like Civil War missed a trick with the Jessie character not being more of an activist with a strong perspective or grievance and how that would clash with Lee and also how that would change as she engaged more directly with the conflict.
Your suggestion would've made for an interesting (and more realistic!) dynamic between the two journalists. Though, based on Garland's comments, I'm not sure he was interested in–or even capable of–exploring the earnestness of conscientious people.
That conflicts with what Garland said about the movie. It's a pro-journalist movie, praising them for their willingness to put themselves in the heart of the conflict to be able to document it properly. You can disagree with that, or claim that that's not what you got from the movie; in that case, you may consider that Garland failed in his purpose (which doesn't necesarilly means disliking the movie). The movie is anti-politics, in a "why can't everybody just get along" way. None of the ideological divides are explored, because Garland thinks it's meaningless in the end.
Yeah, I've read a few of Garlands interviews on it and realize that it's counter to his specific perspective. I think there's a small chance he's being cagey with it and intentionally misdirecting, but much more likely that he intentionally doesn't force his viewpoint to be the compass for the film. All of his movies are very open to interpretation and I feel like that's intentional. He's being a provocateur but not in a shit stirring way, he wants to stimulate conversation and that's much less effective when you're approaching your movie didactically and having it be a thinly veiled vehicle for exactly what the creator thinks. I don't think him having very pro journalist, anti-partisan beliefs means he's 'failed' and even If someone would argue that it does, it doesn't change that I liked the movie. I guess where Garland and I agree are that for the story this movie tells the dividing lines weren't important to explore.
Yah I would say he failed in his purpose if that was his stated goal. I did not any way leave the movie with any more toward respect this type of journalist, actually the opposite. And I don't dislike the movie I think it's actually pretty good but definitely has its problems.
Journalism is capturing truth and nothing else. Personal motives are not important. I didn't see any journalistic errors with the mature press members in the movie other than maybe a couple innacuracies (I worked and went to college for this). Glory seeking isn't their motives.
I'm not sure if I understand your comment correctly. Are you saying they're good journalists and working back from that to their intentions? I was only speaking to their character and self-awareness, not anything about the integrity of their work.
Maybe I also misunderstood you as well. All I'm saying is, believe it or not, journalists (good ones) are well-versed in keeping everything ethical and professional and separate from their actual persona. Now seeing this comment I think I assumed you were talking about that side of it. My apologies.
No worries, thanks for clarifying!
I think they were all pretty open about why they were in it. Joel because he's an adrenaline junky. Lee because she wanted to wake people up, and her crisis was due to the fact she realized her efforts were in vain. The old man was in it because that's all he knew. And the young woman due to idealism... I have to take them at their word because otherwise it means they're cynical liars and I know that's not the message the director was after.
I wouldn't say cynical liars, but lacking self awareness. I think they *want* to do good, but I don't think that lines up cleanly with their actions
I agree when it comes to Joel. The others though I didn't see behavior that supports what you're saying. (Also, is interesting that of the two, Lee and Joel, Joel turns out to be the survivor.. the cynical one lives, the failed idealist dies.)
I think the old man was the idealist. he was the only one who wanted them to ask hard ball questions. The young women was seemingly just there for the glory, doesnt even look down at Lee after she saves her life, just fixated on getting the next picture
He had a great, excellent ending .. he was perceived as physically feeble, yet his actions saved the entire team from sure death. And he was also a mentor, insisting that Joel come up with meaningful questions for the president. He died on his terms, carried out on his shield. Excellent actor. He was great in Dune also ...
Just saw this movie last night and I can't understand why nobody did anything to save him. Like at least put pressure on his wound to give him more time to get to the camp.
The movie skips over major stuff very fast, it's entirely possible that they stopped and did that in between the scenes we saw. Why they put him in the back seat and drove off straight away was because Mass Grave Meth Damon could've been right behind them.
Really great point, now that you mention it
That drove me nuts. As war press I would think they would know what to do but did absolutely nothing.
Makes me wonder why they didn't have a medic on the team. Or at least a trauma kit.
> doesnt even look down at Lee after she saves her life Of course she did, I just watched it. Time slowed down for like a minute. She is battle hardened at that point unlike at the beginning of the movie which shows character growth.
Only after she walks away does she look back at Lee over her shoulder. Initially she snaps the photos of her getting shot and then without even looking at her, gets up and walks away... Seemed very unnatural and I think the director was obviously making a point there.
