I always RESPECT when Christy & Alonso disagree in a mature fashion...we disagree: NO need to fight...just plead their case/impression/thoughts, which is what Film Critics do, at their best. WTF forever!
@@tsarstepan they don't duel...they can simply disagree & provide a concise, even whimsical/alternative reason is for their thoughts & i have always responded well to them. I am STILL WAITING on the full family reunion LOL!
I think it's always more fun to talk to people about a movie you don't agree than one you do, but some people can't do this while being mature and they ruin it for everybody. I immediately want to talk to somebody who hated a film I loved or loved a film I hated, but most people are apprehensive to do it. They think its going to turn into a fight every time.
@@cheekylix True enough but politics are far far from the conscious thoughts of the person exchanging fire with another person (or just trying to avoid being hit if they don't know what/who to shoot at)
@@wills.8662 maybe not at the time of firing the shot, but they only got there because of a political disagreement in some wars. Revolutionary war was political. Same with the civil war.
@@wills.8662 I have news for you: politics in the trenches is also politics. There's matters of responsibility, and there are problems, and there are decisions to make. And most soldiers spend most of their time not shooting at the enemies, but deal with smaller decisions around them. It doesn't have to be ideological to be politics. Put it this way, suppose you're an alien who knows nothing about earthlings and their wars. Take a look at the famous photo of iwo jima flag. Can you know what it means to the earthlings by just looking at it? Or even if you're the photographer that just happens to be there without knowing anything behind what you're witnessing? A photo is nothing without context. Likewise is warfare. If you study any war, you can't study it in a vacuum without the politics, either the politics in governments or that in the trenches.
I haven't seen this movie but I agree with Christy. If my house got bombed and I couldn't get access to food, I would be less concerned about who's "right" and be more concerned about my life falling apart. I would just want the war to stop.
Some people would react like that, but that's not how most people necessarily react. For example, Ukrainians are right now being bombarded by Russians, losing homes, hospitals, electricity and all that, and yet, the majority don't want their country to give up, they want to continue fighting for independence. This resilience and defiance, this desire to keep fighting despite difficulties, seems to me a much more interesting phenomenon to explore than the idea that war is bad and people suffer in war.
There's a scene in the film (which Christy directly refers to in this video) that essentially tells the viewer, "It's not at all important WHAT they're fighting about. The point is they're trying to kill each other, full stop." If you watch this movie and try to determine what side is good and what side is bad, and get caught up in the imaginary politics of it, you're already missing the entire point of the movie.
Well The “point” is stale. Is a cop out and coward, many movies have the same point. Even dumb Star Wars movies say “war is bad”. The topic and theme kinda begs for a political stance
A movie titled Civil War and set in USA automatically evokes the historic American Civil War, which was absolutely about something, and making this about a mundane anti-war film is both misleading and a wasted opportunity. Alonso is absolutely right here - a robust thesis on the underlying context and cause of the war is monumental in making the film having any kind of impact. Alex Garland not taking a point of view is a cop out in the sense that he avoided making a great movie and instead merely made an entertaining movie. And how entertaining it really is (I haven't seen it obviously) is also potentially hurt by this cop out.
@@zxbc1I think the neutrality and objectivity makes sense because the main characters are journalists and it isn’t necessarily their job to take sides. Also the president in the film is clearly a fascist who refuses to leave office, so I’d argue that Garland is making a clear enough statement on certain things, namely the abuse of power in the oval office. He’s just not labeling the film as explicitly left or right wing
@@bat1579except it would go against its own message that division that goes so far as undermining the institutions that safeguard the existence of American democracy is bad, by closing the ears of half its potential viewers.
@@dollarsaurus01 But that's not the point. The point is the film could explore more on the origin and nature of the conflict and the context of the ideological split. A film can be about a lot more than just what it says it's about. In this case, I feel like the criticism (since I have not seen the film) is that it is a lot LESS about what it advertises to be about, which is a shame.
I actually agree with Christy here. Not saying the thing makes the message more powerful. I think Alonso is underestimating the audience. I think it was difficult for Garland to not pick a side because either way if he did it would make the message of the movie lost and everyone would only focus the conversation about the sides and the ideologies that are represented in the story. Side note: EX-Machina gave us the single best scene in cinematic history: Oscar Issac's dance moves! 😂😂
The message that war is bad is powerful? Almost everyone already agrees with this in the abstract. Also, if they wanted to make a movie about war being bad, why not do it against the backdrop of a war that happened? That would be much more substantive. Just throwing ideas here, but for example, you could make a movie about how terrible war is from the point of view of Confederate soldiers and/or Southern civilians in the American Civil War, I think that would have been a lot more interesting.
Maybe Garland knew not to state the reason the country has gone downhill so far, is because he doesnt need to tell us all what he believes we already know. We cannot let this country get this bad, and we need to find a way to prevent it. Otherwise, we are all fucked, and Garland is, in fact, trying to scare us by showing what will be like. Scary.
This conversation happens regardless if it's laid out in black and white. The exposition from both sides find their justification for why they see it that way, and they still cast the blame on the other side. Just say you're afraid of the January 6th bullshit happening again, and make that movie. Arbitrarily pairing California and Texas together to really prove it's some future realm and apolitical based on our current division is, exactly as Alonso called it, "a cop out."
I'm leaning towards Christy's position. It made me think that the movie is not about today's divides. Californian and Texas are the number 1 and 2 economies and I could see a scenario in which they have common ground in wanting a chance to cut the feds out based simply on money. Too much flowing out via taxes to support other states that are failing? Since each one by itself would fail in an independence move, they move together? Its more fun to speculate than to be mired down in today's manufactured divisions.
I agree with Christy. I think the movie actually shows the current political climate. There are people who are all in in extreme ideology on both sides,)there are people who are on the fence(moderates), and those who couldn’t care less out of apathy or ignorance. Put them all together in a cauldron of hate and suspicion and you have what’s harrowingly portrayed in Civil War.
It is important to point out it is not an even split about extremism. From a peer-reviewed paper published a year and a half ago: "Across both datasets, we find that radical acts perpetrated by individuals associated with left-wing causes are less likely to be violent. In the United States, we find no difference between the level of violence perpetrated by right-wing and Islamist extremists."
