I don't think the ending implies that Lee has decided that journalism is important or "worth dying for." In the end, she sacrifices her life-not for a photo, but for a person. She finally intervenes, instead of taking a photo of Jessie being shot and killed. That's her arc.
Something I realised about the film is right up until they reach the Western Forces base, you never find out which soldiers/militiamen are on which side. The only time you know which side is which is when the Western Forces attack DC.
Alll war criminals are associated with Western Forces, /Ferderal soldiers are only shown as victims , guys in gas station- rebels, mob attacking some federal building/then executing defenders - rebels ally of western forces , Jesse Plemons character - psychopath but no US insighnia so Western forces ally.
True to a certain point. I felt the same way the first time I saw CIVIL WAR. When I saw it the second time, I looked for clues explaining the cause of it all. Then, I noticed the WF labelled on military vehicles, uniforme, flags,etc. You'll see it next time. But the writer/director still does a good job of making the cause of the war ambiguous.
The guys with Hawaiian shirts and colorful hair and nails were likely Floridians or Texans. The guy with the mass grave could have been with Texas, but was likely with the original government or a splinter there of.
Re the battle in the office block which ends with the MG execution, its obvious the characters are with the rebels (no uniforms) and the other side are US Army
I think the most telling moment in the movie is actually during the end credits in which a slowly developing picture of smiling Western Forces troops are standing over the dead body of the now deceased former president, like you might find big game hunters showing how proud they are of having "bagged a big one". Rather than showing either remorse for the state of affairs that led to this outcome, I think it is more telling as to how civil wars don't lead toa a new "resurgent democracy" and "rule of law". Instead, acts of violence in the name of democracy taken during the Civil War just lead to yet ***more*** violence in the name of democracy and the rule of law. It is for this reason that Civil War demonstrates that these particular kinds of internecine conflict within a fracturing state, are NOT unifying actions that support the political state, but destructive ones, leading to further yet fracturing of the states remaining after the conflict has culminated. This is what I find most frightening about Alex Garland's movie.
Without jumping to conclusions (and I don't know if the person has served) he is suggesting that you haven't served and do not comprehend the mentality of a squad and the nature of combat. Referring to your reaction to the picture, just my opinion, it reminded me of the picture they took when DEA caught Escobar.
The callousness of the conflict was hard to watch I agree with you there, some of the scenes were set up so well it felt like it could be just around the corner.
It's crazy seeing how many people are complaining the film never explains the origins of the war or go into the "lore". That's just not what the film is about at all. People complaining the film isn't a completely different thing, like going into Saving Private Ryan and complaining that it didn't cover the lore of Hitler's rise.
Right lol I guess they arent aware that in REALITY we are in a divided country where 10 years ago we were fighting for " womens rights " via 3rd wave feminism. Presently these same " women " are now saying they don't EVEN KNOW WHAT A WOMEN IS. A WOMEN TO THEM IS A WOMEN IS SOMEONE WHO IDENTIFIES AS A WOMEN LMAO LOL OK THAN WTF IS A GOD DAM WOMEN!!?
@@Hack_The_Planet_that’s exactly what it is. I’ve seen posts on Twitter of people butthurt about the fact that their side wasn’t portrayed as the good guys.
It’s also funny because the title is actually a double entendre. The Civil War title is directed at the main character, Kirsten Dunst. She is brought to an internal civil war by Cailee Staenley’s character. She had killed off her humanity, but being with a woman who was once her, makes her look at herself and she has a return of the humanity she has killed off.
The FBI honestly should be dismantled. We were built with local law enforcement so a larger federal law enforcement force doesn't have to much power and all the FBI has done since it was created is have way to much power. Federal law enforcement agencies lead to tyranny so the president in the movie doesn't seem all that bad honestly.
@@DARTHTORO99 what are you talking about? The FBI is an independent unelected sphere in the US govt which, like the CIA, only seeks to further its own aims
@@DARTHTORO99 Trump pays a porn star for a sexy time and he goes on trial, Bill Clinton goes to Epstine island and nothing happens to him, not to mention all the pointless wars started.
Basically what's happening in Haiti rn... Media is painting the gangs as bad but when you look into the comments in those videos, Haitian people are giving the correct translations for many of the interviewed civilians. Most people in Haiti are in support for the gangs and are pissed about the acting president delaying elections repeatedly... Their cause in the revolution is good but without having new elected leaders pre selected and put into place it just remains chaos.
This movie hit hard. I was a US Army Combat Engineer, but I always had my camera with me, other than basic and AIT, it was always by my side just like my M16. I've always wanted to be a photographer, although I never intended to be a combat photographer, because I had my camera with me, I was. I don't exactly know how to react, or how to express what I'm feeling after watching this movie. I guess... Actually, I don't know. I've been sitting here fore about ten minutes trying to put into words the thoughts and feelings I have, and yet, I can't.
