The provocatively titled “Civil War” was released this weekend, on the 163rd anniversary of the start of the First American Civil War. The movie has secession in common with the first civil war, but little else. The movie has been proceeded by rumors that it would be a commentary of the present political situation in America today. There is a fear that America is heading for a civil war, especially if Trump loses in the upcoming election. However, possibly in a move to not alienate half of its potential audience, the movie does not take a stand on current politics. Writer and director Alex Garland made sure of that by crafting a movie that could not possibly happen in America in any foreseeable future. There is more chance of a purge than of this type of civil war.
The movie begins with a red herring. The President (Nick Offerman) rehearses for a televised speech that will proclaim “mission accomplished.” It turns out that a series of hints tells us the President is blowing smoke. We are 14 months into the war. Texas and California have formed the Western Alliance to depose the third-term President. Those two states agreeing on anything is proof positive that the movie is a fantasy. There is also an alliance led by Florida with the same goal. But the movie concentrates on the Western Alliance and its advance on Washington, D.C. The movie focuses on a quartet of war journalists that are on a mission to interview the President. All four are stereotypes from war journalism movies. Lee (Kirsten Dunst) is the veteran photojournalist who won a Pulitzer Prize for a photograph of the Antifa Massacre. We don’t know if Antifa was doing the massacring or the victim of it. Like I said, the movie does not take sides. She is calloused, but suffers from PTSD. Jesssie (Cailee Spaeny) is the cub reporter who idolizes Lee and wants to be just like her. Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson) is the wise old print journalist who sees the trip as one last fling. Joel (Wagner Moura) is Lee’s partner. He plays the journalist who is an adrenaline junkie. The kind that smiles when the bullets whiz by.
The movie is a road trip. It’s 857 miles to D.C. and there will be some stops along the way. Their car is the only one on the interstate and there is a stretch of highway that looks like the Highway of Death outside Kuwaiti City in the Persian Gulf War. On the other hand, the movie informs us that much of the country is minding its own business. (That’s the one thing that is predictive of the coming civil war.) They stop at a gas station where they fill it up with $300 of Canadian money because U.S. currency will only buy a sandwich. They are treated to two men being tortured. They are journalists, so of course they just observe, they don’t get involved. Lee: “We report so other people can ask.” They take pictures in the middle of a firefight. Prisoners are executed, but it makes for great shots. They stay at a refugee camp. They witness a sniper duel. They are confronted by some soldiers that question whether they are “real Americans.” And finally, they embed with the Western Forces army for its assault on Washington. The now trio is still determined to get that interview.
There is a subgenre of war movies that focuses on war journalism. There are a few good movies in this group. Films like “A Private War”, “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot”, “The Year of Living Dangerously”, “Salvador”, “Under Fire”, “The Quiet American (2002)”, and “Welcome to Sarajevo.” These films have created cliches that you see in most of the subgenre and “Civil War” is no different. Lee and Jessie are near a suicide bombing and Lee immediately starts taking pictures of the dead bodies. That evening the press is gathered at the hotel to party hard. War journalists are like fighter pilots, they drink a lot. Lee and Joel always head in the direction of the gunfire. Lee has PTSD, but she is dedicated to getting the next great shot. The quartet risks their lives getting as close to the fighting as possible. They are not interested in helping anyone that is wounded. That’s not their job. The plot is predictable and breaks no new ground. If you want to see all the cliches in one movie, but with some great scenes, this movie might be for you. It concludes with a combat porn scene featuring the Lincoln Memorial and the White House.
I made sure I did not read much about the movie before seeing it, so I was surprised that it avoided being topical. In preparing this review, I read where Garland chose Texas and California to emphasize that the war was a war to overthrow a corrupt dictator that ordered the killing of American civilians. Unfortunately, that is not apparent in the film. We learn nothing about what brought on the war and how it got to the point that Washington was being attacked. Even at the end of the movie it is not clear that the President is the villain. The film is just a war journalism movie with a deceptive title.
Obviously, the movie is not based on reality, but it still could have been realistic. It’s this flaw that ruined the movie for me. I don’t mind the cliches and predictability because few viewers will have seen most of the movies I have listed so most will not shake their heads at another combat junkie, PTSD, cynical journalist. The problem is that the third act goes off the rails with several plot developments that make no sense. For instance, one of the quartet gets wounded in a place that could not possibly have happened. And to jump higher over the shark, the other three do nothing to try to save him. I know journalists aren’t supposed to care about victims, but this person was a friend of theirs. The concluding scene in Washington is good combat porn, but it leads to a ludicrous climax in the White House.
Garland’s script is structured around the old chestnut of the rookie journalist going from naive hero worshipper to cynical clone, all in a few days. Jessie’s character arc is too unbelievable and it’s embarrassing to see her evolution intersect with Lee’s sudden devolution. The movie does have some strengths. The soundtrack has songs that advance the gonzo nature of the journalists. It uses photos effectively to give us a camera eye view. The two combat scenes are well-done and exciting. And there is a lot of military hardware on display with the only obvious CGI being the flock of choppers.
I can only recommend the movie to those who are not already familiar with the war journalism subgenre. It is not one of the better movies in that group. Go see it only if you want the entertainment. Don’t see it if you are looking for wish fulfillment or to confirm your worst nightmare.
GRADE = C
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please fell free to comment. I would love to hear what you think and will respond.