I’m on team Christy. I agree with her. Garland’s point is to not pick sides but let viewers relate to it from their perspective. I guess Alonzo wanted MAGA bad in the movie.
Her rebuke is "I disagree totally" & I feel the same way. Comparing this to a European conflict or classic war movies already made doesn't fit. The whole concept of it being here & now in the USA is what makes it compelling IMO
But it doesn't explore the concept of it being here in the USA. It was only nominally. But it may as well have been entirely set during the South African transition to democracy (using that as an example because it was in the flashbacks) or really any other conflict that has already occurred in history. Setting it in a hypothetical conflict (Civil War in the US during a time of political turmoil no less!) and then not exploring that hypothetical conflict was a bait and switch and honestly, exploitative. It's akin to having a movie where the trailer shows a firefighter watching TV and seeing the twin towers burning on NYC, shows the footage of the second plane crashing, shows the people jumping. Then cuts to the firefighter suiting up, shows the firefighter rescuing people from a burning building, and it's all action and screaming and drama. And the movie is called "09/11/01". Then the actual movie comes out and it turns out that while it did take place on that date, it was a burning parking garage in Nebraska that had nothing to do with the historic events on that day. And the scenes shown in trailers are at the very end of the movie when the firefighter goes home and turns on the TV and finds out what happened... and that's all it deals with the terrorist attacks. That would be seen as disingenuous, disrespectful, and in poor taste. And again, exploitative. That's what this movie did.
I just saw this amazing film. I am on Team Christy with “Civil War”! It succeeds at being a “show not tell” immersive experience. To most people in senseless wars all over the world, the detailed “context” of all the suffering is not important, just that we know there is a war. This film is not spoon feeding the audience with an opening scroll and lots of exposition. Life is like that. We get a general setup that we have a president who took a third term and that states have seceded. People are smart enough to infer if they wish the history of all that-this film is about intimate war journalism, not about history or political science. And looking at a war photo is like looking into a mirror-and what we see says something of ourselves. This movie is a big war photo like that, a mirror. If you go through a list of war movies, because so many deal with the experience of low-level soldiers and/or civilians, the exact details of why a war started is not spelled out. These stories are about how they react and live in circumstances out of their control. “Civil War” masterfully depicts such an experience using the art of pure cinema-images and sound-at the highest level…
President taking a 3rd term and the states seceding really doesnt explain how you have an invasion by the seceeded states of the capitol tho..... Kinda the whole point of secession is to get away from the current situation, not directly involve yourself in the middle of it. So what? Was there this whole attack against these states before what happens in the movie? The conflict just doesnt make sense, and yet its the main antagonist of the film and what is supposedly driving the plot and all character arcs.
I’m noticing there are a group of people who need to know the reason and the why behind the division in this movie, and they’re completely missing the point of what the movie is. An up close depiction of what war would look like in America, when you come across dangerous situations, and you don’t always know the why, you’re just in it. I question why some people need everything spelled out as and take everything so literally. Whenever I hear someone say CA and TX would never align, they’ve immediately lost me and I can’t take their review seriously. It’s not supposed to be a literal take on today, and some people want so badly for it to be that.
That’s fine, but sometimes it is worth the cost. Unless we’re saying the revolutionary and civil wars should not have been fought. The question isn’t is war bad, but when is it justified? By taking out the cause of the war idk if it’s justified or not.
I thought it was obvious from one scene of dialogue why even seemingly opposing states like California and Texas would unite to overthrow the government - That was satisfying enough "lore" for me. I love a director/writer that trusts the audience. I didn't need scenes that cut to a mustache twirling president to know he was a fascist - third term, disbanding the FBI, drone strikes on citizens... It's all there. But it's also not the thesis of the movie. It's just the appropriate backdrop to wake up the world.
People who want Garland to take a stand or explain why the war happened, are just looking to have their political opinions validated and not caring about the actual message of the movie which is no one should want this.
No we are trying to not live in a Hollywood Fantasy world. We want a small piece or reality. What would make a United States President take a third term? What events would give him any backing to do this at all? If it was riots in the inner cities and white people were getting killed by black people a President might have a very solid base of support from the majority of military personnel, ,the nations police forces and 2nd Amendment rights gun toters.
I agree with Christy. Having survived a civil war, it’s not about the why or who’s right or wrong. Also, if nobody sees your art then why bother making it. So yes, it’s about selling tickets.
I saw it last night, too, and at first I agreed with Alonso, but I have been thinking about it all day today, and I am coming around to Christy's take. While the trailers sold it as an action-oriented story, it is more of a cautionary tale, not about picking sides. Cynically, picking a side would eliminate a substantial piece of the audience, but realistically, the message of the film is that we are killing each other over differences. It was more like Apocalypse Now...a road-trip journey into hell. It seems to be saying, "Seriously, we are divided right now, but you don't want this" and to remind us of the bravery of real journalism (not talking head punditry). For me, the most important line in the film was when Dunst's character talked about how she always hoped we'd learn from her work abroad. The performances are terrific. The scene with Plemons was terrifying. The audience response was tough to gauge at my screening. The De La Soul needle drop was out of left field and didn't work for me (however, I am all for them getting theirs after being fucked over by the music industry for decades). Also thought the use of Suicide (the band) didn't work for me. Shout-outs on those band tees for Thousandaire and Sunny Day Real Estate, though. I am likely going to see it again so I can confirm my take.
I like Christy’s take. “Civil War” is about a point in time, not how we got there. The war is just the background for what photojournalists can see and go through. If you want “context”, people are smart enough to infer that the President has done questionable and bad things: taking a third term, shutting down the FBI, and calling air strikes on Americans-implying a cause for people to want to overthrow him. Also, compare this film with say “Full Metal Jacket”. It does not explain how they got to that point in time in the movie (all the politics that let to the Vietnam War), it focuses on the rigors of boot camp at the soldier level and then combat after that. Originally, “Civil War” had a detailed opening explanation about everything that caused the war in the movie. Alex Garland removed it entirely because this “why” we got to this point is not what the story is about. It is about war photographers capturing senseless carnage, and the arc of for instance Kirsten Dunst’s Lee realizing that all that time she thought her work was like a warning to Americans about the horror of war was ultimately futile on her part and life’s work…
If this movie is about "what if the rifts in our society were to get to that extreme", then how could completely obfuscating what those rifts are in this movie's universe be illuminating in any way?