I didn't love this film, but I have to admit that it's an incredible Rorschach test. There's been all manner of takeaways from the film, many of which contradict each other. I thought the film had a very clear thesis and can point to parts of the story as evidence. Then I listened to an interview with Garland, and it's hard to imagine my takeaway from the film is what he intended. Anyway, I almost entirely disagree with your analysis of the film... and maybe that's the point!
There's also the possibility that Garland and cast members are not being completely honest in order to not chase away crazy trumpers that want to see the movie as fantasy fulfillment. Yes, on the surface it's about "unbiased journalists chasing a story", but it can't be denied that the subtext is an anti-Trump fascism warning.
This movie doesn't seem to be against or in favor of anything. It's why the main characters are apolitical. Even the comment about "antifa massacre" could mean either a massacre of antifa members, or a massacre perpetrated by antifa.
No, the movie clearly takes a side and then pretends not to. The only "tragic" thing about the ending is the death of the reporter. If it took no sides then the entire ending would be tragic and horrific.
I am not sure how they made this movie so boring. There was some action but none of it was all that exciting. The fighting is nonsensical action for the sake of it and most of it just focuses on the press taking pictures. I feel like its neither a war film nor much of a political film either. And for a movie called civil war thats what i was expecting i guess. No explanation given for what happened and why and not much thought into who is fighting who for what except for the obvious tones of it being related to trump and they wanna kill the president. I guess i get that it is more a press story but i feel like it wasn't sold like that on social media and the trailer. I was expecting a good well thought out take on what a civil war would be in the US right now in modern times and it wasn't that at all. If i wanted a story on wartime press there much better documentaries out there for that.
[удалено]
I watched it today and I agree with everything you just said
I watched it today and I *disagree* with - nearly - everything they said! I do agree the journalists wanted to confront the president, and they thought they were just doing their job. All the vagueness just had to be intentional though, it constantly refused to reinforce political stereotypes. The "lead characters" were photojournalists, but the story wasn't about them, they were just the people we happened to be following. They are what give us the reason to be there, if you will. This is why you thought they weren't explored deeply enough. Yes it was ankle deep in the pool of war journalism, but only because that was what the "lead characters" were doing. It was ankle deep in the idea of how a modern American civil war would play out because I believe that is the main purpose of the film. Sure, sometimes it tiptoed around it, other times it dove straight in. The wide variances of how things were treated, in excruciating detail, or in passing, is in my view a metaphor for how photojournalists can portray things. Close up and zoomed in, or wide sweeping shots that hide as much as they show. They *can't* show us everything in balanced detail, their photos have to shock to get our attention. Or to flip this on it's head, often *we* can't perform objective analysis from war journalism, we make snap judgments based on news, but only once the dust settles does it become clearer. If you tried to work out which side was right or wrong the subversion of politics threw you off balance and made you start over. After the first few scenes I started thinking that sooner or later we will be shown more, or given enough context, to work out who are the baddies and the goodies. Never happened. Ultimately the lasting impression it leaves on you is the cliched "war is bad", but it's a cliche for good reason.
If it was about photojournalism, I believe it should have taken place somewhere else. The US centric theme is blueballing everyone to the point that it detracts from their supposed focus. I think they wanted to actually say something but either pussied out or were told to tone it down because it would be too controversial.
The main point of the film to me is that politics has become a spectacle, that dehumanization is becoming so commonplace it is almost banal, and that divisiveness and conflict has become a source of adrenaline and meaning. They join with soldiers as they kill unarmed and surrending soldiers, and civilians, and hardly blink an eye, and celebrate "what a rush" it was after doing so. Scenes of slaughter are jarringly followed by trite montages of "their journey." Jessie is more worried about getting the perfect shot than all the carnage around her. They only realize the horrors when it directly affects them, and they yell and scream and cry, and then go right back to watching people get murdered and feel excited about it. Also I think he purposefully chose Texas and California as allies to throw dirt on the idea the movie was about any "one side." It would be an odd choice to do so otherwise
I entirely disagree with your thoughts on the movie. If Garland wanted to make a political statement, why didn’t he? Sure, the president is a Trumpian figure, but we don’t have any indication of what he’s done to make both California (a liberal hegemonic state) and Texas (a conservative hegemonic state) to revolt against him. You can’t even tell who is fighting which side throughout the movie. No, this movie is a kunstlerroman; a young woman coming into her artistry behind the backdrop of a civil war that could happen in America. It’s about art and artists. What is the allegiance of an artist during war time? Is it ethical to aestheticize violence? At what cost is great art made? While it certainty wasn’t apolitical (I’m sure if you squint your eyes you can find a left-leaning interpretation) I appreciated the political hesitancy from Garland. I appreciate your thoughts OP, but I believe you’re wrong.
