Pan and Slam

Civil War

R 1h 49m

• Director
  • Alex Garland
• Writer
  • Alex Garland
• Stars
  • Kirsten Dunst
  • Wagner Moura
  • Cailee Spaeny

by Jason Koenigsberg

Alex Garland’s Civil War is his most provocative, political, and harrowing film as a director thus far. His best previous directorial efforts are science fiction films like Ex Machina (2015) and Annihilation (2018) that both have a sense of urgency and realism. They feel as if they could happen now, or at least in the very near future. Civil War has the same realism minus the scientific advancements and replaces those with American political divisions that if left unattended and allowed to grow could result into what we see onscreen. The first shot is an out of focus image and then someone walks into the frame and it is revealed to be the side profile of the President of the United States played by Nick Offerman. He walks into focus but remains viewed from the side. He starts practicing his speech filled with hyberole, obviously meant to remind the audience of a certain recent former and possible future president. Right away the visual style is clear that this is going to be a very in your face type of pseudo-documentary style war picture. The audience sees a lot of images of cameras, camera lenses, screens, mirrors, and reflections This visual motif continues throughout the picture and the director and cinematographer make good use of it. The events that unfold during Civil War are told through the eyes and camera lenses of wartime photojournalists. They are the conduit that the audience follows into the dangerous and often deadly frontlines. The story may focus on the journalists but the emphasis from the filmmakers is on war and how it destroys the humanity and decency in us all.

Civil War is reminiscent of previous war films about reporters trying to capture important moments in volatile warlike conditions such as Roland Joffe’s The Killing Fields (1984) or Oliver Stone’s Salvador (1986). The main difference being this is a fictitious war in a dystopian future United States and those were based on historical events, but this Civil War feels just as real as anything in those movies. The format is similar to those films as we follow reporters who get caught up in the conflict. Moments of peaceful conversation are followed by sudden bursts of gunshots and violence. Between last years Best Picture winner Oppenheimer and now Civil War, the world really needs another Oliver Stone type filmmaker to tackle controversial subjects with the same raw and relentless sensibilities he used on his best films back in the 80’s and 90’s.

This movie purposefully and carefully alludes to Donald Trump without ever being overbearing, blatant, or obvious. The mention of Charlottesville and the President serving a third term are meant to evoke thoughts of Trump without beating the audience over the head so it is commendable that Civil War is never patronizing which is not common in most movies today. The performances are all very good and compliment each other, the four main characters work well as a team. They could all be cliches but the actors make them so endearing that it does not matter. We have the leader who is a well known photojournalist played by Kirsten Dunst. She is hardened and numb to the violence yet haunted by her memories of the horrors she has witnessed while on the job. Her happy go lucky male companion played by Wagner Moura is doing his best Pedro Pascal in ‘The Last of Us’ impersonation. He sells his part well enough. Stephen McKinley Henderson is their older and wiser veteran in the group who provides the most compassion and patience for the youngest person on their journey, an early twenty-something photographer played by Cailee Spaeny who says Kirsten Dunst’s character is her hero and she wants to follow in her footsteps so she is allowed to tag-a-long with their crew as they travel deadly war ravaged terrain. Kirsten Dunst and Stephen McKinley Henderson are very early potential Best Actress and Best Supporting Actor nominees. The fact that Kirsten Dunst plays the lead and is a female makes little to no difference in the movie. It is 2024 so that is nothing new but it is commendable that the movie does not make a big deal about her gender and treats her the same as it would a male protagonist other than making her protege female. Dunst does a superb job and is believable as she always is. At times all of these characters are portrayed as adrenaline junkies and maybe war photojournalists are in real life as well. It certainly takes a special person with a lot of courage to step onto the front lines as these characters do armed with a Nikon and not an assault rifle.

Something else that stood out in Civil War that may get overlooked is the set design. The war torn and desolate America that serves as the setting as the audience follows these reporters on their quest to get to Washington DC and confront the President looks realistic. They look like parts of America that are already rundown like images we see on the news of dying cities such as Flint, Michigan or Gary, Indiana. The only difference is Alex Garland added a little extra decay and destruction from bombs and bullet holes in a few of the taller buildings in the background.

Civil War tries to be apolitical and for the most part it succeeds. It wants to be one of those movies where what the audience brings to it could pat them on the back regardless of whether they stand on the right or left politically. There are subtle, depending on how you look at it, jabs at middle America, in particular white Americans from the mid-west especially the scene with Jesse Plemons that has been in every trailer when he asks “what kind of American are you?” There is a reason that certain actors were cast and race had a big role. To some people they might look at them as Americans and others might not. There is a scene involving a mass grave of dead bodies and if you look close you will notice the ones we get a better look at are African-American or at the very least not caucasian. At first when Civil War ends the audience may feel dissatisfied and wish Alex Garland gave us a more conventional ending and actually took a side to let the viewer know that we should work together as Americans to stop the forces of evil and greedy politicians that are tearing us apart. But once the ending settles and the viewer has time to reflect they will realize that type of ending would go against everything Alex Garland is trying to say about the United States, war, and humanity. The lack of closure may be frustrating but it brings home the message Civil War is really saying. That factions will bring about the worst in all of us. Both sides can get caught up in killing and trying to win that they can both become soulless. Dividing people based on our differences is what leads us to war and even worse, what Thomas Hobbes warned about, a state of nature. Civil War is a movie that needs to be seen so that the viewer can reflect on themselves, the type of country they want to live in, and the type of country they want to leave for their progeny.