Hollywood’s new ‘Civil War’ movie is worse than you think

Alex Garland’s “Civil War” is an insufferable film that takes itself a little too seriously. It seems made for unbearable the people Who take themselves Seriously. So of course the critics loved it.

Despite having an 82% critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes, if you go into the theater expecting an action-packed thrill ride between fire and blood, you’re sure to be disappointed. Early marketing for the film suggested a Marvel-like exercise, an “adrenaline-fueled” battle between good and evil set in the streets of American cities. Explosions, guerrilla warfare, refugees, authoritarian speeches – all the most wretched (and inflammatory) images are already revealed in the two-minute clip. Even the film’s title is deliberately provocative. Conservatives will continue to expect outrage, while liberals will expect their craziest dreams to come true before their eyes. But what the film actually presents is something much different.

“Civil War” is, at its core, an independent art film. It’s a painfully slow burn, and the payoff isn’t worth it. You’ll likely find yourself bored as the film follows famed Reuters war photographer Lee Smith (Kirsten Dunst), as she and her team follow the rebel Western Front to D.C. Through Lee, the film becomes less about any civil war, and more about it. An engrossing reflection on the role and responsibility of journalists. Yes, I told you it’s worse than you thought.

As swashbuckling journalists, Lee and her motley crew embark on a circuitous journey through the war-torn heartland in hopes of interviewing the dictatorial US president while he is in the White House. For all the claimed realism, aspects have been intentionally left ambiguous. The Western Front (WF) is an implausible alliance between California and Texas. Having disbanded the FBI, laid off the Americans, and somehow secured a third term, the president appears to be a Trumpian figure (at least as leftists portray him) — but it is the global union that “shoots journalists on sight.” Both sides are clearly multiracial. There is even talk of an “Antifa massacre,” but it remains unclear whether Antifa is the victim or the perpetrator. (Related: ‘Oppenheimer’ not a win for conservatives)

United we stand. The Civil War is the #1 movie in America. Now playing in theaters everywhere. https://t.co/YAuEyPjV4U pic.twitter.com/zjFgCbbNoX

– A24 (@A24) April 15, 2024

As the Reuters team surveys and documents the atrocities of war, the film seems to begin with the idea that journalists are supposed to rise above the fray. Lee’s character unfolds as he confronts the ambitious young war photographer whom she takes under her wing. Lee warns her of the moral and emotional distance required to undertake the task and lectures how it is “beside the point” whether the people they photograph live or die; It is not their place to interfere. “We record, so other people ask,” she explains. But as the film progresses, it becomes clear that the cost of journalistic objectivity has become too much to bear.

“I thought I was sending a warning home,” she says, justifying all the atrocities she passively witnessed abroad as a war correspondent. “But here we are.”

Caution: Spoilers ahead

By the time they reached the capital, Lee was completely disillusioned with the role she had played. When she saw her colleagues dying and Americans systematically killing each other for no reason at all, she “lost her faith in the power of the press,” team members noted. So, by the time they reached Washington, she had lost all traces of her calm and collected detachment. Noticeably traumatized, she trails WF forces as they storm the White House and summarily execute the President and his cabinet. Her salvation comes from an intervention she swore she would never make: she jumps in front of a bullet to save her young student.

While this might come across as a deep character study for those with a romantic view of journalism, her character arc is actually largely one-dimensional. She begins life as a sullen boss with an inflated ego surrounding her role as a gentleman documentarian. She emerges as a sullen boss with an even bigger ego, sacrificing her life for a new example that a brave journalist can make a difference, or… whatever. He’s overly self-absorbed, but ultimately he’s not as smart as he thinks he is.

And with the Universal Federation victorious, all of this points to the true “meaning” of the film: unless the journalists choose sides, the rebels will win.

This, of course, has been the wake-up call our journalists have been ringing since at least 2016. When Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, very little energy was directed to uncovering the facts. Why Voters chose Trump. Instead, the media turned inward. They beat themselves up over giving Trump a platform for his “lies” and “hate,” as well as their impartial coverage of the Clinton email scandal. Trump won because the media chose no side, or so was the self-flattering narrative. (RELATED: The Best Easter Movie Ever Made by a Gay, Atheist-Communist. No, really)

In 2020, they were determined not to make the same mistake. Coverage of the Trump administration has become unprecedentedly hostile, with the media aggressively trying to tip the scales in Biden’s favor. Critics became “conspiracy theorists” or “extremists,” and opposition became “disinformation.” Yet the self-flagellation continues today, as journalists routinely rebuke their coverage of Biden for being too neutral. It is a mistake to cover Biden’s age and faltering economy when the existential specter of Trumpism looms. Although they have never been objective, they laughably criticize themselves for being too objective.

So the fantasy land of “civil war” extends far beyond a simple dystopian conflict. Journalists are not as objective as the film portrays; They weren’t like that for long. If a real civil war breaks out, they will not join the rebel forces out of a misguided sense of duty; They should have a sense of duty at first. But even their shift toward active intervention does not stem from noble principles, as the film wrongly assumes. This romantic view obscures the fact that most journalists today are mere sycophants. If the film wanted to paint a realistic picture of journalists during a civil war, it would show them doing exactly what they’re doing now: huddled in D.C., protecting whatever regime controls the massive power of the federal government — all for their own sake. They can maintain their vaunted position.