Although there were some questionable directorial decisions (such as a couple of scenes that played music that was WAY too jovial for how serious it was-ie one of those annoying “hey this film is so indie, look at how indie we are!!” moments)I think it does a good job demonstrating that there are no true “winners” when we are in the middle of killing each other
@@bridewar I suppose Canada is stable economy in this madness (and suppose their 300USD is valued 20USD in our world /300CAD /40-45litres= 6,5CAD/L(nothing extreme for limited suply and war zone)
Canadian is $0.67… or $200 USD now… so what you talking about? Inflation is common in all Civil Wars. Confederate dollar dropped to Gokd from 95 cents to 2 cents at the end… up and down but mostly down. If the USA government was going down, inflation would spike! Union dollar was 97 cents in early 1862 but bounced around 75 to 45 cents on the gold dollar… hitting a low of 34 cents (so $3 paper dollars would buy one Gold Dollar coin.). Losing side of Civil Wars always have massive inflationary pressures.
A US civil war would be disastrous, but what are people supposed to do when the government censors and violates their civil rights defined in the constitution.
The movie was very dead accurate on the idea that a civil war along with the subsequent collapse of any kind of authority would unleash the worst demons Americans have.
@@ehstronghold facts lots of unfortunate war crimes would happen and question is when the smokes clear what the shape of the country will be like after ? It’ll be a lot of missing people photos lots of family members or most the men going to join and fight literally a change to what ? A change for real freedom, it’s not about money or politics down the line it’ll literally be about reshaping the entire country to what ? How will this make bills cheaper or more money in your pocket it won’t it’ll lead to total economic fall and we will have to pay for what some or deep down inside what most Americans ultimately want
@@greenghost5009 Yup! With the extreme atomization of US society, shitloads of drugs, and of course fucktons of weapons - it is IMPOSSIBLE that it won't cause millions of dead within the USA! And of course ALL OTHER major powers will assist their "preferred" factions!
I can only imagine how most Americans must feel after watching this film. As a French guy, I found it deeply gut wrenching and it’s not even about MY country. It was an outstanding piece of cinema.
Mexican American here. I liked its apolitical approach to the story, and its pushing of the idea of the terrors of war, as well as the way war journalists are willing to die just to tell the story they want the world to know.
def an anti war movie. You don't even know (well most of the time) who side is with who just that "They're shooting at me so I'm shooting back at them"
I’ve just came back from Ukraine in Mykolaiv as I was photographing animals there and I can honestly say that watching this movie, it really resonated with me Telling it from the perspective of the photographers and basically watching what I was doing in Ukraine (exaggerated in the movie) I was simply very emotional watching it I thought it was an amazing movie and I’m very very happy it didn’t mention the war and why it started I don’t need to find out why hitler started WW2 every time I watch a WW2 movie The fact so many people are getting upset at why the reasons wasn’t mentioned, this is not really a real conversation that happens in war zones over and over again or views that people are all bad or all good, there is no heroes, there is simply people trying to survive, living day to day, be it fighting in the army or just going to work and drinking coffee War isn’t a movie, war isn’t about twitter arguing, so for people to have complaints about the movie for not mentioning politics etc, is just boring! I’ve been to a war zone, and I can honestly say Civil war is an extremely HONEST depiction of war!
The war over there is a Civil war, viewed from the lens of anyone who is sober, calm and familiar with world history. Ukraine literal translation mean's 'Borderland', this is a literal 'brother war'. This is what happens when the 3 letter agencies get burrowed into nation and culture and uproots it's sense of brotherhood and nationality. It can come to a head during coups, throughout history and in this entire film were the story of 3rd world conflicts.
The film is incredible, and not enough people have praised its cinematography. It looks gorgeous. The scenery while they’re driving after the “what kind of American are you” moment is one of my favorites of the year.
The film is doing several things. Its bringing discussion on a serious topic. Its making people think. (Something that extremist on both sides don't want) Its exposing citizens of the possibility It also makes you think about those that is hoping such a war happens.
@@mikeohawk95 🙄 I wouldn't be surprised if you have to have your mommy and daddy check in your closet and under your bed every night to make sure there's no Trumps hiding waiting to come and git ya
@@mikeohawk95 well to be honest it represent any leader that decides to abuse and destroy a system of government in order to take power. As dictatorship doesn't care of political ideology. That being said, yes trump currently is very likely if he were to win the election would try to destroy the system to ensure he stayed in power. Hell if he lost again it's likely he would ca upon his supporters to try to ruin the system to put him back in like what he tried to do back in 2021 Jan 6th
The FBI was never intended to be a "check" on presidential power. It's mission is to investigate crimes over interstate lines and federal criminal statutes. Congress and the Supreme Court are checks on presidential power. The President is the Executive Branch whose duties are to enforce the laws of the United States and Constitution. The FBI is part of the executive branch under the direction of the President. It would make no sense for a tyrannical leader to disband basically the federal law enforcement authority if he were going to tyrannical despot killing citizens, that would be the job of tyrannical leader's police. If there is tyrannical leader, who was able to circumvent the 22nd amendment, then it would have been the failure of the Congress who allowed it to happen. Where does Congress get it's power? Through the electorate in each state and state elections are democratic and the only occurrence of majority rule voting. So if a majority of people voted for their representation that failed to put checks on the Executive branches' power, you get a what you voted for people. Governments based on majority rules will often lead to oppression of the minority, that's the rational of why our founding fathers divised the electoral college and three braches of government and bicameral representation. Ask yourself why the Western Alliance would resort to summary execution instead of bringing the president in this movie to stand trial and answer for his crimes before the citizenry if thier rational were bringing back constitutional integrity and rule of law? Maybe this civil war was agitated by outside influences? Realistically, why not push a country to destroy itself from within, then risk an invasion from outside? Then again, it's only a movie.