Because it's obviously not about real life stupidity fabricated by the media, so stop projecting real life stupidity onto it. It's inspired by real life DIVISIVENESS, but clearly not the actual real life DIVISIONS, if you can understand the difference.
Obviously I have not seen the movie but realistically speaking how could a civil war start in the united states , a government that rejects the constitution and democracy . The whole synopsis of this movie is a president who seeks a third term and uses force to keep that third term. It's as simple as that and it is a very good story and warning to the current situation in the united states . DEMOCRACY MATTERS.
He wanted the director to lecture everyone ideologically… she realizes that the specific absence of any ideological pre-commitment on the part of the director made it a far more existentially nuanced and complex film experience.
Totally disagree. I'm a centrist who deplores hyper-partisan preaching. But there is a way to flesh out backstory without actually taking sides or being preachy Like he said, it doesn't even have to be about real politics... make it about a water shortage leading to one state invading another. Whatever you want, but give us something. This isn't about wanting to be preached to, it's about wanting world building. It's a lazy cop out to call it nuance- nuance means being able to explore multiple facets of a conflict... this movie didn't explore ANY facets of the conflict. A complete lack of perspective is not nuanced, it's apathetic.
@@jasonibanez9855 that’s the point, though. If you need to know the why to be empathetic to human lives affected by the conflict, something more basic has gone missing. “Worldbuilding” would be a distraction because Garland is saying it could happen anywhere, for any reason. Do you care or not? That’s why he focuses on the journalists, not the issues behind the war. Remember, “a just cause” has been used too many times in history by those in power.
@@mhawang8204 It's not about being empathetic or not. It's about understanding what is going on. In real life, it may be enough to simply see suffering. In fact, in any healthy human that's all it takes. But Civil War is fiction. And so it can be judged by it's storytelling. Showing sad things for the sake of showing sad things is gratuitous misery porn. That's not enlightened, it's schlock. "Garland is saying it could happen anywhere, for any reason." "It" being violence? Violence can certainly happen anywhere for many different reasons. But it DOES always happen for A reason. That's the point. If he were to use a real event as the backdrop, then he wouldn't need to expound because we would already know the context or if not could research and learn the context. But since he's making up a scenario, good story telling demands context. Period. Again, you should look up what misery porn is. And let me give you this food for thought: what if someone told their child the story of the Holocaust. They explained exactly what happened. When the child asks why that happened, the answer is "it doesn't matter. It can happen for any reason at any place at any time". Not only would that be... not true. It's also inaccurate and irresponsible. "Do you care or not? " No offense to you, but don't you think that's kind of a stupid question? Literally no sane person is excited for bloodshed. The very small percentage of people who are, are mentally unstable and Garland's film is not going to cure them. So for the rest of the sane world who watches this movie, what is the profundity? Are we supposed to feel guilt for or feel bad about a hypothetical situation?
@@jasonibanez9855 what do we know about any real war until after the fact? we are spoon fed what ever works to get behind the effort, and both sides do this. to pick a side in USA is ridiculous for this film... it's not about why, it's about it happening and that's why it follows the journalists, they are meant to be somewhat neutral if they are good at the job
Here's how I see it. If you are biased toward one side or another, you want the other side to be the "Bad guy" so you can justify your belief that you are right and the other side is wrong. However, if you are non-biased, you would be open for a more ambigious movie. Ex-Machina and Annihilation have always had ambiguous endings when it comes to who is right or wrong, so it will not bother me if the movie is left vague on who Nick Offerman's character represents.
I am non-biased but stepping away entirely from real world politics... it's just lazy world building. I think people who think it has to be about existing political factions are missing the point. I didn't want a movie that was Republicans Good Democrats Bad or vice versa. I would have been fine with a movie that was like "So there was a water shortage in Texas and California leading to them both invading and fighting for control of Colorado, leading to XYZ and the outbreak of complete Civil War" You see how that is ambiguous while still justifying it's setting in a hypothetical American Civil War? This movie didn't justify it's own setting, but it chose to use a controversial specific hypothetical premise and then based all of its marketing on that premise.
@@jasonibanez9855at the end of the day who gives a fuck about the setting? Point is everything has gone to shit and we are documenting the fallout. I swear people are projecting on this film just because it did not confirm their biases…😅
@@TricameralPerspective That's a boring point without context, do you understand that? Death and destruction aren't interesting or a good story without context. And this is NOT real life, it's a fictional movie. It has nothing to do with confirming biases, that's your own projection. I already said the conflict could be completely divorced from reality, that's not the point. The point is that showing death and destruction in a movie without giving a narrative backdrop is something called misery porn. It's not high art, it's not a new concept, and it's considered schlocky.
@@jasonibanez9855 and in my opinion your opinion is boring too. I don't wanna deal with all that. strip it down and show the core of the premise. And Alex delivered exactly that.
Looking at it from a film viewer viewing a film. I don't need to pick a side. I need a compelling story that makes me care about the characters and what is actually going on. This film did neither.
We live in a time when journalism itself is under political attack; our former president called journalists the enemy of the people. Isn't the choice to make photo journalists the protagonists a "political" statement and a point of view? Admittedly, I haven't seen the film yet, but I can't wait.
I think it's a lose lose situation with the narrative for why the war is happening. The way America IRL is today, even if they came up with fictional rift for why the country is fighting in the movie, real audience members would politicize those issues too IRL...maybe. So, the best way to talk about this possibility but add as little fuel to the real fire is not comment on any ideologies, fictional or otherwise I lMO.
I had NO desire in watching this movie, but with quite a bit of VERY positive reviews coming out of SXSW AND it being Alex Garland, I ended up seeing it last night. Wow was I pleasantly surprised. I agree it was smart to not get into the weeds with politics and instead let the emotional foundation be based on the horror of seeing American-on-American violence through the lens (no pun intended) of the photojournalists. Besides the really good acting I think the sound design is the MVP and is quite haunting. Every bullet shot, missile exploding, the rumbling of the tanks/jets really make the tense moments even more intense while also allowing the movie to have more quiet moments with our characters. I may see it one more time in theaters, but this is one of the biggest surprises for me in quite some time. Lesson learned: never should doubt Alex Garland
An hour after seeing it, my biggest surprise was how beautiful it was. As far as Alonzo's reservations, I expected them. Here lately I expect him to yell at some point, "stay off my lawn!"
