How Civil War Shifts the Goalposts

Focusing on the politics in the trailer was a huge mistake for a movie that does not touch it

it’s interesting to juxtapose civil war’s portrayal of war photography as a passive act of observation with John Berger’s brief essay on the subject in About Looking, where he notes how much of war photography curates and fetishises scenes of distress in such a way that it can only generate apathy in its audience

I really liked Annihilation. It could have used another 15 or 20 minutes in length to add more character development for the other team members outside of Natalie Portman's character, so that we cared about what happened to them. But overall I thought the movie was very intriguing and it pulled me in.

Great video. Treating the United States as some blank canvas empty of history where a civil war could erupt for any variety of arbitrary reasons, rather than a place which suffered an incredibly brutal civil war whose divisions continue to shape its politics and would no doubt sculpt any future conflict is the opposite of apolitical - it is very political, a declaration of a kind of American exceptionalism, the only country in the world without a past.

I liked it, anyway. Garland was trying to show us the spectacle of something we're used to thinking about happening in far away ignorable places happening here, where we live. Overt political elements that would inevitably turn into trying to pick out "the good guys" - which people are right to bring this thing to our streets - would detract from the intended focus. It's showing anyone longing for a civil war to be careful what they wish for. It's a lot like a horror movie.

"We get a brutal action sequence and then ironic pop-punk puts us back onto the road" There is not a single song on the soundtrack that could be categorized in any way whatsoever as Pop-Punk. Silver Apples - Lovefingers Suicide - Rocket U.S.A. De La Soul - Say No Go Skid Row - Sweet Little Sister Sturgill Simpson - Breaker's Roar Suicide - Dream Baby Dream

I think this is a movie that will age better with time and separation from the current anxieties its marketing attempted to tap into, and all of the marketing itself. If it had been released in a less turbulent and a less hyper political period of time, I believe it would have been better received. It also really shows just how clunky A24 is at leaning into and selling their films to the broader, general population. I really liked the movie, but the marketing has been a complete dumpster fire of tone deaf decisions, garbage Ai art posters, bait and switches, and empty promises. It feels like the real civil war is happening behind the scenes and in the development of this movie; like making an expensive “art house” film and then hiring the Micheal Bay marketing team to sell it as a blockbuster. Where factions of corporate interest, marketing teams, bombastic filmmaking, and creative integrity, are all fighting for control of this otherwise important idea of a film.

Thanks for plugging my article!! Great words here; glad to see you bringing some sense into this incredibly aggravating discourse. It’s funny that I agreed with every criticism you had and still ended up feeling very compelled by the film’s thematic conclusions anyway. I don’t know if I’m getting more out of it than Garland can even be credited for, but either way it’s stuck with me and challenged me. Art is cool that way I guess.

I mean are you not shifting the goalposts by retroactively placing qualifiers on his projects? I understand your critiques but I feel they boil down to you having a the exact opposite of garlands intentions, that he made a movie with the backdrop of super heady topics. He wanted you to ask questions and I think he succeeded. Maybe that's a cop out but if I found the movie enjoyable and it made me ask some questions then I think he succeeded, no?

My take (and this is probably do to my own preconceptions) is that the movie is partly about how the horror of war dwarfs the issues that divide us - that the problems that come with war make our current political issues seem petty by comparison. The race-to-berlin comment made earlier in the movie kinda hints that there's more horrors to come after the president is removed from power. Political differences do in fact matter, and we get extremely angry over those differences. But those who would like to resolve those differences with violence should consider what that violence leads to. However bad things are, war is generally orders of magnitude worse.

I saw a tweet that read something like "Alex Garland wanted to make a film about conflict reporters, but didn't wanna deal with subtitles," and I think that's very telling. Actual, textual politics of the film aside (I'm a journalist myself and I have THOUGHTS), Garland's centrist schtick and his seemingly total ignorance of actual American politics makes it seem like the "Civil War" part of his CIVIL WAR movie was an afterthought. The fact that his own words seem to contradict the text of the film makes me think he's kind of just dumb guy who accidentally stumbled into profundity. Not for nothing, but Garland's insistence that conflicting reporting is somehow apolitical is genuinely baffling and also telling. Like a "tell me you know nothing about journalism without telling me you know nothing about journalism" telling. He's trying to put a square peg in a round hole by insisting that extremely political topics can somehow be decoupled from politics.

You might want to rewatch Annihilation, because you didn't get much from a very rich metaphor. You can call it a slow film, you can say it wasn't to your liking, but to claim it's heavy-handed or doesn't cohere (which is it, btw - obvious or incoherent?) is something you might say if you missed the point. The clear metaphor is what makes it, for me, a rewarding film to rewatch as it lends itself to numerous extended interpretations of its central theme, and almost critique-proof because most complaints seem to focus on things the movie never claimed to be about and in fact could not be about (ie, you missed the point). The only defensible critique I can think of is that it wasn't to your taste; saying more usually only reinforces the lack of engagement with the movie as it actually exists.

