Civil War (2024) (3 Viewers)

[benbess]

Since this is a movie about journalists, it's puzzling that we never see the main characters file story or photo for the entire length of the movie. Sammy (played by Stephen McKinley Henderson) is a famous reporter, but he never gets out his computer, or a pen and pad of paper, in order write his next story to put events into perspective for his audience. The actors all give strong performances, but the people who wrote the screenplay from my pov don't convey much about what journalists actually do in their jobs. The idea that California and Texas are allied in this mostly unexplained sci fi civil war also lacks plausibility. Some see the relative lack of content and context in Civil War as a good thing, while others such as myself feel this is mixed at best.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The idea that California and Texas are allied in this mostly unexplained sci fi civil war also lacks plausibility.

I really don’t think it does.

Although nominally a red state, there are vast swaths of Texas that have a much more liberal population. Although nominally a blue state, there are vast swaths of California that have a much more conservative population. Because national elections are “winner take all,” we don’t really see that reflected in national news. But if there was a civil war where there was a change of governance on the ground, and the same viewpoint won each state, I think it’s very plausible they could join up. It could be a union of a conservative nature or it could be a union of a liberal nature. Or, perhaps owing to the diverse and populous nature of both states, it’s possible that both sides in each state decide to put aside their differences and work together for the greater good and unite.

Both states also have a fiercely independent bent to them; Texas is called the lone star state after all, and California has historically been very comfortable setting laws and policy that exceed whatever the national minimum requirement for a policy is. I think it’s also very plausible that if the federal government severely overreached in trying to attempt a policy, that both of those states could very plausibly be allied in pushing back against that.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I don’t think this is a perfect film - it’s not my favorite of Garland’s, but with that said, I’m more interested in seeing his efforts at working on an idea than most other people’s masterpieces, so that’s fine.

He recently did an interview about the film in The NY Times and said that he had family members who were journalists and to him this was a story about journalists being the heroes, but I’m not sure if I agree with that interpretation - but I also love that Garland makes films where you don’t have to agree with him to see something in them. I do agree that the journalists are the story’s protagonists but I’m not sure the film really makes a case for them being heroes.

For me, the key exchange is when the youngest one is speaking to the one of older ones (forgive me, I’ve forgotten the character names), and she asks why they just observe and don’t do anything to interfere or help, and I think the response given is that it’s only their job to witness what happens and convey that so that other people can be informed and decide what to do.

Any journalism professor would agree with that definition, I’m not disputing that.

But to me, I think the movie taken as a whole actually serves as an indictment of that line of thinking, or at least, an indictment of accepting that explanation without even questioning it. I think the movie has more questions than answers - which is great - but I think one of those questions is actually “In extraordinary times, are we meeting the moment at hand by having institutions like journalism going about their business as they always have, without even having a conversion about whether different times require a different approach?”

 

[benbess]

We'll agree to disagree Josh S.—but in a civil way lol! You had an issue with "spice" in Dune as an explanation for faster-than-light space travel, while for me, because it's all impossible, whether it's called warp drive, spice, or whatever, that was less of an issue. But for a near-future tale, Civil War gives little in the way of explanations in realms where this is possible, and some others have taken issue with that (see below).

The intentional "blankness" of Civil War allows for a "neutrality" that some appreciate, but for others that's not always a strength. As mentioned, my bigger issue is what I see as the inaccurate portrayal of the work of journalists in the movie. Strong movies about journalism are films like Spotlight, The Post, The Year of Living Dangerously, All the President's Men, etc. I don't think Civil War completely succeeds as a science fiction movie, and it also doesn't quite make it as a good movie about journalism—photo or otherwise.

Because Civil War lacks content at times from my pov, it's not a movie I'd assign to review and discuss in my science fiction film class. There are just better options when it comes to good science fiction. As someone born, raised, and educated in California, and who has also made several research trips to Texas, I'm aware of the different political areas found in both states.

As we know, there are topics we need to stay away from here, and this essay below, by a Professor at Hunter College for The Hollywood Reporter, basically does that, while pointing out what from her pov are some potential issues with the movie Civil War.

Overall, I still appreciate elements of Civil War, even with reservations, and rate it a "B-".