Maybe the civil war started from disagreements like this🤣 Seriously though. I love it when critics disagree like this. Makes me wanna watch the film more.
Kristy nailed the two biggest points in the film: 1) There is no room for humanity when you’re capturing something inhumane. Ex: The young photographer is visibly shaken after he brush with gas station hostages she cannot function and while reeling she admits she didn’t even take a photo, to which Dunst character says, “It’s not our job to ask questions, it’s our job to capture, the people who is the photo will ask the questions.” 2) When situations get past words, and get deadly; nobody cares about the debate or politics that started it, all that matters is survival. Ex: The crew comes across the two snipers trapped in a winter wonderland, the reporter asks the soldier, which side he’s for and who’s he’s against, to which the soldier replies, “Someone is trying to kill us, we are trying to kill them.”
Even the most brutal and unrelenting movies on wars show the spectrum of humanity in order to compare the good possibility of humanity versus the destruction of humanity. So when people are using this argument of "well the movie is showing inhuman events so theres no room for humanity" it comes off as a total cop out due to poor writing. In terms of what has been shown on screen in the past this movie is pretty weak sauce. You have the most disturbing scene as what the gas station scene? Yeah its messed up, but thats pretty low key compared to other films. Compare this movie to another that has a whole theme of dehumanization - Sicario 1. That movie isnt even about a war at home. They show more degradation and violence against humanity in the first 5 minutes of that movie than seem to exist in this entire film; I wouldnt even put sicario in the top 20 of most disturbing and horrific acts of war on screen. And yet all of these movies still take the time to show the bleak light of possible humanity.....
She said it would be an artistic mistake to alienate fascists. Was that stated in her review of Zone of Interest? Why not? Did she say Zone would have been "very smart" to not take sides?
WWII wasn’t a civil war. Edited to add: Seeing how Jewish creators pushed back against Zone of Interest’s director, Jonathan Glazer’s Oscar acceptance speech, not taking sides is the way to go. Because people are too eager to pick a side, then all of war seems to be “worth it” if you just win.
Cowardly copout. Exactly. Get some guts. A great profound movie with a capable director who has made great, profound movies flushed down the toilet for the "both sides" bs
From what I've seen in the news over the years, the United States is too divided, so I think it's smart that Garland didn't make a picture that could feed that division. It's too hard to play on both sides, never feels genuine, and at the end the film wouldn't have benefited, IMO
I think people are missing the "pivot" moment. The movie stays apolitical until the scene with Jesse Clemens, and the mass grave. Then it pivots and takes a position against fascism. In the next scene we see the WF forces in a sympathetic and heroic light, as they prepare to take down the tyrant in the White House. I don't understand how people are missing this pivot, except that their misconceptions about Texas and California have blinded them to the fact that both states have active secessionist movements, and both states have high Libertarian natures.
The movie is about tyranny..... Alonzo lost the plot, thats what happens when people pick a side... When your too busy fighting each other thats when they take over....
I feel that Alonso really was not judging this movie for what it is, but for not being what he wanted. And it is because of reactions like this that making this film apolitical was actually very brave - a rare exception.
Thank you! You worded exactly why reviews like Alonso’s frustrated me. It’s not him. A lot of critics do this. This kind of reviews judge the film against a hypothetical movie in their heads. Personally that’s not what I’m looking for in film criticism.
My take on their being no real "poltical side" is the emphasis that a continious divide that leads to a civil war is one that likely leads with everyone losing. I respect alonso's opinion but I feel his and other individuals distaste for the film not taking a potitical stance only highlights the importance of it not having one. If your take coming out of this movie is that you are mad the film didn't take your side then you are giving into the philosophies that end up in civil wars happening.
America is the nation of capitalism, wilful ignorance, NPCs, & no freedom or respect. Salivating over the death wish of their nation, while novels/movies like "Leaving The World Behind" go clearly over all their heads. Globally ban capitalism & enforce respect!
I saw it. The movie loses intensity and meaning for me, because there's no real explanation leading up to the war. "We now return you to the war, already in progress"
The fact that you folks disagree makes me even more interested in watching this. Might go for opening weekend. I've read the same divisive POVs on the story so I'm interested on which side I'd fall in.
I was very disappointed by this😢 movie I expected a lot. If you're going to be vague about the subject matter and the politics, then you might as well not make it at all. You need to make a statement and tell me why this movie is even happening. This being a War journalist movie doesn't cut it for me and the technical genius doesn't work for me anymore I need story
You both are freaking awesome. To have a conversation about this movie which could be viewed differently. Loved both your reviews, seeing the movie on Friday. I knew Alex Garland was going to get some mixed reviews and backlash for making this film. Still going to see it anyway.
I think he did. He just disagreed with what the movie was trying to do. He was looking for something the film isn’t interested in discussing and that frustrated him. His review in turn frustrated me. Critics who dislike a movie because it doesn’t fit their expectation are not giving me useful information about the movie itself. I want to know if it succeeds at what it set out to do, not if it matches what you’d like to see.
This movie is phenomenal. It is important to keep modern day politics out of it. It’s important the movie is tight and under 2 hours. I’m over these long scattered movies. This movie was focused, beautifully shot, well acted, sound was superb and it puts you in the civil war. I will have to see it again on the imax.
I read a blurb from Alex Garland the other day regarding the movie, and to be honest, he was talking more about how journalism has been attacked and discredited in recent years, and how wrong and messed up that is. He was definitely leaning more into the journalism angle (idealogically) than right and left politics, which is why he purposely mixed things up to not inidcate any side he was taking. It's journalists journey here. For example, California and Texas uniting is obviously absurd, and purposely contrived to keep us off balance about who's left and who's right. He may or may not have succeeded in his aim, I haven't seen the movie yet. But I thought that was interesting, and I'll keep that in mind when I see the film.