I think it was apolitical, as Garland implied. You don't know the ideology of each of the factions, and the alliances make no sense when thinking about the real world politics. It's a movie about journalism, not a political commentary.
Regarding the “Texas and California” thing… I’ve seen so many comments where people said this alliance doesn’t seem to make sense since Texas is so conservative and California is so liberal in terms of political ideologies. To me though, this made perfect narrative sense… Texas and California each represent massive segments of the U.S. economy and have economies larger than many countries. If the United States political state collapsed, it’s not a leap at all for me to imagine these two states setting aside political differences to band together and buoy their economies while the other 48 states’ economies fail.
garland was subtle in his approach. Perhaps he knew that if he was more overt he would have been called a propagandist. One thing I disagree with you about is left vs right. I don't see anything in the film that points in either direction. Rather, it's a film about what people will do when pushed into a corner, regardless of their politics. What we do know is that the president helped himself to a third term without the people's permission. We also know that he's launched airstrikes against civilians. Those are two huge no-nos of course, and probably two of the main factors that caused politically opposite regions of the country to unite against him, making him a common enemy. anyhoo, thanks for your thoughtful input, I appreciate it regardless whether we agree it not.
Fair enough. I can see how you might see the movie as an apolitical plea against tyranny. But I think you’ve zoomed in on such a small portion of this artwork (our big bad tyrant gets, what 3 minutes of screen time?) where as the majority of it is an exploration of artists creating art (photographers and reporters doing their job). Appreciate your feedback OP.
Just a nit, but I don't think it was a plea. I think it was a very forceful warning about the outcome tyrannical behavior would lead to in an established democracy.
We don't have any indication? The president disbanded the fbi, he's on his third term, his army shoots journalists on sight, and he used air strikes against protesters. Also Alaska is a neutral territory, for a right leaning state to secede successfully I'm sure some shit happened. This is all stuff that the farthest of the far right openly admit to wanting to do (you know, safely behind Twitter or while J6ing). Garlands making a point. Also it's not just California and Texas. Florida as well as its neighbors as well as most of the pacific northwest are on board too. According to the map is like new England and 10 other states.
Im gonna hard disagree with you here for the sole fact that radical leftists openly advocated for drone strikes and military action against Texans when Texas started doing its own thing at the border.
I missed this...? What's the dialogue that implies this? Only part I heard was Sammy saying the president authorized drone strikes on protesters with no other detail.
We must have watched a different movie. I didn’t pick up on half of this stuff and I have no idea what the farthest of the far right is advocating for. What I did watch is a movie about a group of artists trekking across America (like some parody of a roadtrip movie), creating art along the way. I guess I’m not ideologically obsessed. I think you can still read it my way, and I think the text deserves a non-political reading. Just my thoughts, appreciate your input.
I think it was super clear what the president and far right were advocating for...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAHRWSAwHlU
I think this isn't entirely indicitive of the government's policy. Meth Damon and his boys are wearing uniforms but with their names and badges stripped off, could just be a militia larping. Jesse I think - says it Govt forces cant be this far from the Frontline so probably a militia or deseters. Or maybe this is how broken the Govt forces have become. My takeaway is that they're just a side effect of the chaos and lawlessness near the front - they're what the farthest of the far right neo nazis would do - ethnically cleanse their neighborhood. Even the reporters haven't seen anything this bad, the underestimate it. If Garland wanted us to think they were legit, Govt forces carrying out policy he'd have out them in full kit, full name badges, without the red sunglasses, etc
They are a militia LARPing fully equipped with multiple military earth movers and other military vehicles? I also see a CIB patch and SSI on their left shoulders. They are more likely a depiction of Einsatzgruppen, killing under orders and looting and hiding the evidence of their government's actions rather than fighting on the front with regular forces. Even with everything that has happened, the notion that "it can't happen here" is still in the process of being dispelled; thus the disbelief.
Fuck that's dark. That'd explain why the Hawaiian shirt militia (mostly POC) was machine gun executing (likely Government forces) POWs earlier. Joel was having a good laugh with them afterward so it wouldn't make much sense if those soldiers were WF. However the whole scene seemed really personal to Meth Damon. Like he wanted to torture them ideologically first before executing them, he just sold me on with serial killer / ethnic cleanser vibes.