Excellent points. This why only citizens of one's country should only vote in person via an official voters list tied to income tax reporting verified by ID in person. Most countries in the western world hold elections this way & it is typically the U.S. who condemns other countries elections that don't support this method (ironic).
They just want the people to think that the FBI are the good guys in this political timeline. But then again it’s only a movie. If someone took this movie as anything other than fiction then their worldview is small and very naive.
You brilliantly articulate my thoughts on the movie, thanks man. For Garland to have explicitly furnished us with more details would've just gotten us into the weeds, and inevitably into thornier debates or the risk of putting his thumb on one side of the scale. Of course he'll get flak for being a cowardly centrist or something, or not understanding American politics or whatever; and more deranged people will see what they wanna see in it anyway. But (as an Australian, at least) I felt this was responsible, non-exploitative, impactful filmmaking. Bluntly graphic but also restrained, thoughtful but not cynical to the point of callousness. As cautionary a cautionary tale as can be told, really. Just asking "can we PLEASE not do this?" And as you point out - as quotes from Garland support - it's a sort of call to individual responsibility in these times, a call to de-arm, to de-escalate, because the solution probably won't come from top-down, it needs to come from the ground up. Great point about the journalists. Though being flawed human beings, they always do their job of dispassionately showcasing the truth of the situation. I initially wasn't sure how to take the film in this regard, sometimes. It doesn't seem entirely uncritical of its protagonists or the media, either. There's something a bit unseemly about never ever getting involved, and there's a shot of Cailee Spaeny towards the end where she seems a bit too cold for what is happening in front of her. Like pointedly so. Whether that's speaking to what that line of work does to you, or something else, I wasn't/am not sure. It's hard not to read some of that as metaphor for his own work, too; when Lee says something about how she used to think she took photos of external conflicts and sent them home as a warning, yet 'here we are', it's easy to imagine Garland wondering whether his own movie, a warning from elsewhere, is also useless. Maybe even interogating, himself, whether he's making the right choice being impartial and not weighing in? But I agree he does weigh in where it matters, in a broader philosophical sense. I loved the movie, a few nitpicks about formal things like staging etc aside. I'm Australian not American and I can't imagine how hard it must hit for you guys. Some bouts of sharp shocking violence really hit me in an emotive way they rarely do in movies. I hope many people go see it. Wanna shout out to how you spoke and delivered this essay too; most 'video essays' I can't stand cos people either go the hyper fast-talking route with lots of cuts and non-jokes, or the pretentious caricature-of-NPR style that is just as bad. This was nicely and clearly read nand emphasised, but NORMAL hah
@@ad_astra5 Yeah well it wasn’t even that either. The film literally had no other message than; “Journalists tell the truth” which in reality *they don’t.*
I haven't heard the director say that CIVIL WAR is apolitical. The plot does not attempt to blame one side or the other. While the President becomes an autocrat, the film does not make it clear that he did so PRIOR to the war. When APOCALYPSE NOW was released, it was a statement about the horrors of war. And yet, it was a contemporary retelling of HEART OF DARKNESS, a colonial era story written by Joseph Conrad, about a soldier sent to Africa to assassinate a crazed Colonel Kurtz. The journalists in CIVIL WAR embark on a journey together to document the action. But they are ambitious and motivated to get the hardest story available. Creating a state where journalists are murdered makes for high stakes drama. Story-telling 101. It is definitely a callback to old school journalism, where news was news and not news commentary. I admit, I long for the days of Walter Cronkite struggling not to be impressed by the first moon landing or show his pain at the sheer numbers of soldiers dying in Vietnam. There are precious few outlets for fair news reporting.They're out there,,,all three or four of them. But they're not on cable. I saw CIVIL WAR two times. I looked for Easter eggs and other clues that suggested why this war was happening... What started it. There are none that I can easily find.. There is much to explain recent events that setup how these particular forces are moving of the fact that division and frustration have led to conflict. But CIVIL WAR does a good job of avoiding laying blame politically or socially. Still, to say apolitical is a misnomer. There is political action in the film, but it is neutered by a plot focused on truth and not spin. The whole THEY'RE SHOOTING AT US, WE'RE SHOOT AT THEM vibe may make the key point of the entire film; namely, that any civil war in America would be terrible. A civil war in the States would quickly devolve into an u directed fight for survival, resulting in people along the same sociopolitical lines killing each other out of fear or betrayal or a fight for resources. American civil war is maddness! We may never get there, hopefully. But if we get close, my hope is that we decide that the UNITED in United States is something more valuable and worthy to pursue than whether or not our candidate is in office.
This movie may be attempting to humanize press for those that hate them, but I think the end of this film is an absolute critique on wartime journalism. And not a favorable one. It also feels like a statement on us, the viewer and humanity. In a similar, but much more subtle way than something like ‘Funny Games’.
Actually, I think the film was a severe criticism of the press and media. All the characters never even expressed any concern about which side was winning, and only cared about able to reach a certain place by a certain time to cover the story. At the end they didn't even care about the deaths of their own teammates. Neither Jessie nor Joel even stopped to check if Lee was really dead. Jessie got the shot she wanted, and Joel got his exclusive coverage of the dying president.