I haven't seen the film yet, but listening to this discussion, I, thus far, agree with Alonso. Civil wars are obviously political and pretending they aren't by stripping out the context seems silly to me. If Garland didn't want to chicken out, he could've set this film in a fictional country. Just making the vacuous statement of why we can't just all get along is inane at best and insulting at worst-it depends on what the stakes are.
I thought the dialogue was terrible. And the ending was really bad too. It felt like a stage play in parts. Weirdly I thought the dialogue had too much exposition yet said too little about what was going on. I also feel like the script doesn’t trust the actors to convey messages without speaking them out loud. And some of the lines just sound cheesy.
Completely agreed with Alonso. Garland casts both sides as evil throughout “Civil War”, but then also casts those who choose to not get involved as ignorant agnostics who can’t be bothered to learn about it. So if you’re on one side you’re bad, and if you’re on the other side then you’re also bad, but if you ignore the war and don’t learn about it then you’re also bad. So you’re only a good guy if you’re just there taking gory pictures and not mentioning any of the reasons why we are fighting?
I disagree. War is the bad guy. That's Garland's point, IMO. Assuming you're a normal American citizen like me, you and I are going to be the innocents when our leaders' disagreements get violent. The point of the movie is to show the U.S. what a civil war will look like. I disagree with the guy saying 'they could have set it in Afghanistan'. No. That's not the point. We know what a civil war looks like in Afghanistan. We don't know what a civil war will look like here. It's been 165 years since its happened.
OMG how dare you disagree in such a wonderfully interesting and respectful way. This 14 minutes needs to be seen by millions of people as it shows what discussion and debate is really all about. I learned more from this than 100 other reviews. I admire both of you immensely and have not seen this film so have no idea what I might think. I love disagreeing with people and discussing stuff. it's so much more interesting. Sadly, most people these days take offense and clam up. Bottom line, film is art and the perception of art is subjective, so you're both right and both awesome! ❤
I'm with Alonso on this one. Why make a movie rooted in American politics if you're not going to explore those politics? It's cowardly to avoid taking a stand on an issue because it comes with the risk of alienating some viewers. That's life. It says to me that Garland doesn't have any strength in his convictions, if he has any at all, which begs the question: why tackle this subject then?
I haven't seen it, but I think Alonso might be missing something. The problem with "fighting for something" is that the movie becomes about that. Maybe Garland simply thinks it does not really matter in the end what they are fighting for. And a lot of great war movies like Fire on the Plains, do not really go into what they are fighting for. Whether it ends up resonating with audiences, though, is another thing.
The problem is if the point of the movie is simply “war is bad”. Many movies already said it and had the same point, whats interesting or fresh about it?
@@bat1579 I can't imagine Garland would simply make a point like "war is bad". His stories tend to be more thought-provoking than that. But I only watched the first half of the review to avoid too many spoilers so not sure if they discussed that.
I think an Afghanistan war photography film would have been same ol thing. That means non-Americans are the bad guys maybe and thats all we ever see. This was nerve wrecking and made you think. “What am I doing here? Where am I? Whats my role in this world” fkn scary.
Just seen it and agree with both,very good film,felt very real,performances were great,loved the soundtrack,very tense and all that but it was weird not knowing what the fighting was about,really enjoyed though,I’d give it an 8
Awesome yet chilling. Does not matter who the conflicting forces are, it’s a contemporary insight how an internal U.S. war would be conducted. No reason given why the President opted to do a third term. Maybe two stars on the WF flag represents an allegiance to two presidential terms as mandated by law; nonetheless, the movie is a believable account of the mayhem leading up to an assault on DC. Kirsten Dunst is superb as never seen before who shoulders the realism amongst various scenes which frightens us with underlying foreboding tones along with the combative violence. Nice supporting cast. This movie truly scares the pee wad out of me given the current political atmosphere. Highly recommended.
I think the part of the issue is that a lot of Americans (perhaps like Alonso) have become so political brained to the point they're not understanding what fiction is anymore. I saw a load of criticisms by Americans on Twitter - before the film came out - complaining that Texas & California wouldn't be allies in this current political climate, but that's completely irrelevant. Fiction can be about anything you want to it to be, it's how you tell the story that it's about counts. You can't really objectively critique a story on the basis it's not what you personally wanted. Garland didn't want to make that story, therefore he didn't.
Alonzo wasn’t complaining about garland not taking a side lmao. He’s worried about not having sufficient context and the exploration of the politics (without taking sides). For analogy, find me a journalistic piece about a war that doesn’t at least spell out the beliefs and claims from both sides of the conflict. If they do spell out, does that make the piece one-sided?
@@cheekylix That's not really what I'm saying. It's the idea the film has to explain the back-ground politics, when it isn't primarily a film about that. It's a film about war journalists covering the actual effects on the ground toward the end of a war, how they go about it and whether it's ethical. It could be set anywhere, he's just chosen the US because it's an important country (and also striking because you don't normally imagine it happening in places like the US). Garland leaves it up to the audience to fill in all the other gaps themselves.
@@MrDragon1968 It does, and I don't deny that. But it only "touches" on politics. Circumstantial details introduced but with no context. And that's the issue: the context. Put it this way, suppose you're an alien who knows nothing about earthlings and their wars. Take a look at the famous photo of iwo jima flag. Can you know what it means to the earthlings by just looking at it? Or even if you're the photographer that just happens to be there without knowing anything behind what you're witnessing? A photo is nothing without context. Likewise is warfare. If you study any war, you can't study it in a vacuum without the politics, either the politics in governments or that in the trenches.
Alex is a very interesting and original writer, he has a classic first film in "Ex Machina", his other two were good to maybe very good but this one seems more on the Alonso score. I was really hoping this was gonna be Alex being bizarre again and not what looks like to be pretty generic.
Garland said today in an interview that it was about several countries or the world if you will in general. And it was more of a warning to all of us. Not just America.
Agree with Alonso. How are you going to title your film Civil War with the sensationalized imagery, then make an amorphous film that doesn't have a POV? Sounds like a trying to have your cake and eat it to thing where this film might get some attention in the now but will ultimately be forgettable.
