This movie, 2024 “Civil War” Movie opened… April 12th…. The firing on Fort Sumter, 4:00 AM April 12th, 1861. Loved the film. Surprisingly not political. Not much detail why, when, who but that is not the point. The effects of a Civil War… lack of transport, few cars, little gasoline, no law enforcement, no CHP (Highway patrol) , a lot more refugees I would expect. Big Cities need huge amounts of food and goods to be delivered and with little trucking, massive starvation! The 1st CW, the South had huge problems with food shipments breaking down by 1864… worn out trains and military taking most civilian wagons and horses. The South also had local militia and ruffians take over and was dangerous moving around. The most dangerous part in a war (civil or not) is the beginning and the end… when people are settling scores and filling up the mass graves…. Before peace breaks out
I liked the thrift shop scene. The closest stressor I have experienced to this movie is boot camp on Paris Island. When you go thru that and then go back to your home town for 10 days. It’s very strange to experience normal life again. Especially when you know it’s not going to last because you have to go back.
As a photographer, I’m actually really excited that the movie has a focus on the photojournalists. War photography has always been one of the most highly respected things you can do with a camera and it’s great to finally see them as the main characters in a Hollywood blockbuster. As for the politics, I think it’s more about the conversation it will cause rather than telling the audience how things are. How we draw the lines in our heads, and what we think it would take for this to happen. If we interpret the narrative in a certain way, that reflects back on us and our own politics in a way that a set political statement from the movie could never do. It forces us to self-insert our own politics without realizing it.
I don't see the film as apolitical, but rather explicitly nonpartisan! And not expounding on the background story is a genius move since it allows you to form your own headcannon about how the US got to that point (and our imaginations will likely take a more terrifying turn than what any director would be able to commit to screen)!
A California Texas alliance seems nonsensical at first but if both states secede independently from the US for different reasons, and are both attacked by the federal government in Washington as a result, they will put their differences aside for mutual defense; at least for a time.
I just got out of the theater; however I think it makes sense from a tyranny standpoint. Both California and Texas are very individual liberty focused states-just from two different points of view. I can totally see an agreement to disagree on certain issues but tyranny is unacceptable.
@@tomtravis3077 it wasn't all that different from the similar alliance in ww1. The Russians supply huge amounts of manpower. The UK supplies the money and goes into huge amounts of debt and the the Americans turn up late and try and convince everyone that they were the decisive in winning the war.
It actually does matter. It means Garland is actually trying to do his job and bring the country together by spinning a cautionary tale that America already is on the brink of anyway. But again, this all depends on his intentions being good and not all about making people fight one another
And being intentionally nonpartisan as well! The political messages I can deduce from the film is 1) War is hell for EVERYONE, and 2) Do NOT take your liberties for granted cuz tyrants can come in all stripes!
Subbed. You guys are great. There is a Whitley Strieber novel called "War Day" about two writers who are documenting their travels across the US after a limited nuclear conflict. Each chapter focuses on how life has changed in different regions. California remained untouched, but it seceded, and immigration is tightly controlled. The Southwest became Aztlan and is largely funded by Japanese and Mexican interests. Canada is pissed and wants nothing to do with us. And so on, but it remains apolitical. The way you guys describe this film reminds me of that book. Have to see it.
I have a hard time believing that there is no international intervention. Isn’t the USA the second largest economy? You think other countries don’t want goods? I guess that is where the basic ness of film comes for me.
I liked the movie overall but I do wish they had fleshed out the stakes more. I know this was more focused on the journalists which I'm fine with but I just needed to know the stakes of the conflict to really connect with it. The scene where the sniper and spotter strip everything down to kill or be killed was definitely a commentary on what war feels like from the prospective of soldiers vs politicians and civilians. But that stripping down would have impacted heavier knowing the stakes. I didn't want to take sides in the movie but knowing where everyone's head is at would have added to the world building and complemented the thrift store scene and the scene where they talk about their families being on a farm and pretending this isn't happening. Again overall good film I just needed those small details to help carry me over to understanding this world.
A movie about revolution/civil war without a powerful political philosophy theme is absurd on its face. You don't risk your life without extremely strong motivations.
What about being ethical? Cultural? Topical? Socially conscious? Philosophical? Psychological? Concerned with law and crime? Speculative? Possibly prophetic? None of these subjects are political--they exist and function regardless of any person's view or labeling.
Wtf are you talking about….i literally went through Alabama and wasn’t allowed to pump. Never said it was the whole state, you just chose to defend the bigots
@@veronicamaine3813 You don't have very imaginative responses. You know what else you don’t have? Personal magnetism or happiness. Or a man. Hit the road biggie fry.
@glass12 fence sitting is brave now? There's never been an apolitical civil war in human history, if America ever has a civil war it definitely won't be apolitical. I'll wait to see the movie to make my final conclusion, but having the movie be apolitical makes me think it will be so divorced from reality, that people will just treat the movie like watching a sci-fi blockbuster.
From the absolute sloppy amoral “journalism” from Fox News to MSNBC to The NY Times, the only way this movie gets my money is if I have assurances that President Ron Swanson from Parks and Rec hunts these journalists to the ends of the country and wins. 😂
That is reality. The Civil War in the movie is obviously caused by opposing politics. Wanting the director to make propaganda is the opposite of depicting reality.
