Making a film about a fictional future civil war taking place within the United States in our current political landscape is going to be quite the volatile decision. Very few people could take on such a task, and at least take it on with the kind of attention, nuance, and intelligence it would require to not turn into a two hour “Call of Duty” level. Is Alex Garland (“Ex Machina,” “28 Days Later”) that person? In some ways yes, and in some ways no.
The film follows a group of journalists consisting of Lee Smith, a war photojournalist played by Kirsten Dunst (“The Virgin Suicides,” “Bring It On”), her colleague from Reuters, Joel, played by Wagner Moura (“Narcos,” “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish”), a veteran New York Times journalist, Sammy, played by Stephen McKinley Henderson (“Lady Bird,” “Dune (2021)”), and a young photographer who idolizes Lee, Jessie, played by Cailee Spaeny (“Priscilla,” “Devs”). The group finds themselves on a road trip from New York to Washington D.C. to interview the dictatorial President, played by Nick Offerman (“Parks and Recreation,” “The Founder”), as a civil war caused by his actions in his third term ravages the United States.
There are some immediately fascinating elements to this film that bear discussing, but first and foremost, the performances are stellar. Even if you think the content of the film isn’t great or turn your nose to the general premise, the performances across the board manage to be exceptionally grounded and real without feeling flat or downplayed at any moment. Dunst in particular is a massive highlight, and Spaeny as well proves to be a great foil as we watch a younger and older generation feud over how to do this kind of job. Henderson and Moura are also great, but the film is completely stolen by Dunst and Spaeny.
While it may be the largest budgeted film A24 has ever released, it is still astonishing what Garland has managed to pull off for a price tag of just $50 million. Numerous shots seem so barren and open, but without any sense of CGI trickery. So many moments are packed with visual trickeries and staged moments that seem almost impossible to pull off for a production of this size and for this budget, but it’s not only achieved but done spectacularly. The only aspect of the production that feels a bit off is the score, from composers Ben Salisbury (“Men,” “Ex Machina”) and Geoff Barrow (“Men,” “Ex Machina”). Some moments feel perfect, and others simply feel like they’re underscored by a lot of thumping, cliched electronic music.
The real meat of “Civil War” is in the titular war and what is and isn’t shown. This is a film about perception, and much of the tale is spent with our pack of journalists, and as they travel the country, we get plenty of discussions on the nature of their job as observers. One character asks another how they would photograph them if they were killed on their journey. Because of this focus on observing, the film itself takes a remarkably subdued approach to the central conflict. We never learn what the war was about, what the President did to cause it, what “each side is fighting for.”
As opposed to other films where this could seem like a cowardly decision, here it fits as a distinct and purposeful choice to make a film about perceptions and observing. At one point, our group finds themselves pinned down by a sniper with a pair of soldiers. They refused to identify which side they’re fighting for and when questioned as to why they’re shooting at the sniper, they simply reply “We’re shooting at him because he’s shooting at us.” Lee at one point mentions that she photographed “the Antifa massacre.” The characters know what this event is, but we the audience don’t know if the name refers to an Antifa group doing the massacring or being massacred.
The lack of specificity will likely frustrate some and anger others. Why make a film like this if you aren’t willing to commit to a certain “side” or narrative? Much of the film is about questioning those who believe they can stay neutral. A few times Lee mentions that she does her job so others can take action; “we record so others ask.” Later on, we hear that her parents have essentially not left their rural Ohio house since the conflict started as they’re “trying to stay out of it.” But the film asks if, by taking such a passive perspective in her photography, if she herself is also staying out of it, and is such a position really possible? And is it even relevant with the scale of violence being perpetuated?
For some, “Civil War” will be a film more interesting to discuss and dissect rather than to watch. That’s not discounting the incredible work put into the production and performances. Merely, it's an unfortunate byproduct of the film’s central idea. For some people it just won’t work as well as it will for others, creating an insurmountable dichotomy between their experiences. Make no mistake though, any film that can create such heated debates over its elements is anything but bad. 3.5/5
No comments:
Post a Comment