The CONTROVERSIAL Production of Civil War (2024) 

Can't my Away for holidays 😢

@@neilhannan7525 Same, I've got a film shoot I'm out at and NAB until next week. Super sad I can't see it on Thursday

Hahaha no. Garland has no conservative friends and hates us.

Yes. I am intrigued but not quite excited.

@@mattisimo I'm not sure I'm "excited" for the film, as I think it's going to be more of a "gut-punch" type film

Lol that made me chuckle too

@@CrowCreator there was also another guy in the movie theater that was almost hyped about that

@@therealmrsteve Where you from? I'm from Aroland First Nation. I watched it in Thunder Bay, Ontario. I kept thinking while watching the film I wonder if Canada got taken over!?

@@CrowCreatorif Canada got take over how would the Canadian currency even exist anymore and why would the gas station people accept that as payment 😂😂😂😂😂

@@CrowCreator In contrary I believe that the movie makes it clear that Canada isn't touch by the civil war. The Canadian currency is still intact compared to the American one which shows the Canadian economy still works. I'm from Lévis, Quebec

It was a revolting film in a lot of ways

Thank you for your service.

How does this movie romanticize war?

@@UCp6Q6kiCeqBUSLE7IYCO35ghes saying that it does a god job at not romanticizing

@@UCp6Q6kiCeqBUSLE7IYCO35g Der, by making reporters, the most shit people alive, the brave truth tellers. Do you not see this applying to journalist takes on Ukraine?

Agreed.

absolutely, seeing war in your own home, hits different

Trump 2024

@@davidvice3720this is what’s gonna happen if trump wins

Guess you were under a rock on 9-11

And who`s the enemy ? Ronald MacDonalds ?

The director use the union between CA and TX to show that te movie is not taking a party the movie not even let you clear that the journalist and photographer was inside of the moral, the intention of this is to let the people know that the news should never take a party too and the journalism is far more important than the reporter.

lol wtf are you on about?

@@paulcarfantan6688the point of the film is about polemics and how incredibly tribal the world has become, the point of those 2 states coming together was to show things have seriously got f’d up if those 2 states are in alliance, and that alliance is you don’t f with the democracy, 2 terms max, the army is not to use against the people etc etc etc

Okay temple guitars

@@vikupogi Is their name on here supposed to delegitimize their point?... Because yours is both a worse name and you said absolutely nothing. What they said is completely true.

They mean CORPORATE media.

You mention some interesting value judgements and assumptions in your statement here. Good Journalism is not a defined concept - I guarantee you that what you consider good journalism will not necessarily be the same as another person, right down to to the importance of opinion vs fact. I'm gathering from your implied preference that you prefer or value a liberal media system which strives for objectivity (This is the ideal that many people who live in America, Britain , Australia would espouse), but in many nations opinion is counted as important as the facts. You'll see this in many European countries - and its not necessarily a bad thing. In some ways used correctly its more honest since it accepts the basic fundamental fact that humans cannot be objective - but they can make reasoned statements and astute observations. I think choosing war journos is a great choice here because as far as putting your money where your mouth is (Or your life in their case) its hard to think of a group of people who absolutely do this on a regular basis. Its very hard ot level a them that they are only interested in clickbait. Also your gripe with journalism has more to do with corporatism than actual journos (who despite some incredibly obstacles still to this day manage some excellent reporting). I hope you bother to support your local news outlets - particular independents - because they need you to (and it seems you just might care to).

To be fair, the main characters were not journalists, they were war photographers. One of them even said something to the effect of "it's not our job to judge what we're seeing, but to get pictures out and let other people decide." When people talk about hating journalists, they're usually talking about people who write/regurgitate their hot takes from the comfort of their home. All that said, this movie is BORING. I appreciate that they didn't make it a cliche good vs bad story, but you're left knowing nothing about the war. You have no idea why the war broke out and the only thing you know about the President is that he gave a speech claiming his side was winning when that clearly wasn't true. I don't think anyone should be offended by this film because it's such an empty void of a movie, there's nothing to be offended by.

most people chose peace and compromise and getting along. its the extremists on both sides that force the issue into violence. all it takes is enough of a push and enough extremists.

@@forsaken841 Oh, totally agree. The hard thing is not getting complacent with allowing those people to gain control.

