CIVIL WAR 2024: The Scariest Movie You'll See This Year | in-depth film review

Civil War (2024) is the newest film from auteur production studio A24, and it has been cause of a lot of debate due to it's apolitical approach to the film's storyline. I think the lack of politics is what makes Civil War good...terrifyingly good, with an underlying tone of what I call "philosophical horror"
/chapters.
1. premise and initial thoughts
2. hidden artistry
3. the flaws of the film
4. philosophical horror
.Conclusion
.
.
.
.
.
If you watched the video, then THANK YOU FOR WATCHING! Plz Consider the SUBSCRIBE BUTTON, haha, so I can make more videos about culture, movies, literature, art etc.! You don't have to press it, per se...but at least consider it, you know?
----
Become an Airhead and follow ma socials:
Instagram: @upintheairft.zurich (book reviews, art and films - if you like my yt content then Instagram has similar content I don't publish anywhere else)
Twitter: @uitaftzurich (nothing really there, lol)
---
About me:
I am a 20-somethin’ y.o intellectual crackhead, who like books, poetry, and anything else I like to get into (art, films, philosophy, culture, social commentary etc.). Talking books, I like classics, literary fiction, and sci-fi, but will read anything if it’s bad-funny enough.
---
/secondary sources mentioned.
- Alex Garland reveals how Civil War is partly autobiographical - Q with Tom Power
----
/films mentioned.
- Civil War (2024), dir. Alex Garland
- White House Down (2013), dir. Roland Emmerich
- Olympus Has Fallen (2013), dir. Antoine Fuqua
- Mission Impossible (1996), dir. Brian De Palma
- The Exorcist (1973), dir. William Friedkin
- The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), Tobe Hooper
----
/music used.
- Leoš Janácek - Sonata 9 - 1. Forboding
- Leoš Janácek - In The Mist: IV. Presto - Meno mosso - Andante
- Leoš Janácek - I.X.:II. Death
- Leoš Janácek - On an Overgrown Path, Pt. 1. V. They Chattered like Swallows
- Leoš Janácek - The Presentiment - Con moto
#filmreview #culture #videoessay #cinema #civilwar #alexgarland #cinema #actionfilm #movies #arthouse #a24 #socialcommentary #philosophy #filmanalysis

[@nevskislake]

I am late to this video, but I always look forward to your content.

[@UpintheAirft.Zurich]

Thanks for watching😊! Did anyone else find Civil War (2024) terrifying?

[@mortthereefer3343]

Are you a toddler? Who the the hell finds the scary

[@andaelee]

personally, i think the film could've dealt with what a civil war in america could mean for the people apart from guns and violence. i get that the focus was on journalism but it kinda feels like a missed opportunity to provide some sort of commentary on america's current polarised politics and opinion leaders. it's like if the crucible by arthur miller came out in the mccarthyism era and didn't talk about hysteria but focused on burying the bodies. enjoyed the movie tho. also get letterboxd if you haven't already!!!!

[@UpintheAirft.Zurich]

I feel that showcasing the specific American political tensions that are in the culture currently might've easily skewed the movie into being biased to the point of shallow propaganda. Also, I think it would have dated the film a lot in future, where I think Civil War as it is now has more staying power. I think it's more likely to be a film you could watch in 10, 20+ years time and it not need the context of the current culture in extensive detail, rather than be a film with it's main value being "a movie about the early decades of 21th century American politics". But I agree that if there was an even balance of the hysteria of the different sides being presented (my preference would be of the ordinary citizens), I definitely could get behind that, and maybe it would have elevated the movie even more. I've been debating about letterboxd, and ya convinced me 😆

[@space_1073]

This is really well made! I totally agree that it isn't political at all. However I honestly think it's extremely critical of journalists, not praising them. Throughout we see the characters smiling and even giggling at what they are photographing. Even though they clearly understand the danger of it, the movie at times seems to suggest they are only photographing what they find interesting, not what is important. For instance the scene where they do a photoshoot in the shop with the dress, or when Jesse first photographs Lee. They are doing it all out of self interest more than any cause. Just as they want to get an interview from the president before anyone else, Jesse is more concerned with getting the photo of Lee's death than helping her human to human. It was even filmed as though her photographs were the shots being fired at her.

