Intentionally apolitical to a fault: ‘Civil War’ is too vague for its own good
There’s no denying that Alex Garland‘s Civil War is a powerful movie that carries plenty of thematic heft, but by intentionally keeping the broader strokes of its mythology painted in such muted colours, it gives the film a sense of weightlessness that robs the story of having some added weight behind its punches.
Of course, that was the filmmaker’s intention from the very beginning, with Civil War shining a light on journalistic integrity above all else. The four reporters who drive the story forward are there to offer a reminder that a large amount of the news society devours comes from impartial sources with their boots on the ground showing – and not telling – the world what’s going on at any place at any time.
It’s a message that’s repeatedly relayed as Kirsten Dunst’s Lee, Wagner Moura’s Joel, Stephen McKinley Henderson’s Sammy, and Cailee Spaeny’s Jessie risk life and limb travelling through the smouldering rubble of a dystopian America in order to head straight to the source and secure the scoop of a lifetime from the heart of Washington, but the side effect is that of an underserved backdrop.
What’s revealed in the film is that a dictatorial president – who isn’t given a name – is in the midst of a third term and is happy to order airstrikes on civilian populations to maintain his grip on power. Texas and California have banded together as the ‘Western Forces’ to combat the opposition, who aren’t fleshed out much beyond reference to the ‘Florida Alliance’ having already been defeated.
There are allusions to how this all came about, and they’re rooted in prescient societal discords like racism, nationalism, and a perceived sense of moral and political superiority, but Garland stops short of specificity. Releasing a film called Civil War in the year of a presidential election was always going to ruffle feathers, but the discourse has been clutching at straws, trying to shape it to their own agenda precisely because the writer and director chooses not to spell anything out.
Wars don’t end overnight, but even the motivations of the Western Forces are left unsaid. What do they plan to do when the president is removed from his position? What are the warring factions fighting to uphold? What do they even represent? Circumstances don’t ignite conflict; they’re decisions made in the corridors of power. What spurred the White House overlord to commit atrocities against his own people? Isn’t there a vice president waiting in the wings to take over? Why was the FBI disbanded? What is the ‘Antifa massacre’? Again, unanswered questions.
The quartet of protagonists, the ear-shattering set pieces, and the immersive visuals make Civil War an excellent watch, but the objectivity inherent in their profession is applied much too liberally to the film at large. Not to say Garland should have come out swinging and said ‘this person is based on that person’ or ‘this is what could happen if this group doesn’t get this thing they want’, but even filling in several of the many blanks would have been immensely beneficial.
Garland has already explained his position multiple times, although his comments to Business Insider offer a telling insight. “Someone could say to me, ‘This is an apolitical film’. And I could sit down with them, and I could explain why it’s not apolitical,” he said. “And at the end of it, they’d probably go, ‘OK, yeah, no, I can see it is political.'” Not everyone wants to have their hands held and be spoon-fed the intricacies of any given movie, but that response is as vague as the conflict at the heart of Civil War.
There are parallels to be drawn between many real-life incidents and events, sure, but the staunch refusal to explain much beyond the fringes often comes across as skirting around the issue as opposed to deliberate obfuscation to stoke the flames of discussion. Films like Civil War are supposed to generate conversations and raise questions, but it becomes a lot more difficult to decipher when the answers aren’t even subjective, they’re non-existent.
