Civil War movie makes liberals uncomfortable

(This story contains spoilers for Civil war.)

“The footage you’re about to see could be disturbing.” This content warning, which has been in the news a lot in recent history, stuck with me as I watched Alex Garland’s latest film, Civil war.

As I was reviewing the credits, I thought about what this warning actually implied. Yes, it’s a useful way to prepare the viewer for what they’re about to see, but it’s also an invitation to look away, ignore, and pretend what happened didn’t happen. Which road. It is permission to avoid truth and discomfort.

So, it’s no surprise then Civil war It should provoke controversy, because it bathes us, and its central characters, in a state of discomfort with no warning, no invitation to look away, and no tribe to cling to that tells us what is right and what is wrong. Civil war is a harsh and uncomfortable film, not because it fully endorses any particular ideology, but because it doesn’t – and we hate not having clearly defined sides to support or oppose or media that doesn’t quite align with our worldview, so we can walk out of the theater confidently knowing We are good people.

As a writer and director, Garland has consistently presented a unique perspective on the human condition, largely devoid of the binaries like good and evil that American audiences like to support. Garland’s characters are constantly caught between the throes of development or death, and sometimes both. This is definitely the case civil warThe film’s main characters are Lee (Kirsten Dunst), a famous war photographer who has lost confidence in her ability to make meaningful change; Joel (Wagner Moura), a colleague of mine, who lives for the thrill of being on the front lines of history; Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson), a veteran journalist who has served as a mentor to Joel and me, is keenly aware of how little the world has changed; and Jessie (Caylee Spaney), an aspiring war photographer who is thrown into a world she finds both terrifying and surprising.

It is this exploration of death or evolution, within the context of a highly politicized period in America and an election year no less, that makes… Civil war necessary. It is the future that America is looking at now: death or (re-)revolution.

It’s understandable for viewers to wonder whether now is the right time to show such a film or whether Garland’s claim to be apolitical is just an excuse not to stand for anything. On social media, some have expressed concern that the film legitimizes right-wing influencer Andy Ngo, who is credited with a few seconds of real-world footage shown in the film, and some fear that Garland’s film endorses the work of Atlantic Ocean Journalist Helen Lewis, who is thanked in the credits, and whose views have been criticized by the transgender community.

These are the questions I think the film addresses, although perhaps not in the way some would like. To paraphrase a quote from the film “Me Tells Jesse,” the point of war photography is not to provide answers, but to present an unaltered image and allow the viewer to ask questions. That’s what Garland does inside civil warproviding the audience with the opportunity for us to ask questions based on what they show us.

I think the film is actually not political, it is simply not an exercise in propaganda. It is naive to think that the film will change anyone’s political ideology and suddenly flip the viewer to one side or the other. Garland does not attempt to do this, but he does offer the opportunity to evaluate what we believe and why. We showed America torn between US forces and separatists known as the Western Front, which consisted of California and Texas. We have a president (Nick Offerman) in his third term who has abandoned the American people, committed air strikes against them, and denied journalists any opportunity to tell the truth. Alongside this, police forces were mobilized, depriving civilians of resources while also brutalizing them in the streets. Does this sound like a movie waving the flags of MAGA and fascist types?

The demilitarized zones providing aid and food are largely run and inhabited by black and colored people. why is that? Could it be because these are the citizens who also suffer the most when America plays political games and sends minorities to war for the lie of getting better jobs or more money? Did they decide to sit out a white-led war because historically they did not see much change for themselves within the country their ancestors built? Or are they once again charged with the task of rebuilding the country, providing support and healing, because no one else will step forward to do so, even though they never receive the support of any ruling party in return? Story of the Civil warAmerica is told in images that ask these questions, but what is left in question is that the film is inherently anti-fascist.