[@UpintheAirft.Zurich]

I totally see that interpretation as well, those moments do give the suggestion that the journalism is inherently self interested, or that the only news worth reporting on is the most sensational and violent (not the ordinary people who are struggling in the displacement camps). Good point, and thank you!!

[@lucasaugustomarcon3656]

Gostei muito do comentário sobre o filme, tive impressões muito semelhantes às suas

[@jaimemarrero3982]

10:33 "both sides call him a coward for staying non political"
11:23 "could be set anywhere because of the growing sense of fascism"
Only one side calls the other fascist in the US. Garland might have tried to stay non-political, but ultimately the movie is framed from his political stance. It is not super relevant to the overall plot, but lets not tray to say the apples are oranges.
The film could have gone harder on the responsability of journalists, how sensationalism on both sides is to be the most likely cause to split the people up, people who form their oppinions mostly based by 1 news souce, be it CNN or FOX, which are very partisan. It portrays war time journalists as adrenaline junkies that need to insert themselves into the story, because it needs to be them who report on a story. Basically, all the journalism happening in the movie goes against the president, you want me to believe it was unanimous that the president was wrong? How did he still have supporters if there was nobody telling the stories of the other side?
Mind you, these are criticisms to the movie. Your video is very well produced.

[@lman318]

yeah, both the creator here and Garland in general seem to think that "extremism is bad" is a deeper take than it actually is. Democrats didn't storm the capitol when they last lost an election, so it's foolish to think that both sides are equally culpable in creating instability. It's why I don't get the people who went "you just don't like it because it didn't say your side was the good guys" crowd. Like, yeah it doesn't take ANY side, but that's not the compliment that you think it is, because it's not reflective of the reality of a civil war.

[@UpintheAirft.Zurich]

On one hand, I think you're right that the movie doesn't go hard on journalists - they seem to be presented as impartial agents with a dedication to the truth.
But I've been thinking about it again and, like you said, these journalists are also presented as people seeking out a story with their own implicit agenda (that is, being against the president, though they are against the WF as well, but less so I think), and dispassionately viewing the image of a dying man as a "great picture".
Whether this was Garland's explicit intention or not, the journalists read to the audience as amoral agents - and (I've been reading Sontag's book On Photography) one may even see them as complicit in what they are photographing. Not in the heinous action, but in their chosen impassivity. As Sontag explains it:
"Photography [...] is a way of at least tacitly [...] encouraging whatever is going on to keep on happening. (A side note: My thoughts instantly go to Jessie and Joel) To take a picture is to have an interest in things as they are, in the status quo remaining unchanged (at least for as long as it takes to get a "good" picture), to be in complicity with whatever makes a subject interesting, worth photographing - including when that is the interest, another person's pain and misfortune."
Everyone is this movie - the WF, the President, and the journalists - are morally gray and implicitly political, and each group is seen as causing/acting callous, as well as being the victim of terrible callousness.
In that way I would argue that the movie goes beyond the political, and adds a philosophical bent I think people are missing. It shows Garland's concern about the duty journalism has in such a conflict, and whether journalism as an institution is really up to the task of reporting impartially.
(I didn't say all this in the vid, cos it was hard to find a place to fit it lol).
Btw, your comment was really nice to read, I love hearing people's thoughts! And thank you 💛

[@Ulyssestnt]

Not to be pedantic but the spanish loyalists were not dissenting they were fighting against a fascist takeover so technically I guess it was the fascists that was the dissenters.:P

[@UpintheAirft.Zurich]

This is the kind of pedantry I can get behind 😂 and I suppose, you could interpret that that the Western Forces would view the president as the dissenting fascist government in the same way as you said lol

[@Ulyssestnt]

@@UpintheAirft.Zurich Yes of course its to a large degree relative.
And they would indeed consider the fascist Government illegimate.
I guess it all would rest on the degree the loyalist faction is a direct continuation of the US union the secessionists would maybe have the most rightful claim to being dissenters as well as the moral high ground.:)
PS:I cannot remember 5.56 being that loud even in shoothouses:P

[@Ulyssestnt]

@@UpintheAirft.Zurich Also,The goverment militia with Hawaiian shirts I think their a coded version of the proudboys or something of this nature.

[@mortthereefer3343]

It sucked and it wasn't scary at all. It was a really awful movie

[@Nanokeeps]

Watched it last night. It did not suck