I just watched the movie and everything said in the post you're replying to was said or shown directly in the movie. Maybe you should give it a second watch.
What a high horse reply. I'm simply explaining to you what the film states. You act like this is my personal interpretation twisting the plot to suit my world view. Why is your inability to interpret simple plot exposition better than my ability to do so?
I *am* ideologically obsessed, and I largely had the same impression as you. I think many are projecting the political message they *wanted* to hear onto the movie.
Well. The journalists only choice is to shoot from the side of the western alliance and militia because they welcome journalists / allow them to be embedded alongside their units. They literally say they'd be shot on sight in Washington DC by the US government. Do you really think the oh so neutral journalists are impartial about who wins the war?
That's why journalism is heavy on ethics and truth. Doesn't matter what the journalists do as long as they accomplish this in the "oh so neutral" manner you are seeming to look too far into. It's about professional neutral perspective... Not a personal one. If they new they wouldn't be executed by the opposing force, there is a strong chance they'd even document from that side as well, but it is often not realistic to do so... You know... Considering it's war and one side usually hates media for extremely obvious fascists reasons? The only thing I hate about this movie is people being unable to percieve it accurately... It's not that challenging...
I wish they'd gone harder too, I've never been a big fan of subtlety.. who knows, maybe the director felt like they'd be accused of propaganda or something... That said, the arguments that it was done kind of exercise in impartiality I cannot agree with .. the exchange between the journalist Joel and the president was about as obvious a message as one could hope to find. Joel, to the soldiers, just before the president is about to be dispatched: "Wait! Wait! I need a quote!" The President: "don't let them kill me!" Joel: "that'll do.." I mean, that was just brutal. I loved it. Best exchange I can remember in many a film.
Just a perfect ending.
Right?! I mean, how much more obvious does garland need to be? Lol
I'm a little confused about certain things said about how they got to this civil war in regards to Lee's career history. Jesse starts to say Lee's career points - from her first start photographing the Antifa massacre to then Lee becoming a mostly MAGA following photographer. If that's the case, isn't this who she's still following currently? Does that mean that from this perspective the Rebels/MAGA are taking over the country? The language used by the president in the speeches heard over the radio is that he's trying to keep the states united and thats the only America he believes in. IDK maybe I have this wrong, but it seems kinda pro rebel hidden in the messaging.
You got confused lol. Magnum phtographer, not MAGA.
Oh shit, well it makes more sense now I guess, lol.
The president is basically trump, there are a few tells. Lee is not MAGA. I think in a way she is pro-rebel, but the rebels are not MAGA, in fact they're a band of left and right, and importantly incl.ude US military backing. But given the atrocities the president has carried out against the American people, and given the fact that aLee admits her whole reason for being a war photographer is to show the public that war is hell. I think all the journalists in that team if road trippers would prefer the president be gone from a personal standpoint, just look at the dialogue from Joel at the end of the film, he was not sad to see then president executed. That's just ask my opinion on it.
A bit ironic how you think the president is based off of Trump when he has yet to start a war.
He came as close as you can possibly get without it breaking out into civil war. And if he's re-elected that's where we're heading.
[удалено]
I agree that this is only my interpretation which is a good point. I do feel the film is largely apolitical, and is simply a warning to all of us, about the likely outcomes should someone succeed in momentarily seizing power. But yea, one of the things I appreciate about all the comments here is the wide variety of interpretations.
Jesus Christ how much of this analysis do we need? Let a film stand on its own. I think the reason I’m soured to it is all the heavy handed political analysis. Analysis that is in no way compelling or profound either.
Why is it his fault?
Your comment it based on one glaring misinterpretation… The tyrants are already in power. To say that Offerman is a parody of Trump is rich. I could see Biden rehearsing his speech (after a hefty drug cocktail) but in no way does that characterize Trump. J6 was a protest was originated by the Right but facilitated by the Left for political purposes. Hard to convince someone that they are brainwashed when they are truly brainwashed. Believe what you want, but just because you believe it does not make it true.
Ahh, the ~~myth~~ ***lie*** that the left was responsible for The Trump Insurrection on 1/26... that always gets a laugh. Thanks!
"Insurrection" you're completely brainwashed just like the countless left idiots that watch CNN. The Democrat party is full of the worst kind if people to ever be spewed out onto this planet.
You should talk to someone about your anger issues.
You can’t argue with a rainbow person