So, the question becomes, is Civil war Liberal enough? And this is the question I find most interesting because those identifying as liberal or conservative are so mixed up that even the soldiers in the movie don’t know who they’re fighting. This highlights the scene in which two shooters are pinned to the ground by a sniper hiding in a mansion. The soldiers on the ground, one with dyed hair and the other with fingernails painted blue and pink, immediately conjuring up images of the transgender flag, are asked who they are shooting at. They told Joel they didn’t know. They shoot because they get shot. Joel asks them if they know the shooter is on the other side, and suggests he might be an ally. One of the soldiers replies again that he does not know. The shooter fired and now they are shooting. And the public doesn’t know either.

There are fighters in military uniform and civilian clothes on both sides, and there is no specific uniform to tell us which side it is on. Even the film’s most obvious antagonist, a racist soldier in fatigues and red sunglasses, played by Jesse Plemons, is not assigned a side, and quite possibly never took one at all, simply inserting himself into the conflict to get killed, as you suggest. The hidden pit filled with corpses covered in lotion. These scenes and supporting characters reflect much of our modern-day political discourse, which is populated by people who come down on their allies for not fully subscribing to the most extreme and perfect form of their ideology.

We see these extremes every day, from the serious to the ridiculous: conservatives who want gun control, who are criticized by right-wing extremists who give their kids guns for Christmas, and liberals who dismiss other liberals because they haven’t been as vocal about a single social injustice as they are. For others, they were scammers who make bold claims and promise the truth, in exchange for a monthly fee. Even more troubling is that we are seeing the Horseshoe Theory in play, with supposed liberals saying they will vote for Trump after being angered by Biden’s support for Israel against Palestine, or they will not vote at all, as if any such option allows them to do so. The moral high ground exempts them from any further suffering people will have to endure.

We shape our personalities around these ideologies and become so enmeshed in them that we begin to lose sight of what we stand for, and who our allies and enemies really are until everything dissolves into chaos.

While I’m personally unbothered, I found it interesting that I can’t even talk about this movie on social media without a couple of people insinuating that I, a black, openly liberal writer, support a movie that supports neo-Nazis. Does the mandatory and legally necessary reliance on Andy Njoo to use seconds of footage showing the location of the American conflict mean that Garland supports him? Do thank you in the credits to the controversial journalist whose right-wing writings undoubtedly influenced Garland’s thinking during its making Civil war I suggest the film is in line with TERFism? Or does Garland’s film just show us images, throughout the credits, that force us to ask questions about whether acknowledging work we disagree with means the whole endeavor is worthless and contains no truth we can acknowledge?

Garland recently stated that he will be stepping back somewhat from directing for the foreseeable future, as his comments share interesting similarities with Civil warfor me. Dunst portrays her without a light in her eyes, especially when compared to her co-stars Joel and Jesse. She watches but rarely reacts, and flashbacks show her photojournalism abroad, capturing the horrors of war that she hoped would reach Americans and prevent them from falling prey to such atrocities. However, her photography, although winning awards, did not prevent war, and her career is thus defined by inaction, her inability to become directly involved in conflict, and the inability of her skills to help others avoid conflict.

Thus, she moves through the film like a zombie, and is not the only Romero-inspired element in the film, which is noteworthy considering Garland’s big break in Hollywood was writing After 28 days (2002). And in some ways, just as Garland has evolved over the decades, Civil war It goes back to that film, which saw its characters stuck in a dying society, unsure of who to trust, and lacking confidence that we can still make a difference.

The shots we see in them Civil war It may be annoying. But the biggest question looming over all those photos is still up in the air. Were any of them alarming enough to prevent a true civil war in our time, or are we simply judging the ingenuity of the images and the ingenuity of the photographer as we stagger forward, avoiding discomfort and difficult questions because we only want to acknowledge worthless works? It assures us that we are on the right path, and that hope emerges forever, and this is something that cannot happen on the ground because we certainly know who our allies are and who our enemies are. If controversy and rulings are issued outside the scope of observation Civil war Proving anything, Alex Garland’s cinematic view of America undoubtedly makes him something special the enemy ally. is not it?