I think you nailed it. Its is exactly how a topic should be handled. Anyone that wants to pick and chose a side with it likely haven't seen the movie, but after watching this I think I will go see it now I more fully understand the message.

That's a nice and pretty thought but when the state is committing that violence how else should someone react? Especially when peaceful options have been ignored or shut down with violence

@@DragonKeeper69 I think there is a difference between defending yourself and inciting violence. Violence for violence doesn't solve anything and creates more problems. Like I said in the video, we don't live in a utopia and violence is just a reality. But I think it just is up to each individual to decide if they want to participate in something that has a negative generational impact.

Because both political parties are after the same thing and serve "American Interests" (making themselves richer and imposing power over the world in the name of "peace," "security," and "morality") which is all a lie. Fake journalists are loved by both parties because they serve the status quo by inciting culture wars, distrust in fellow man, and painting vile politicians as celebrities who care about us.

Both sides don’t hate him. Maybe the politicians on both sides but most people want to know the truth, not cover it up. Unfortunately the criminals are in charge and don’t want us to know what they’re up to.

Julian A didn't pushed for mass immigration, wokeness, to take parental rights, for mutilation of teenagers, etc

maybe the center hates him. But the far left and far right both like him very much from what I have seen

Amen

Exactly. Great point.

Sorry what is sectarism?

A Iėftist can’t be American. They decried, denounced and destroyed everything it means to be one. And we see the results.

I agree giving the vote to women and blacks ruined this country, dammed leftists also ruined Jim Crow, and now THEYRE TRYING TO STOP US FROM ENSHRINING OUR CHRISTIAN BELIEFS INTO NATIONAL LAW! Pro choice is murder

People need to understand the truth in what you are saying. Unfortunately we are talking about America... we disagree vehemently with each other, unfortunately it comes to blows sometimes. Shay's and the Whisky Rebellion, and Ohio v Michigan over Toledo, all happened before the war of 1812. Things get volatile when you have a bunch of wartribes in a trenchcoat, and sometimes we fight each other, a sad reality but reality none the less. No one wants it, but there are many things no one wants. Those who are sane pray for peace, even though we know it shall not last forever. "If there must be trouble, let it come in my time, that my children might have peace." -Thomas Paine Good Luck and Godspeed.

Yeah but there's right and wrong... Good and Evil.

Be quiet Pinoy. You're not American. And you haven't even seen the movie yet. Don't talk nonsense. Pinoys should take your advice and stop hating on other pinoys.

Thanks for the info!

Spoiler Below **** Great pickup on that! Crazy detail for sure. The only thing that bugged me as a photographer is in the final scene in the White House when they never get Lee’s SD card 😭. I know that they were in a rush to get to the president but also when the whole film is focused on getting the shot and sharing the narrative of what’s going on it seemed like leaving that behind was a miss!

I was the assistant propmaster. And you are dead right. We had a few of the lenses that we would switch out depending on what the shot was. A cheaper knock off lens was used in wide shots and the leica was used for close ups.

@@user-fv3vq4qq7m Those statues were not "Republicans", thats not why. C'mon now.

@@twt000 Lincoln was a Republican silly.

@@twt000 the Republicans weren't always as hateful and bigoted as they are these days. It was originally quite a liberal party.

​@@twt000 history book.... you need one

@@I_Am_Warden They were technically Democrat actually, not the Democrats of today. Still that was not the real reason the statues were removed.

Appreciate it!

Your vids are also good. Subbed 👍🏽

@@ElvisDeckard Ah thank you, sir!

Are you kidding? The situation by the end was pretty clear. Maybe you just weren't paying enough attention. It just doesn't spoon feed you the story.

@@benjix5500thats what im saying. seems like evryone has the comprehension skills of a 1st grader. The mentions of Antifa and the fact that the Bugaloo boys are in the movie ( the dudes with the hawaiian shirts) indicates that the context of the movie is based off the reality of the issue we have today in America . the fact the president goes for a 3rd term is most likely the reason the war started

Yea I thought the overall point was clear. Wars aren’t started by the people over political ideology. They are started by 1 or multiple leaders. Irl it is the same. Google most oil rich countries. And you will see a list of all the countries who either have proxies fighting wars over oil, or have been invaded over oil, or both. We didn’t invade Iraq over abortion or gun control I’ll tell ya that.