When history is happening, it won't wait for your weeping and humanity. they're desensitized, goal focused when they're near. the film also discussing about ethics, which reminds me of a photo, "The vulture and the little girl"
It's definitely a critique of US war journalism - previously creating war as entertainment in distant lands (exemplified by the WF journalist crew) now in their own backyard, finding that separation from their subject is now impossible.
I highly recommend checking out some more of A24s films!! Overall just an amazing studio with a talent of making movies of any subject matter, no matter how dark, artful and captivating.
My Second favorite movie of 2024 after “Late night with the devil” I’m surprised a lot of people hate it or think it’s “mid” I lean right myself (still consider myself independent) but don’t care if a film leans left as long as it’s not far left garbage or far right - Greg (the OG)
Yeah It's very disappointing in the fact it conveys several valid points. But is lost by Garlands and whomever else wrote it's lack of understanding in the military the united states governement and a general understanding of American Values as whole.
Yeah, most of us wanted to live at home and for other people to stay off our lawn. We didn't want an empire, just a home. All those empire people can go live in Brussels if they like. Take their bank with them. Leave us alone.
I think that the Director Alex Garland probably took some of his Civil War FILM map of the USA from the KGB Analyst Igor Panarin (spellling) who in 1998 predicted that the USA would collapse and break into 6 regions; I think it was the west, south, north and east ; Hawaii would go to Japan or the PRC and Alaska would go to Russia; see the Atlantic magazine article from 2010 (it has a map of the six regions that the USA would allegedly break into. the map seems somewhat similar to what Garland did in the film; Apparently, the KGB analyst was not a fringe figure in the KGB but well regarded and was the Dean of the Soviet Foreign Ministry's league of future diplomats. However, if you simply read Niall Ferguson (UK historian on finance and collapse of empires globally over the past 4000 years); you can see that the USA is going bankrupt financially like the Soviet Empire and the Roman Empire and dozens of other empires over the past 4000 years. According to Ferguson, when the debt servicing (annual interest on an empire's national debt) exceeds its annual military budget then the collapse is pretty swift after that inflexion (spelling) point. (The Atlantic Magazine map of USA collapse into 6 regions). History always repeats itself; our politicians of our great republic, the USA, simply are ignorant of history and believe that it somehow does not apply to the USA and that basic economics and basic finance does not apply to the U.S. dollar and/or the U.S. national debt. too bad they can not go back in a time machine and speak to the Romans during the Third Century Crisis A.D. or the last Emperors of the Tang Dynasty in imperial China during that horrific civil war; or the various factions of the Weimar Republic as they fought in the streets and the German economy collapsed from currency depreciation and hyperinflation etc. etc. Map of the Day: Ex-KGB Analyst Predicts Balkanization of U.S. By Patrick Ottenhoff June 29, 2010
I feel the director was trying to convey the tragedy of war by exploring its drug-like effect through journalists, multiple uses of dialogue from the protagonist throughout the film support this, emphasizing how alive it makes them feel. The adrenaline fuelled motivations are emphasized through the soldiers, as they are so caught in the moment, driven with blood lust, and ultimately the cause for war crimes, additionally touching on outlets in Human Nature. However I felt like the final action scenes were shot and executed badly. They only struck out as cheesy and cliche rather than surreal. A good example of a similar act that was executed brilliantly, was the final act in "Children of Men".
Ive seen the movie today. I only liked 2 scenes, i thought the last scene at the white house was badass. But it seemed rushed and low action throughout the movie which sucks. The movie focuses too much on the characters than what is going on in the government and it isnt explained why they are fighting in the first place. At least 2 of the characters suck, the 23 year old girl and the old man. In the end, the movie is NOT worth it.
I don't really think about the depth of the story when I watch this movie. Photography is my hobby so all I could think of the whole time was how beautiful the 'photos' are, and even the movie itself is like a long photo essay.
I don't know man, If anything people who don't trust corporate media think they can distinguish between those two. And people who trust corporate media think they can distinguish between the two as well, And most of us just don't got the time or urgency to Do any research...
I haven’t seen the movie yet but plan on doing so. Seeing that some of our politicians and pundits use this idea of civil war and violent rhetoric to stoke flames and incite people..this movie is due. Being a combat vet and having been in Iraq, Afghanistan and Bosnia..the one thing I was always grateful for is the fact that our country never gotten to the point of ballistic conflict of American vs. American. I was thankful that my mom, sister, brother, neighbor, etc. didn’t have to deal with the mental and emotional trials that armed conflict bring. I trained for it, they did not. The battle is never fought solely on the frontline..it’s fought/felt throughout the entire country and region. The fact that schools, hospitals and places of worship get swept into the conflict and are destroyed as a result is horrific. The one thing that always stuck out..and was a beacon of hope..was..if I “did my time” and finished the combat missions without dying.. that I would rotate back out and return home to the bastion of safety the US has been for decades. Yes, we have violence and death..but nothing on that scale. What happens when that war is here..in the US…where do you go? Have your own thoughts, ideas, beliefs,etc…but can we PLEASE stop with the calls for violence and civil war. Once that genie is out of the bottle..it isn’t going back..and if you think the things people are saying/doing now is horrendous.. just think how bad it would be when there is zero repercussion. And let’s not even talk of the national security implications and infrastructure damage and financial cost to rebuild after.