If you want to make a movie set in the near future in your own country called Civil War, and your country in real life has extreme demagogues that have been talking about civil war for at least two decades, but you are unwilling to depict any reason (even fictional) for the power struggles in the universe of your film, then you are committing an active artistic cowardice and trading on base sensationalism to sell movie tickets. I was tentatively interested in seeing this film until I learned in this review that there's no political commentary whatsoever
I think the movie did exactly what it is supposed to do. The director is yelling at America, "You idiots, civil war is dumb and pointless no matter what your cause is."
8 месяцев назад
I agree with Christy. And I don´t think the film is "apolitical", it just doesn´t spell everything out. The sniper scene clearly shows the absurd of the situation. And, come to think of it, I really don´t know which side Jesse Plemmons character was, or those guys in the building. And it doens´t matter. But, again, I don´t think the characters were apolitical. I think it´s clear they are against the President.
Ben Sailsbury and Geoff Barrow who did the score were actually going to record the score for Dredd, but Alex Garland went with Paul Leonard Morgan at the last minute.They released the soundtrack later as DROKK ( Garland and Barrow are huge Judge Dredd/2000AD fans). I'm 99% sure this is Garlands loose prequel about the end of democracy of America, before the fascistic Judge system took over. If you know 2000AD/Judge Dredd lore, you can see it!
I'm so conflicted about my interest in this. I've loved Alex Garland's work (even Men) and it looks impressively made, but Garland going out of his way to be "apolitical" and the way he's gone about it seriously rubs me the wrong way.
I will see it next week (not out here yet) but my guess is that I will join Christy's side. We'll see. But the discussion is really interesting, especially because of your different views on the movie.
It just occurred to me: how would Mr. Garland feel if an American filmmaker made a movie called Civil War that took place in Ireland, but makes no mention of Catholics, Protestants or loyalty or lack thereof towards Britain and instead makes up some vague convoluted scenario that deliberately ignores existing regional affiliations? How would the Irish feel about an American director telling a story that implies that Ireland’s actual history and contentious issues don’t matter and the real problem is simply that people disagree on things and war is bad?
Now that I'm watching the movie, I think the prob with the narrative not focusing on the details is that it focuses on the journalists waaay too much. Like they're talking about the girl journalist and that is NOT where my mind is at right now movie!
Do you all remember when Nikki Hailey was asked what was the cause of the civil war and she could not answer it? Well, I agree with Alonso here: if you have a movie called "Civil War" I as a movie goer really need to know what caused the conflict to escalate into extreme violence. Without that, it's a cop-out to not want to offend 50% of the country.
Re: exploring the political divide in detail and having it come off as biased. I understand this point on some level, but I cannot help but reflect on one of my favourite pieces of media: the original Mobile Suit Gundam timeline. In that story, we explore two sides of a conflict that are broadly identifiable (planet earth as the colonizer and the people of space as the colonized), but the story *constantly* challenges the notions of goodness and badness by depicting kindness and pure evil on both sides of the conflict. I think doing that allows us to reflect on our political and moral positions infinitely more than signposting images of conflict without explicit meaning behind them. I’ve certainly thought about Gundam a lot whenever a massive global conflict erupts. From the sounds of this film, it doesn’t seem interested in exploring much other than “war bad,” but I could be wrong. Much love to you both and your channel!
I have yet to see the movie but have seen plenty of reviews and I had a feeling Alonso wont like it for its apparent lack of stance. Don't ask. Just a hunch.
I'm more on Alonso's side but Christy made some really great points. I did want to know more about the actual war but I understand not choosing sides was wise for Garland. I liked this way more than Men
1:05 I'm assuming that when you say President Nick Offerman, you don't mean literally. As in, you're just naming the actor, and the character is not actually named after him. That would be weird. Right?
This is literally the first time we have fallen one side of the discourse, and that leaves us bewildered, and it's ALL so subjective, but we have to sidle towards Christy's POV here, even while getting what Alonso is experiencing -- and that's why we love B.A.D. More, please, thank you.
I always RESPECT when Christy & Alonso disagree in a mature fashion...we disagree: NO need to fight...just plead their case/impression/thoughts, which is what Film Critics do, at their best. WTF forever!
No. We need them to duel at 20 paces!!🤔
@@tsarstepan they don't duel...they can simply disagree & provide a concise, even whimsical/alternative reason is for their thoughts & i have always responded well to them. I am STILL WAITING on the full family reunion LOL!
she started saying that this will be very polarizing
I think it's always more fun to talk to people about a movie you don't agree than one you do, but some people can't do this while being mature and they ruin it for everybody. I immediately want to talk to somebody who hated a film I loved or loved a film I hated, but most people are apprehensive to do it. They think its going to turn into a fight every time.
Thank you so much! We definitely always come from a place of mutual respect around here.
To quote Blackhawk Down: “Once that first bullet goes past your head, politics and all that shit just goes right out the window.”
To quote Clausewitz: “War is nothing but a continuation of politics by other means”
@@cheekylix True enough but politics are far far from the conscious thoughts of the person exchanging fire with another person (or just trying to avoid being hit if they don't know what/who to shoot at)
@@wills.8662 maybe not at the time of firing the shot, but they only got there because of a political disagreement in some wars. Revolutionary war was political. Same with the civil war.
@@wills.8662 I have news for you: politics in the trenches is also politics. There's matters of responsibility, and there are problems, and there are decisions to make. And most soldiers spend most of their time not shooting at the enemies, but deal with smaller decisions around them. It doesn't have to be ideological to be politics.
Put it this way, suppose you're an alien who knows nothing about earthlings and their wars. Take a look at the famous photo of iwo jima flag. Can you know what it means to the earthlings by just looking at it? Or even if you're the photographer that just happens to be there without knowing anything behind what you're witnessing? A photo is nothing without context. Likewise is warfare. If you study any war, you can't study it in a vacuum without the politics, either the politics in governments or that in the trenches.
I'm pretty sure soldiers ask themselves why am I doing this 💩.
People can suspend their disbelief for superhero flicks but not a political thriller about an event that's actually happened before. Kinda wild.
Agreed. I don't need to know how Cali & Texas came together - they're the two largest states in the Union.
@@frankfasi3591 The president outlawed tacos. As a Texas-born American that would be enough for me to go fight the government.
Because everything in this movie is based in reality with real world implications. Ofc nobody cares when a flying monster destroys a building.