I'm the opposite, I thought it was the smart choice to leave out the "why" the war happened. A voiceover explaining how it all happened, or forced dialogue would have been contrived. I feel bad for all the people who get hung up on California and Texas teaming up, the explanation for why is not needed for the story.

​@fleshvehicle9140 as someone who 100% would wear a hawaiian shirt under my body armor if this happened in real life I loved their inclusion.

Oh yea? ALL journalists lie to you ALL the time? Or just the journalists that you follow?

@@axelotlgaming7921 ENOUGH of them lie ENOUGH of the time to foster mistrust. Like Walter Duranty and the Holodomor. No different today.

@@axelotlgaming7921 Ooh ! That hit a nerve.

@@axelotlgaming7921 enough journalists lie enough of the time to blow trust out of the water.

The 100's of murders with AR 15's has been true. The press has not lied about this!

You need a Story to begin with in order dumb it down

@ottersirotten4290 lol. Not everyone can handle thinking of course lol.

I felt the film pulled its punches quite a lot, compared to real civil wars. But the film would have probably been accused of being exploitative had it been more realistic. It did enough to be effective.

@@e1orac177 I think the "war" was just a plot movement device anyway. The focus was the journey. To me I mean of course. It is a roadtrip movie not a war movie;.

I was the assistant propmaster on the film. It was the Sony a7 iv r. We had to buy a second cam when the first one was broken during production. She also used a Sony a7 II as her second camera. The lens was real and Kirsten wore it during the entire final battle scene. With no photo double. When you see the tank drive past her, the tank is that close.

That's the thing most people don't get. The relevancy across a lot of the world.

Their bots rely on tribalism and polemics to destabilise, so yeah this film is mighty annoying to that context

Very much so. Hoping there is some impact of the messaging of the film against inciting violence or even a Civil War.

@@FrameVoyager yeah, I was thinking the same. Hopefully, those ones wake up and realize the bigger picture.

Its not an accident that this movie was made

I just doubt it’s going to have much of an impact. The people that already want this aren’t going to be swayed by a random movie.

@@larrygraham4875yeah, I couldn’t imagine stuff like this being made back in the day like 07

Umm that makes a lot of sense if you study history. Don't Forget ALLIES in WW2.

It is pretty hilarious that aspect of it. I think it could make sense if specific events happened, but I like that they throw that in there so it's not pitting certain groups against each other and making the film polarizing.

@@FrameVoyager It would be more plausible if the cartels influenced California and Texas by making their children and allies political figures in the country and then manipulated the system to start a war.

I don't think it's unrealistic at all. I think it's a reference to the fact that we all actually have more in common than we disagree with. A suitably corrupt and oppressive federal government would unite us against them.

Might seem funny on the surface, but I'm thinking Garland's point is that California and Texas forged an 'alliance of convenience', for lack of a better term. The three-term US president of the story is probably despised enough, even by Californians and Texans with otherwise often very different mindsets, that they're willing to unite their war effort just to depose said autocratically minded president. However, I don't think the internal geopolitical plausibility of the story is the main point, at all. The main point is what wars do to people, to society, to how people perceive each other and treat each other, to what sort of divides civil wars (and wars in general) create between people, between whole regions, nations, countries. All real wars leave behind trauma, in civilians and soldiers alike. Including in the people covering the conflict, like the group of journalists in this film, and real war journalists, the world over. Of course, war is rarely about simple good guy and bad guy narratives, and the film is all about the toll of war on ordinary people and society as a whole. Like it or not, dying for particular politicians and what ideologies they represent is short-sighted. Ordinary people need to always bear in mind that we're living our lives to be good to each other and live fulfilling lives. Not to sacrifice lives for politicians or any other surface-level charismatic personalities. I remember a famous Czech war journalist, a middle-aged man who's exact name escapes me right now, being interviewed on an afternoon broadcasting block I watched some twenty or so years ago. He spoke very openly, clearly, but humanely about his experiences with covering various conflicts that occured around that time, in several countries. Very grim subject matter and his dead-serious face said it all. His voice occassionally rang with grief when he talked about particularly gruesome things he saw first-hand. Even so, he felt he was doing important work, precisely to snap people out of apathy, and make it clear to them that war takes a very, very deep toll on any human society, regardless of country and culture. Snap people out of apathy about the human toll of those wars he covered, and make them appreciate just how important peace, coexistence, tolerance, democracy and equal rights are in a modern society. They are things we can't and mustn't take for granted. This latest film by Alex Garland covers a lot of the same message: When we divide ourselves or allow ourselves to be divided, when we take peace, prosperity, democracy and daily coexistence completely for granted, we become more vulnerable to people who like to manipulate with spreading fear, anger, lies, trying to convince us we should hate each other and hurt each other. No individual human society has ever advanced if all it did was fight itself and try to destroy itself. They only truly advanced ahead when they stopped mutually excluding and bullying each other, and realised they need to live together and help each other as human beings. Not through forced compromise, but through mutually voluntary compromise, with an effort to understand each other and find common ground. Even in seemingly small things. Find common ground in the simple, seemingly small things, and then you can keep expanding that common ground to bigger things.