The journalist today are nothing near the likes of Pyle or Cronkite. Pyle was in the heart of the fighting in the Pacific war against Japan and was killed doing his job. Cronkite was in the European theatre starting out flying with the bomber crews filming other bombers being shot down around him during the bombing raids over Europe. He went on after D-day to being with the troops on the ground. He also was in Korea during that war and also did live broadcasts from Vietnam.
Cronkite also admitted, on film, of a meeting where he and eight other television anchors colluded to "make America ns hate the war in Viet Nam." That means 'The Press" has been aware of its ability to manipulate popular opinion for over fifty years. In the early 20th century, we called it "Yellow Journalism." Today we call it "managing disinformation."
Sides? What sides? Everyone looks like they have military/swat training, but no one seems to have any idea who they are fighting for or against other than the President. How is that supposed to make sense? Strategically, having the press be the lens through which the action is depicted gives the viewer an impartial point of view, but these protagonists don't seem to have any more of a clue about what's going on than anyone else. No one expresses a rationale, no one debates the causes, no one even knows why they're fighting. It's just 'Oh, ya, we're trying to kill them because they're trying to kill us.' There was no plot to speak of (other than the 'road trip' trope), only random, meaningless killing. Not only are the two 'sides' impossible to discern, but the only 'lesson' (if there is one) seems to be that with lawlessness and the chaos of war men become insane cold blooded killers; well ya, what else is new? The assassination of the President doesn't lead to anything but a photo op. The kid causes (inadvertently or otherwise), two senseless deaths with zero repercussion. Having it begin in medias res is a cop out since it depicts a war without a rationale. Even if the President is fascist dictator that doesn't explain how he instigated a war of secession. Especially given that should such a scenario actually occur, the US will slide into a fascist state and the only bulwark against it will be the courts and some ineffectual legislators. There will most certainly be no armed resistance. Liberals and progressives are simply not going to suddenly decide to buy firearms and storm the White House. The will acquiesce just like everyone else.There's a playbook for democracies to devolve into fascist dictatorships. And it can be done without the force of arms. Project 2025 doesn't need any help from militias and others.
i think this is Garland's best work, it was so gripping from start to finish, powerful in it's emotional beats and character arcs, the overall message is haunting and stays with you after watching
I found this film not to be so much about a possible civil war in the US as being more about the atrocities of war in general and the very dangerous role of those who document wars in progress. I enjoyed the film (as much as anyone can enjoy fear, death, and meaningless destruction), thought the camera values were excellent.
Sort of. Its main goal is to clear its personnel. Which should be under the control of the executive in the executive branch. If Congress doesn’t like it, they could simply work with the executive branch, to get rid of, or seriously review and reform the FBI themselves.
Only leftist film critics think this is a movie that "doesn't take sides". Why they feel like they need to pretend it's unbiased I have no idea as it's not filling anymore with the bag you over the head "orange man gun destroy americuh" messaging.
So how's that his fault? If conservatives want to take the side of authoritarianism, then we can't both-sides our way out of this. conservatives are the enemy of america.
@@robertortiz-wilson1588 "Its main goal is to clear its personnel." Yeahhh not even close. Its main goal is to stack every single branch of government with trumpist lackeys and to erode the system of checks and balances. Why would a president need to respect the separation of powers when he controls all the branches?
You nailed it on the fact that the movie is not about sides but the polarization itself. But you missed, or at least failed to mention the fall of Jesse's character where by the end of the movie she basically becomes the villain.
I do NOT believe Jesse was deliberately malicious in her actions! She was just being an opportunist who wasn't letting any potential opportunity to get an "iconic shot" go to waste...
For those who claim that "words are violence", I wonder if the conflation of the two means that the person who claims it is more likely to go from word to violence when words don't convince someone. I thought it was a very good show
I agree with your review sir. I had no idea what this movie was about. But as the story started to unfold. My feelings were seeing the brutality of war and how disturbing things can become. I grew up watching the Vietnam war. This reminded me of that.
The FBI is not a check on Presidential Powers. The FBI is actually subservient to the President under the Executive Branch. The checks on Presidential Powers are the Constitution, The Legislative Branch, and The Judicial Branch.
16:11-16:31 the ''napalm girl'' real name is Phan Thi Kim Phu is still alive and moved to Canada and begin a charity called the Kim Foundation International
I’ve seen other comments pointing this out and I would agree as well that sacrifice at the end is less about dying for the power of journalism and more about the finalization of both Jessie and Lee’s arcs as we see them going opposite of each other throughout the whole film. Jessie’s to pursue the dream of journalism but slowly be changed by the cost of it, and Lee, regretting journalism and ultimately choosing to save Jessie over getting an iconic photo, regaining her humanity, while at the same moment Jessie falls into a seeming numbness as you can see a smile on her face as she gets the photo of Lee dying vs earlier in the films when she was appalled at the slightest bit of death or gore. It almost reminds me of the character arc in the movie hurt locker, would anyone else agree? Side note, one moment I didn’t understand was when they where pulling into the world relief camp and the young girl working there talks to the driver letting them in, the camera shows Jessie quietly looking at the girl (who looks like the same age as Jessie) and she looks down sadly. This could not be anything but the shot lingered for quite a while, my best guess is to again further my theory, looking at a young girl her age working for world relief to help people symbolizes what could have been for Jessie, as her innocence is stripped away once again from the cost of journalism as moments earlier she takes her first iconic photo of a solider dying. I’m curious to hear what others think!