I genuinely felt that what he intended was in fact that all of this corruption/nihilism IS the cost of truth (truth here meaning objectivity). It’s weird how I agree with your assessment of the film until we reach a certain tier of conceptual depth, then it comes across to me like your exposure to his prior films renders your capacity to fully receive the intent of this film lacking. Then again, maybe it’s the other way around because I’ve only seen ex machina I have faith in this director. Anyway, put differently, I think this is a film about the violence, dehumanization, nihilism, etc OF objectivity. The range of perspectives among our protagonists reveals to me the desperate search for meaning in a contemporary world, a world that has allegedly progressed via objectivity. Industry is data driven. The efficiency of our communication, information consumption, distribution of resources, etc. all relies on the foundation of objective data to verify our trajectories or give us a point of reference for course correction. With this in mind, we are witnessing the tragedy of trying to find purpose THROUGH objectivity, with the outcome of course being our loss of humanity. Interestingly— and horrifyingly, I might add— this is not the same as a loss of purpose. Perhaps this is our greatest point of divergence. Yes, the quote at the end cancels out all previous indictments or arcs of corruption we witness throughout the film insofar as it reveals there was a purpose to all of this after all. There is a payoff for our ‘heroes’ in the end (at least those who survived). And of course that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But rather than chocking that up to clunky writing or blind spots or the product of trying to make an apolitical film, I see it as precisely the point he’s trying to convey. There IS a purpose in dehumanization, in ultraviolence, in the “cancerous” function of the press in these high stakes scenarios. In fact, cancerous I think is the perfect word here. This might be a little trippy, but hey, given the filmography we’re dealing with I don’t think it’s too far fetched— objectivity attempts to replicate reality, but inevitably fails. It slowly but surely creates a simulation. In our dispassionate conviction (lol… already just putting those words side by side is the freakin point!), we forsake the universe and commit to our replication of it. This is why our history of ‘progress’ is inextricably linked to our history of separation from and destruction of the actual world. In this sense, I think civil war hits on the real issues more than a tale of a nuanced overtly political conflict ever really would (not to mention the arrogance to assume such prescience as to portray a ‘realistic’ civil war in this country that doesn’t betray an undeniable left leaning bias… which would inevitably be the result of a mainstream take on how things would play out). So anyway, the problem with this movie in my opinion was the advertising of this movie. The freakin title of the movie. But the content I found profoundly insightful and earnest, rather than safe and cynical.

I believe the director should have not stated the factions fighting in the war, just state that there's a war between an alliance of Anti-Washington forces vs. The government. All of these stuff like the Western Alliance and the Florida Alliance and the Northern Confederation or whatever is completely unnecessary. A lot of people are still clowning upon the alliance between the highly liberal California and the highly conservative Texas as stupidly funny.

"Why are we talking and not listening? We’ve lost trust in the media and politicians. And some in the media are wonderful and some politicians are wonderful—on both sides of the divide. I have a political position and I have good friends on the other side of that political divide. Honestly, I’m not trying to be cute: What’s so hard about that? Why are we shutting down? Left and right are ideological arguments about how to run a state. That’s all they are. They are not a right or wrong, or good and bad. It’s which do you think has greater efficacy? That’s it. You try one, and if that doesn’t work out, you vote it out, and you try again a different way. That’s a process. But we’ve made it into ‘good and bad.’ We made it into a moral issue, and it’s fucking idiotic, and incredibly dangerous." - Alex Garland retroactively ruining Devs and Ex Machina for me by revealing that he's dumber than a box of hair

So, I loved it, but I can see why people are chafing about it since it was marketed as a big topical blockbuster. In reality, it's just Nightcrawler for conflict photography. I liked it because I love conflict photography. I don't think it has much to say, but it's beautifully shot, has delicious sound design, and critiques spectacle while showing us spectacle. I'm grateful that Alex Garland sticks to his visions.

Another review that I cant help but feel comes off as “annoyed because its doesn’t take my side” In a political climate where talk of civil war and violence is becoming increasingly flippant. The movie is a warning that this is what you are asking for, this is the cost, and the outcome is not going to be the utopia you imagine even if your side wins The movie is a call to grow up and take the threat of conflict and violence seriously. It would be completely undermined if Garland spent 90 mins explaining how the texas alliance started

It would appear this is not the greatest motion picture ever put to screen given the titles of the videos channels I'm subscribed to have made regarding it.

OHHH my god thank you for this, I've been looking for this take since the movie came out. And a scandinavian journalism education made the movie such a strange watch.

Its hard to paint both sides as bad when both sides want so desperately for you to prove that their side is the just side, and the other one is wrong. The good from that is that it ends up alienating the radicals from both sides. The Common Man went to go see this movie, not the Boogaloo Boys or the Portland Maoists. They rejected it as Communist and Fascist propaganda respectively because it didnt paint their views as the correct ones.