Critic’s Notebook: The Compellingly Packaged Cowardice of ‘Civil War’

Despite its sheen of boldness, Alex Garland’s film cowers in fear from the divisions that surely inspired the movie in the first place, missing an opportunity to say something important.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

 

[Sam Posten]

Couple posts getting close on politics. Let’s keep that to a minimum to keep the momentum for this film. The politics are really in the background of the film so that helps.

Civil war was -intense-. I really liked it. Wasn’t sure if imax would make a difference but it really was the way to see it.

 

[benbess]

Yes, in terms of sound and picture quality, I thought the final battles in DC were intense. Worked well in Imax.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

We'll agree to disagree Josh S.—but in a civil way lol!

That’s why I love HTF!

Because Civil War lacks content at times from my pov, it's not a movie I'd assign to review and discuss in my science fiction film class. There are just better options when it comes to good science fiction.

Is this being considered a sci-fi movie by reviewers or the general public? I 100% agree with you on that, I would not consider it a science fiction film at all.

 

[benbess]

Since Civil War is set in an imagined near future, maybe it's science fiction? But maybe because of lack of science Civil War isn't really science fiction?

From 1979 there's the near-future movie The China Syndrome, which I do show in my class—right after Star Wars lol, since we go chronologically. A few in the class sometimes say, what's science fiction about The China Syndrome?—then I tell them that the movie came out a couple of weeks before Three Mile Island.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

As we know, there are topics we need to stay away from here, and this essay below, by a Professor at Hunter College for The Hollywood Reporter, basically does that, while pointing out what from her pov are some potential issues with the movie Civil War.

[snipped]

Critic’s Notebook: The Compellingly Packaged Cowardice of ‘Civil War’

Despite its sheen of boldness, Alex Garland’s film cowers in fear from the divisions that surely inspired the movie in the first place, missing an opportunity to say something important.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

I don't know. It sounds like she wants filmmakers (and artists in general?) to tell us what and how to think or something instead of providing catalysts toward critical thinking (or at least concern/awareness), etc on what are clearly (enough) known to be (extremely) difficult/complex topics/issues (in the political realm anyway).

Personally, I don't see how we can expect Garland to do quite what she wants w/out being overly simplistic (maybe even hyperbolic) w/ platitudes, etc while still giving us a film remotely like this one. And I certainly wouldn't need that at all.

Would some kinda more obvious McGuffin of sorts do? I imagine she or someone else would rail against that as well...

Anyhoo, as some others already noted, there already are quite some folks who believe they see the political leanings/screed and such they suppose Garland, et al are conveying as is...

_Man_

 

[jayembee]

There's nothing political at all in the picture.

That depends on how you define what is or isn't "political".

Caveat: I haven't seen the film yet.

That said, I've been rather struck by some reviews that take Garland to task as, basically, a "coward" (one review I read actually used that word) for not being willing to delve into the causes of the civil war shown in the film. They acknowledge that he obviously didn't want to take a side, but it seems that they feel that a side is what's needed, given what seems to be going on in this country.

From my perspective, it seems like they aren't seeing the bigger picture. It doesn't matter what specific issues are the cause here. The point that I think Garland is making is not which side is right and which side is wrong, but that it's the division in the US itself that is the reason for the war. And that the only way to avoid this kind of situation is to stop behaving like your next door neighbor is the enemy just because they might not agree with you about one thing or another.

Since it's a forbidden topic, I'll be delicate here

Given that the nature of the film invites talking about politics to some degree, I'm not sure it's possible to discuss the film without talking about politics to some degree. I think that as long as the discussion is about the general concept of politics and not about any specific viewpoint in either an affirmative or negative way, I think it should be OK, but yes, it's best to be "delicate" (which I've tried to be above).

Obviously, we need to defer to the moderators in this regard.

 

[Walter Kittel]

I haven't seen the film. My theater viewings have been sharply curtailed as more and more home viewing options emerge. With that disclaimer, I'll delve into the Science Fiction discussion.

One of the ways that I (and many others) define one sub-genre of Science Fiction is the exploration of societal and cultural changes / impact in response to emerging technologies. Having said that, I think you could argue that the impact of the internet and social media on our discourse (if explored in the film - I haven't seen it, remember? ) would give the film some claim to a degree of Science Fiction classification.

- Walter.

 

[jayembee]

Since Civil War is set in an imagined near future, maybe it's science fiction? But maybe because of lack of science Civil War isn't really science fiction?