I wondered what that scene was for too. I actually thought it might have been Jessie being nervous because she didn't have ID that would reveal her as a press agent, because she seems to be working independently. I assumed that she was on edge because she wasn't sure if she would be waved through like the established journalists. I may have been overthinking that scene though.
Honestly I liked it. The urban combat scenes were decently good. The horrors of war coming to a 1st world country is disturbing to imagine. I just wish it was a bit longer and the ending wasn’t so…abrupt. A post credit scene on what happens to the states now or where the journalists will go from here would have been nice.
@@Quetzalcoatl_Feathered_Serpent making sequels to Civil War Is probably going to ruin the message of the first film. The film is supposed to be vague.
@@SubToJoeygaming The first film is vague. The others could flesh it out. Of course this depends on the producers of each film. More than likely Civil War will be the only one.
I’ll see it again, but was wondering what was the jist of the opening monologue by the President? (I had to get the manager to turn the lights off and missed it)
@@DannyVdesign If I had to guess he was psyching up his side of America against the WF (Western Front) and or Florida alliance. I might catch it again, I love A24 stuff.
A civil war based on ideological differences? Oh, hell no! The Graphic novel "DMZ" is another great treatment of this subject. It is brutal and pulls no punches.
I felt a great sorrow towards the end when the Western front was closing in on the President. I saw brother fighting brother and the implosion of the dream that was America. It was like seeing all the destabilization we've caused throughout the World coming home to roost. She's far from perfect but i walked out being thanks to be American.
This is by far the best analogy I have heard regarding such an amazing piece of cinematography. Thank you for taking the time to dissect this movie to even deeper than what it may appear to be at face value. Subscribed!!!
A very brilliant breakdown, I also agree with your 28 days later breakdown. That said I think a lot of people are missing a huge point about this film that was conveyed at least 4 seperate intentional times. This movie is about Secessionist forces, feeding propaganda and not even trying to listen to the government of the US. The USG in the movie on multiple occasions was broadcasting if not begging for a ceasefire and peace talks. This movie is about the complete and utter breakdown of any communications and how Violence becomes power. The WF weren't rebelling against a tyranny at least at the point we join the movie. They may have started their secession because of those reason's but the entire plot of WF vs USG puts failure of people with too much power to communicate costing the lives and the fundamentally destroying the ways of life of every American even those not fighting or intentionally sitting it out, Front and center. I challenge you to rewatch it and take account how many times "Pretending like its not happening", is mentioned or that theme is brought up as well as the extremely intentional sniper scene of Who is even giving orders anymore. This movie is about people with power or the ability to take power doing it without regard for anyone else's lives. The WF were roaches, the barbarians at the proverbial gate, this is highlighted by their indiscriminate killing of everything.
The WF weren't killing everything in their way though. The war between the WF and the Feds created a chaos that was being exploited by multiple militias and groups with their own agendas. The "what kind of American are you" guy was not the same as the Boogaloo guys and they were not the same as the snipers.
This is ,at the very least , by far the most interesting interpretation of this movie that I’ve seen. I did catch one radio /tv snippet with the usg reaching out several times for peace talks - and I didn’t think much of it. I remember starting out thinking the WF were probably the “good guys “ until seeing them execute unarmed soldiers .. the way they just drag the president out and shoot him was brutal. We didn’t even do that to Sadam H., did we ? Something else I thought of.. supposedly the president ordered air attacks on civilians. But that happens in real life to other countries , and that’s ok ? I mean even if it wasn’t supposed to hurt civilians, they often do. But I hadn’t considered that maybe that was false info or accidental.
@@sebastianbillings7807 The guys who killed the unarmed soldiers were Boogaloo-types! And their politics were quite vague (except the part they obviously hated the Feds). Yes the film focused on the journos and the WF, but they weren't the only ones against the Feds as the promo map also shown the existence in that universe of the Florida Alliance and the Maoist-style New People's Army as well!
This misses the point - it’s a character study showing how this kind of war is soul-destroying to everyone involved, even those reporting on it. The reasons for the fighting are irrelevant.
I believe Civil War is not a soul destroying event, destroying everyone involved. On the contrary, our souls are being destroyed already and for those who will truly fight on the side of restoring this nation to what it once was and was always meant to be, to Us, it will be a soul restoring event.
One Take's explanation excellently broke down the essentials of the movie. While I got the emotional effects of the movie, I was a bit confused about the reason for the civil unrest. Perhaps it was my oversight. But once I realized that it was about POTUS becoming a tyrant, everything else made sense. The creepiest part is that we are not too far from this possibility today. We should all pray! We are closer to civil unrest than we think.