It was directed by a documentary film maker and it won the 1984 Oscar for Best Film

How does saying the fuck word have to do with the intelligence of the characters?

as an intelligent adult who often just says "fuck" to express frustration, I tend to disagree.

​@@phoenixfunny4517 It's more the lack of intelligence of the writing wearing off on the characters. There's nothing wrong with having characters say the word fuck now and then, like in Goodfellas that's clearly the culture in which they speak, but I just finished his mini series Devs which is about an eccentric tech company and when I heard the mild mannered main character first say fuck I thought it was a little out of character because she didn't even have to vocalize her frustration in that scene, but then I noticed that any time a character reached a certain level of stress or frustration they would vocalize it and only by saying fuck and after a while it's just seems like Garland has to tell us a character is frustrated rather than just showing us and that he only knows one way to do it. It reminds me of how college kids seem like they have to use that word every chance they get Cancel Reply

@@K.C-2049 its fine once or twice in a script but when it feels like the only way he knows how to express frustration across a broad spectrum of characters it just seems dumb

Appreciate it! When we say "production" we mean the entire process of it. If you read other comments on this video you'll see what I mean by "controversial" 😅

It depends on what you consider journalism to be. It's still there, but there are a lot of "false journalists" who are just showmen. But you can still find real journalism today if you look for it. Problem is, most people don't want real journalism because it makes them uncomfortable

@@FrameVoyager Careful of that "True Scotsmen" purity. Just because they're bad or corrupt journalists doesn't mean they're not also journalists. To say otherwise risks burying the institutional problems of which they are a product or ignores the social role they occupy, just as cops who abuse their power are still regarded as cops, or bigoted/abusive professors aren't still tenured faculty.

Appreciate it!

Oh I know it does 😅 I have those Sony cameras myself, I just wrote it wrong in the script and didn't catch it when I was editing.

Good luck firing it off before you hear the BRRRRRRR

I think it says in the movie. 18 months.

The problem is media and art literacy is an issue.You really do have to simplify concepts for general audiences

Glad you like that remark. But I will say, I'm not really talking about inclusion with that statement. I'd agree on the fact that studios have used minorities to make money off of them over the years, but the inclusion of other people, genders, and perspectives is essential in art. "Preaching to the choir" doesn't necessarily mean that the choir is on the wrong side, but if you want to effectively convey an idea, there needs to be more nuance to it. No one changes their mind hearing talking points they've heard a million times, change happens on a more nuanced and gradual level.

But in chalking individuals up to “the choir of the woke,” you end up increasing polarization which leads to radicalism. I believe we as individuals have to recognize each other as individuals and not the enemy of the other side of the debate.

@Lucasmtyler Radicalism is the language of the people who want to take power. Then the next generation uses the same language to describe the those who took power from the radicals. Rinse and Repeat.

"been preaching to the Choir of Woke.....are in the minority of our population" .......Naaaaaahhhhhh. As a Southerner born and raised I'll tell you there are many "ebul libturds"(and moderates) around you; you just don't know since we prefer to not disclose it to your type because, well, we know how you guys can be(Southern/rural hospitality often go out the window when they find out you don't think exactly like them).

Good point, but part of the problem as you alluded to is it's also on the people to do their due diligence by examining their own biases, fact-checking even when they don't line up how you want, and (likely THE biggest one today) having the courage and integrity to admit you were wrong about something. Too many people are either too proud or feel like "the enemy" is gaining a victory over them. I've seen this mentality from ALL sides, right, left, far right, far left(which I was a part of once), feminists/"meninists". ect ect. I feel like "main character syndrome" probably plays a role too.