I haven't seen this movie but I agree with Christy. If my house got bombed and I couldn't get access to food, I would be less concerned about who's "right" and be more concerned about my life falling apart. I would just want the war to stop.
Some people would react like that, but that's not how most people necessarily react. For example, Ukrainians are right now being bombarded by Russians, losing homes, hospitals, electricity and all that, and yet, the majority don't want their country to give up, they want to continue fighting for independence. This resilience and defiance, this desire to keep fighting despite difficulties, seems to me a much more interesting phenomenon to explore than the idea that war is bad and people suffer in war.
@@CesarFerraro2if you don’t know the difference between an occupying force attacking you and a civil war then you can’t be helped.
4:20 I am with Christy here. I feel it was so wise to leave out the specifics about the reason behind the war and what "side" the president was with.
There's a scene in the film (which Christy directly refers to in this video) that essentially tells the viewer, "It's not at all important WHAT they're fighting about. The point is they're trying to kill each other, full stop."
If you watch this movie and try to determine what side is good and what side is bad, and get caught up in the imaginary politics of it, you're already missing the entire point of the movie.
Well The “point” is stale. Is a cop out and coward, many movies have the same point. Even dumb Star Wars movies say “war is bad”. The topic and theme kinda begs for a political stance
A movie titled Civil War and set in USA automatically evokes the historic American Civil War, which was absolutely about something, and making this about a mundane anti-war film is both misleading and a wasted opportunity. Alonso is absolutely right here - a robust thesis on the underlying context and cause of the war is monumental in making the film having any kind of impact. Alex Garland not taking a point of view is a cop out in the sense that he avoided making a great movie and instead merely made an entertaining movie. And how entertaining it really is (I haven't seen it obviously) is also potentially hurt by this cop out.
@@zxbc1I think the neutrality and objectivity makes sense because the main characters are journalists and it isn’t necessarily their job to take sides. Also the president in the film is clearly a fascist who refuses to leave office, so I’d argue that Garland is making a clear enough statement on certain things, namely the abuse of power in the oval office. He’s just not labeling the film as explicitly left or right wing
@@bat1579except it would go against its own message that division that goes so far as undermining the institutions that safeguard the existence of American democracy is bad, by closing the ears of half its potential viewers.
@@dollarsaurus01 But that's not the point. The point is the film could explore more on the origin and nature of the conflict and the context of the ideological split. A film can be about a lot more than just what it says it's about. In this case, I feel like the criticism (since I have not seen the film) is that it is a lot LESS about what it advertises to be about, which is a shame.
I actually agree with Christy here. Not saying the thing makes the message more powerful. I think Alonso is underestimating the audience. I think it was difficult for Garland to not pick a side because either way if he did it would make the message of the movie lost and everyone would only focus the conversation about the sides and the ideologies that are represented in the story. Side note: EX-Machina gave us the single best scene in cinematic history: Oscar Issac's dance moves! 😂😂
We're all liberals, but it did have some Joe Biden undertones. I liked the latter Purge film,but in a post Trump world satire has become believable
The message that war is bad is powerful? Almost everyone already agrees with this in the abstract. Also, if they wanted to make a movie about war being bad, why not do it against the backdrop of a war that happened? That would be much more substantive. Just throwing ideas here, but for example, you could make a movie about how terrible war is from the point of view of Confederate soldiers and/or Southern civilians in the American Civil War, I think that would have been a lot more interesting.
Maybe Garland knew not to state the reason the country has gone downhill so far, is because he doesnt need to tell us all what he believes we already know. We cannot let this country get this bad, and we need to find a way to prevent it. Otherwise, we are all fucked, and Garland is, in fact, trying to scare us by showing what will be like. Scary.
This conversation happens regardless if it's laid out in black and white. The exposition from both sides find their justification for why they see it that way, and they still cast the blame on the other side. Just say you're afraid of the January 6th bullshit happening again, and make that movie. Arbitrarily pairing California and Texas together to really prove it's some future realm and apolitical based on our current division is, exactly as Alonso called it, "a cop out."
I'm leaning towards Christy's position. It made me think that the movie is not about today's divides. Californian and Texas are the number 1 and 2 economies and I could see a scenario in which they have common ground in wanting a chance to cut the feds out based simply on money. Too much flowing out via taxes to support other states that are failing? Since each one by itself would fail in an independence move, they move together? Its more fun to speculate than to be mired down in today's manufactured divisions.
I know I'm old when Kirsten Dunst is "grizzled."
🤣
Yup
.
.
Especially when you remember, "I want some more."
Well wasn't Claudia a woman in her thirties when she dies in Interview who just has a child's body?
I kept thinking during the movie I need to watch interview with a vampire again
Alonso - It's totally not a cop out. It's the best thing about the film. With respect.
I agree with Christy. I think the movie actually shows the current political climate. There are people who are all in in extreme ideology on both sides,)there are people who are on the fence(moderates), and those who couldn’t care less out of apathy or ignorance. Put them all together in a cauldron of hate and suspicion and you have what’s harrowingly portrayed in Civil War.
It is important to point out it is not an even split about extremism. From a peer-reviewed paper published a year and a half ago: "Across both datasets, we find that radical acts perpetrated by individuals associated with left-wing causes are less likely to be violent. In the United States, we find no difference between the level of violence perpetrated by right-wing and Islamist extremists."
@@Canuck1000 if one side does something to start a civil war.. then it has started non the less. .
@@crackwh0re911 The point was about the equivalency.
I’m on team Christy. I agree with her. Garland’s point is to not pick sides but let viewers relate to it from their perspective. I guess Alonzo wanted MAGA bad in the movie.
MAGA GOOD
TRUMP 2024
FJB
Yep, fatty wanted a very specific message being slammed into his brain and into those of the viewers
MAGA is calling for civil war because its cult leader is facing multiple criminal cases.
Her rebuke is "I disagree totally" & I feel the same way. Comparing this to a European conflict or classic war movies already made doesn't fit. The whole concept of it being here & now in the USA is what makes it compelling IMO
But it doesn't explore the concept of it being here in the USA. It was only nominally. But it may as well have been entirely set during the South African transition to democracy (using that as an example because it was in the flashbacks) or really any other conflict that has already occurred in history. Setting it in a hypothetical conflict (Civil War in the US during a time of political turmoil no less!) and then not exploring that hypothetical conflict was a bait and switch and honestly, exploitative.