Thanks for your input. It’s obvious a lot of the negative criticism comes from those who have not served in the military or likely do not have any experience in war planning or fighting because their reviews are all based on superhero movies that they grew up watching instead of being actually deployed to a poor, ravaged foreign country and being looked at with great vitriol, threatened and/or shot at just because they’re an American. My perspective comes from someone who’s been used around the world to satisfy the goals of our empire and who believes that as a result of our global expeditions and campaigns, we’ll eventually experience those pains in our homeland someday and I’m not happy about that, but I am a realist who knows enough to prepare for difficult times ahead. Many people may not think the events depicted in the film could ever happen but think of this, the U.S. is structured like a large version of Europe with states that mimic individual countries held together by the state’s promise to uphold the Constitution in which the mentalities of 21st century political leaders and citizens have clearly concluded, is just an old piece of paper. This format once proved that a massive civil war could and did occur and often history repeats itself, whether people want to believe it or not. Sure it’s just a movie, but it’s a serious one and there is a major message in it for us which is, war is truly hell and it’s not something that we should glorify nor something that we should ever hope occurs in our communities. Critics should stop trying to analyze this film like they’re watching some make believe superhero movie, an Oscar contender’s review or some political circus commentary akin to the events of the 2020 election. I suggest we watch it like we’re analyzing potential future “real world” events because the premise of this movie might be much closer than some of the many naive Americans think. From a military (not militia or political) perspective, often wartime strategic alliances form strategic partnerships which are not necessarily based ideological similarities. States like Texas and California both are very large populations (30-40 million residents), massive police and national guard forces and GNP’s that are comparable or larger than some of the current top ten percent of wealthiest countries on the globe. Texas was once its own republic and has governed that way since. An alliance of these to states and perhaps a third one of similar status and structure would be a major problem for DC politicians. Given today’s times, we need to hope for the best but only those who can’t see or hear won’t prepare for the worst. Most Empires haven’t lasted more the 500 years throughout history so, I think it’s very important for people to accept their possible future or that of their children, grandchildren or great grandchildren because we are definitely heading for a major change down the path of U.S. history. This fate is even foretold in the book of Revelation and in greater, specific detail in the “extra-biblical” text of 2nd Edras. Time and experience has proven the old Mark Twain quote that, “truth is stranger than fiction” I thought it was brilliant. It reminds me of a realistic Christopher Nolan movie with hints of an Apocalypse Now style vibe. The music took me to the post Vietnam era. Many wanted to know the cause of the war but the context of the war is not important. Most 21st century Americans (except the naive) know how this could happen. Overall, this movie was an essay warning us (Americans) to not let our politicians lead us in this direction because…, in a war everyone loses. A future cult classic movie for sure!
I agree with a good portion of your take on this. When I watched the movie the scene where the guys in Hawaiian style shirts are clearing the building and they come across a soldier injured on the ground asking for help and just shoot him, my immediate response was "Americans executing Americans". I felt disgust over it and again when they executed the other 3 soldiers right after. It just felt wrong and made me think nothing should make Americans turn on each other that way. Im all for over throwing a President that becomes a dictator but I dont want to kill other Americans to achieve that, at least not executing them. This definitely should give Americans a wake up call.
I bet that in the movie the thought of pronouns, transgenders in sports, dei, CRT, etc.... wasn't on a single person's mind. Which just goes to show just how insignificant of those issues really are
I enjoyed Joels and Jesse's Dynamic. Personally what's being said is true for all the reason stated. I just find myself in similar spot to Joel. Gun fire, war ,violence. It gives me a rager ,and I feel alive. So yes though I aspire to be an unbiased war photographer and to be honest I'd get the same kick out of it. While telling such a tale
Thank you. That was my first takeaway, the actions of the president in the opening. Not presenting a good guy/bad guy just presenting the facts of the situation. You walk out stirred or shaken yet thinking and conversing about the state of the Nation. Brilliant!
There was a lot I liked about what happens in the film, however, the movie its self feels like it was tide down by the stupid music choices during important scenes that could have had a lasting effect on me as a viewer.
The reviewer-narrator has nailed it from every angle in his review. I watched the movie yesterday and would attest to his reading and analysis of the film. Alex Garland has given us a masterpiece that leaves everyone thinking and reflecting
If you’ve been paying attention to the current “state of the union” you will see the political bias from beginning to end. It portrayed the horrors of the potential future well though. Good food for thought. 🇺🇸🦅🎆
There was no political bias. Lots of people crying the prez was a trump figure. When really he looks VERY similar to gavin newsom even had the same haircut
@@JackieChan-rk7mc And he stutters like Biden (at least a younger version of him before his mental decline became impossible to ignore or explain away)!
Very well produced video. It saddens me when people immediately couch this as a shallow film with a motive for either the current right or left wing political landscape--it is an anti-war movie at it's core, and the directing was masterfully done. In my world, good photography and film have to make me feel something. If that means revulsion then so be it. This movie made me sick a few times, and that was absolutely the point.
The film is to scared to actually have a message, it’s a good looking mask with absolutely no substance, it has no real message about civil conflict other than guys let’s get along and tyrants are bad. And the ending is extremely disappointing because it shows how clearly they didn’t have any direction with the two main characters, they just skip over character progression and jump straight from one end to another, it was a movie that was a decent watch but I would never watch again because once you know how empty it ends it kills any interest you could ever have on a rewatch, in the end the movie was just banking on the controversy of making it during a lot of political divide in the country
Good points, well said! 👍🏻 I might add that their actions (like those of 16:36 many in the military and the police) are not so much altruistic as they are (like in most highly developmented breeds of working dogs) merely sublimated prey drive.