Trying to define what science fiction (or, really, any genre) is or isn't is a mug's game. It's one of those things that no matter how you approach it, it doesn't end well. Damon Knight, who was a notable SF writer, editor, and historian, is usually attributed for the quote defining science fiction that goes "Science Fiction is whatever I point to and say, 'That's Science Fiction'."

While some people think it has to involved hard science, a lot of people feel that any near future setting that implies notable changes to social and political systems constitutes SF. Some people seem to forget that one of the definitions of science -- "knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study" -- can apply to psychology, sociology, and other so-called "soft sciences" as much as to physics, chemistry, and biology.

Another anecdote: I was attending the World Science Fiction Convention in Miami Beach on Labor Day Weekend in 1977. There was a panel on (then-)recent and upcoming science fiction movies. You can imagine what the most popular subject of discussion might've been at that time. Anyway, one of the panelists was Jack Williamson, an SF "Grandmaster" who was very popular and well-known at the time, though he's probably not these days, except to SF uber-nerds. He started out the panel by saying, "Star Wars is exactly the kind of science fiction that I've been reading and writing for the last 50 years!" And virtually since that day, there has never ceased to be arguments by numerous fans who say that Star Wars is fantasy, not SF.

From 1979 there's the near-future movie The China Syndrome, which I do show in my class—right after Star Wars lol, since we go chronologically. A few in the class sometimes say, what's science fiction about The China Syndrome?—then I tell them that the movie came out a couple of weeks before Three Mile Island.

Back circa 1990, I was in a discussion in another forum regarding A Clockwork Orange, and someone asked why it was considered science fiction, when it pretty much showed a world "outside our windows". I responded that I wasn't sure that the world it showed was quite the one outside our windows, but even if we agreed to that, the world outside our windows at that time was c1990, while the movie was made 20 years before that, and the novel it was based on was published 10 years before that. Nineteen Eighty-Four didn't stop being science fiction when the world caught up to the year of its setting, either. Nor 2001: A Space Odyssey.

But I digress. We now turn back to your regularly scheduled Civil War...

 

[benbess]

Asimov wrote that "Science fiction can be defined as that branch of literature which deals with the reaction of human beings to changes in science and technology."

I feel like any movie set in the future is science fiction to some degree....And Star Wars counts too lol.

 

[TravisR]

Given that the nature of the film invites talking about politics to some degree...

See the movie. It really doesn't. Before seeing it, I wouldn't have believed that either.

That said, I've been rather struck by some reviews that take Garland to task as, basically, a "coward" (one review I read actually used that word) for not being willing to delve into the causes of the civil war shown in the film. They acknowledge that he obviously didn't want to take a side, but it seems that they feel that a side is what's needed, given what seems to be going on in this country.

I think that anyone that views the movie that way wanted to see a different movie than what was made and/or just really wanted to see their POV onscreen. As for Garland's cowardice (I've seen the same dopey accusation), there's no way for him to take a side because the civil war is only there as a fairly vague backdrop for a story about war journalism.

 

[jayembee]

Saw it in IMAX today.

Amazing. Horrifying. Engrossing. Sickening. Beautiful. Shocking. Majestic. Scary.

(I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that the Apple Cinema where I saw it started the wrong movie. At first I thought it was another trailer, but they started showing the anime film Spy x Family: Code White. A couple of the people went to alert the theater people. They did this before when I was in attendance back in December, starting Napoleon instead of Godzilla Minus One. )

 

[jayembee]

Since this is a movie about journalists, it's puzzling that we never see the main characters file story or photo for the entire length of the movie. Sammy (played by Stephen McKinley Henderson) is a famous reporter, but he never gets out his computer, or a pen and pad of paper, in order write his next story to put events into perspective for his audience.

We saw Lee trying to upload her photos of the protests at the beginning of the film, but the power outage in her hotel interrupted the upload. She said she'd try again later, but we don't know whether she was able to successfully do so (or not). We don't see her much after her failed attempt, other than her talking with Jessie, or her unwinding in the bathtub after she gets to her room. Since most of the time after that point they spent on the road, it's not clear whether they ever had the opportunity to file anything, or the ability to if they had the opportunity.

As for Sammy, the feeling I got was that he didn't really have any story in mind. He seemed to be aimless. Hell, even Joe and Lee didn't seem to have a more concrete idea of what they wanted to do beyond getting to DC to interview or photograph the President, and not get killed in the process.