Nothing happened in tianaman square

@@thedarkdot2977Are you being serious?

@@Flamtion no

@@thedarkdot2977 yes

@@Flamtion bruh what

Full frame isn't real.

@@benjamindover4337 Like 24x36 sensors don’t exist?

*should have been

But then it would've been clear that it was Republican vs Democrat and there's no way Alex Garland was gonna let a Republican militia come in and take out a Democratic tyrant president.

If you think this movie wasn't partially a critique of US war journalism you weren't paying attention.

@@sean748 I was paying attention and if you think there’s any scenario where Texas and California team up to fight “fascism” when their definitions of such couldn’t be farther apart then you aren’t living in reality.

I think this film doesn't take "everything" out, but Garland trusts the audience enough to understand some of it without having to spell it out to you. I think the difference between this and other war films is this is showing visuals of things many people in the country, 40% as a year ago, think will happen. I think it's a weird line to balance for sure, will be interesting to see how he walks that line in the film.

I only know the background of the director's ideas for the film from this video, but there are a few issues that I agree would make this movie not as impactful as he thinks it should be. First, people don't trust journalists because news is no longer news. "News" shows are opinion shows made for entertainment and the people on screen are not journalists. Most newspapers are geared towards an audience because that's what makes the most money, so the business people are the ones making the decisions on what gets published. There are very few journalists that are covering stories that are unbiased by profit motives that people get to hear about. Second, there can be a side that is objectively bad in politics. The actual US Civil War was fought between one side that wanted to own other humans and one side that rightfully believed that was wrong. We're not going to have another civil war because one side thinks the healthcare industry should be regulated at the state level and the other the federal level. It will happen because one side wants to take away important rights from the other that they would rather fight and die to protect rather than give up. I'll see the movie to see if it has any good substance, but if this is the basis for the movie, it really doesn't apply to our current situation.

​​@@jasons5916exactly. well put. haven't seen it yet but sure hope these issues are handled properly!

The film is a masterpiece with a very clear message. All of the choices made are for smart reasons IMO.

@@jasons5916 Exactly. Well said. "Let`s see California and Texas form an alliance because........they both have hot and dry weather. Okay, what else ? That`s it. That`s it ? Wtf ? But the director doesn`t want you to know why they formed an alliance, he wants you to guess, he thinks he`s Stanley Kubrick. But he`s not". This movie sounds like a dud.

Ikr ? Crazy ?

lol highly unlikely. its a pipe dream for some small group that think a small group of disinfranchised people can stand up to the swat team even.

Then you might want to watch if you have not: New Order (2021) | Dir. Michel Franco

You are exactly right. I walked out of the film and some good old boys with 2nd amendment shirts on were really jazzed about this "ant-war" film, truly irresponsible to play the both sides card and give a movie to glorify militias and killing the president who they can easily see represents Biden or Trump depending on your viewpoint. Alex Garland needs the safety of Sci Fi or "dream like" to cover up his really dumb ideas.

its a bad movie anyways, saw bits of it and said not gonna bother watching the rest

⁠@@giovanni-ed7zq “saw bits of it and decided” wow you must be living a very fun life if you close yourself off that quickly lol

@@reedraeburn its a shit movie, if you dont see that, you been watching too many D movies. Its called having a brain and being objective if something is a waste of your time or not.

@@reedraeburn its not even Red Dawn quality.

Well, as a "civvie" who's had a number of family in the service, aholes like them piss me the fk off. Their behavior is the antithesis of "American".

I don't think it's controversial, but a it's being panned as controversial by a lot of people.

Nah. If the next insurrection is armed it will be taken out very very quickly by the national guard

@@indigowendigo8464the national guard is on the side of the jan 6 insurgents

@@thedarkdot2977 lol yeah right. Stay in your basement trust me

@@indigowendigo8464 lol yeah right. You don`t sound too well informed. Stay in your attic trust me

@@paulcarfantan6688 I'm sure your ar15 will do great against the US military lol freak

That's what I meant 😅 I just wrote it down wrong and didn't catch it

This comment is cringe as hell, even for me

@@overlordbrandon No one gives a shit what you think

Go outside bro

Go outside man. How embarrassing and disappointing it must be to be you. How hard is it to understand a civil war is bad ?