The sadness I feel knowing that although the first American Civil War was fought for mankind and the rights of all men, the next one will be fought over the pettiness of political ideology and a weak, transparent belief in honor.
I mean, so was the first one. In very abbreviated form, the North gave the South a way out and a path towards slowly phasing out and then incorporating former slaves into society. Those with power in the South decided their culture(and not coincidentally their power) was more important to them than peace. The idea that black people should be treated as their equals offended their sensibilities. It's actually quite similar to today's situation. The really dangerous divide in US politics has always been between those that want to impose their will on others, especially on others that look or act funny, and the rest of us who just want to make the most of our lives while we have them. And it always will be. It's also why checks on power are so critical to stop the nation from Balkanizing, and all our lives getting worse as a result.
@@that_heretic Yup! One of the BIGGEST differences between the 1860s and nowadays is 1) Society is so much more atomized, 2) A "drug culture" where substance abuse is rampant, and 3) Way more weapons and POWERFUL ones at that!
This movie is an allegory that reflects current political/social situation in the USA. US citizens (I remind you that we all are Americans on this side of the globe) try to have empathy for us Chileans after the violent death of democratically elected Salvador Allende in 1973.
Right...the problem of course is that in reality at least a plurality of the US right, and probably actually a small minority, do not agree with that basic tenant of our civilization anymore. That's literally the entire problem. Power is derived from the consent of the governed. When enough decide they want a king, a king is what they'll get.
I saw this in IMAX on a fairly big screen and I recommend it highly. I was impressed at how it avoided ANY politics. I could picture MAGA supporters walking out after 15 minutes but I hope they would continue watching because it was a great movie. I was pretty sure it was going to be non-political when they had the opposing forces made up of Texas AND California, what in the world would bring these two states together?
Garland positions this movie to have people show their bias. If you are offended that you associate Offerman's president with Trump, it's because you see aspects of Trump in that character. There is nothing objectively that ties Trump to that character from a script standpoint. He is a tyrant and a fascist in a generic sense.
My take on California and Texas uniting in the movie is due to the president in the movie doing something so awful that the left and right parties put aside their differences for a common goal.
It is a disturbing possibility but it is a film about a coup. Essentially it felt like US was going through what it puts every oil-rich country through
“If he had picked a side and used this movie as a bludgeon against the left or right…” This was a pretty decent critique overall, but the idea that Garland’s plot doesn’t have a political valence is absurd. As you said, one of the only details we understand is that the president en route to becoming a tyrant refused to step down after his second term. Given that one of the main messages from democrats since 2020 has been that “democracy itself is literally on the ballot,” it’s pretty stupid to pretend that this devolution into tyranny so severe that it unites even California and Texas doesn’t have a clear referent in the current political discourse.
Can't lie, I was pretty disappointed in this film. There were some serious shortfalls in the story structure, & writing. Parts that simply made no sense, or others that felt jammed into a part of the film where it didn't belong. Seemed like it was thrown together with little time to pay attention to what worked and made sense.
I haven't seen this film but I want to say you've gone into a lot of depth and you've helped me make up my mind about going to see this film. I decided not to go because I have a natural black and white mentality and I can't stand it when a war movie is between terrible people and other equally terrible people. And I know it's really about the journalists but that's not enough for me. And this might sound like an evil opinion but I don't entirely agree with the "war is bad" message. That we shouldn't let it happen and should be repulsed by it. Look at the current war in Ukraine. Of course the part where Russia has invaded and is trying to take over the country without any provocation, in that sense the war is bad and we all wish it hadn't happened. But the part where Ukraine fought against them, in that respect I don't see what they're doing as a bad thing. Possibly I have this romantic ideal that Civil War thinks needs to be deconstructed but I have always thought there is something noble to be found in at least some wars. Not wars like the Iraqi war or Vietnam but yes in WW2 and the American Revolution. So unpopular as my opinion may be, I don't think the idea that "fighting a war is bad" is a universal truth. Civil War wants us to be repulsed by war but if Ukraine hadn't fought a war against the Russians or the British against the Germans, THAT I would find repulsive. In short, even though it's not historically accurate, I would prefer Darkest Hour to films like Civil War.
Movie was great and I still feel it’s a-political It mentions fictional political events like antifa-massacre but that doesn’t mean “antifa dead yay” or anything it’s just a small reference to a real life group
I thought it was phenomenal. I can't even remember the last time I was so on the edge of my seat. Am one hundred percent going to see it again as soon as possible.
This movie was so much better than I was expecting, especially because of the low rating on Amazon. I mean, don't get me wrong...Alex Garland. I expected to like it more than the folks giving it low ratings on Amazon. But I was NOT expecting to like it as much as I did. To be fair, I'm a tad biased. I'm a filmmaker who spends up to most of my time in any given week working as a photojournalist for a local news station (yes, we call even video guys "photojournalists" in news , for some reason) and I love it! So I GET these characters and their drive to get the shot. It's intoxicating. But also, the film is absolutely beautifully shot and the exploration of its themes was a great ride for me!
I was terrified until the battle at D.C. cause that's when I fully realized who is the bad guy. And I was waiting for the guy to get killed in the movie That let Lee's death more shocking to me