It's akin to having a movie where the trailer shows a firefighter watching TV and seeing the twin towers burning on NYC, shows the footage of the second plane crashing, shows the people jumping. Then cuts to the firefighter suiting up, shows the firefighter rescuing people from a burning building, and it's all action and screaming and drama. And the movie is called "09/11/01". Then the actual movie comes out and it turns out that while it did take place on that date, it was a burning parking garage in Nebraska that had nothing to do with the historic events on that day. And the scenes shown in trailers are at the very end of the movie when the firefighter goes home and turns on the TV and finds out what happened... and that's all it deals with the terrorist attacks.
That would be seen as disingenuous, disrespectful, and in poor taste. And again, exploitative. That's what this movie did.
When you pick a side and everyone is blind to tyrants, that's when they take over... Apparently you guys are not paying attention.
I agree that we as citizens already know what is going on in the "here and now".
@@jasonibanez9855That analogy is incoherent and inaccurate.
You expected a different movie based on your own assumptions and projections. That’s it.
Thank you guys so much for getting this review up so quickly. Ya'll on that grind! Much appreciate your hard, timely work.
Thanks for being here for us!
At least you two kept things...Civil
😂
Ha, always!
I just saw this amazing film. I am on Team Christy with “Civil War”! It succeeds at being a “show not tell” immersive experience. To most people in senseless wars all over the world, the detailed “context” of all the suffering is not important, just that we know there is a war.
This film is not spoon feeding the audience with an opening scroll and lots of exposition. Life is like that. We get a general setup that we have a president who took a third term and that states have seceded. People are smart enough to infer if they wish the history of all that-this film is about intimate war journalism, not about history or political science. And looking at a war photo is like looking into a mirror-and what we see says something of ourselves. This movie is a big war photo like that, a mirror.
If you go through a list of war movies, because so many deal with the experience of low-level soldiers and/or civilians, the exact details of why a war started is not spelled out. These stories are about how they react and live in circumstances out of their control. “Civil War” masterfully depicts such an experience using the art of pure cinema-images and sound-at the highest level…
President taking a 3rd term and the states seceding really doesnt explain how you have an invasion by the seceeded states of the capitol tho..... Kinda the whole point of secession is to get away from the current situation, not directly involve yourself in the middle of it. So what? Was there this whole attack against these states before what happens in the movie?
The conflict just doesnt make sense, and yet its the main antagonist of the film and what is supposedly driving the plot and all character arcs.
@@raymonds8354 That was a terrible decision as the result led to the audience having no idea why literally anyone is fighting or why anyone cares.
I saw an interview w Garland , who said it’s set in America , but could be anywhere. Not supposed to be a side - Alonzo missed it
I’m noticing there are a group of people who need to know the reason and the why behind the division in this movie, and they’re completely missing the point of what the movie is. An up close depiction of what war would look like in America, when you come across dangerous situations, and you don’t always know the why, you’re just in it. I question why some people need everything spelled out as and take everything so literally. Whenever I hear someone say CA and TX would never align, they’ve immediately lost me and I can’t take their review seriously. It’s not supposed to be a literal take on today, and some people want so badly for it to be that.
This movie exists to create Civil War amongst Christy and Alonso, the Breakfast All Day team.... Lol.
Maybe Garland wants you to focus on how traumatic thie event could be for alot of people as instead of the opposing political sides.
That’s fine, but sometimes it is worth the cost. Unless we’re saying the revolutionary and civil wars should not have been fought. The question isn’t is war bad, but when is it justified? By taking out the cause of the war idk if it’s justified or not.
He should've explored that deeper then. A few vague hints at Dunsts PTSD isnt enough to justify it.
I thought it was obvious from one scene of dialogue why even seemingly opposing states like California and Texas would unite to overthrow the government - That was satisfying enough "lore" for me. I love a director/writer that trusts the audience. I didn't need scenes that cut to a mustache twirling president to know he was a fascist - third term, disbanding the FBI, drone strikes on citizens... It's all there.
But it's also not the thesis of the movie. It's just the appropriate backdrop to wake up the world.
People who want Garland to take a stand or explain why the war happened, are just looking to have their political opinions validated and not caring about the actual message of the movie which is no one should want this.
No we are trying to not live in a Hollywood Fantasy world. We want a small piece or reality. What would make a United States President take a third term? What events would give him any backing to do this at all? If it was riots in the inner cities and white people were getting killed by black people a President might have a very solid base of support from the majority of military personnel, ,the nations police forces and 2nd Amendment rights gun toters.
That's all you wanted was a message? I wanted to be entertained by a deep story, character development, and context, but got neither.
I agree with Christy. Having survived a civil war, it’s not about the why or who’s right or wrong.
Also, if nobody sees your art then why bother making it. So yes, it’s about selling tickets.
The American slaves would absolutely disagree with the statement "it's not about the why or the who's right or wrong".
I saw it last night, too, and at first I agreed with Alonso, but I have been thinking about it all day today, and I am coming around to Christy's take. While the trailers sold it as an action-oriented story, it is more of a cautionary tale, not about picking sides. Cynically, picking a side would eliminate a substantial piece of the audience, but realistically, the message of the film is that we are killing each other over differences.
It was more like Apocalypse Now...a road-trip journey into hell. It seems to be saying, "Seriously, we are divided right now, but you don't want this" and to remind us of the bravery of real journalism (not talking head punditry). For me, the most important line in the film was when Dunst's character talked about how she always hoped we'd learn from her work abroad.
The performances are terrific. The scene with Plemons was terrifying. The audience response was tough to gauge at my screening. The De La Soul needle drop was out of left field and didn't work for me (however, I am all for them getting theirs after being fucked over by the music industry for decades). Also thought the use of Suicide (the band) didn't work for me. Shout-outs on those band tees for Thousandaire and Sunny Day Real Estate, though. I am likely going to see it again so I can confirm my take.
Please apply this logic to both the revolutionary war and civil war. It’s a lot more than killing each other over minor differences.
I like Christy’s take. “Civil War” is about a point in time, not how we got there. The war is just the background for what photojournalists can see and go through. If you want “context”, people are smart enough to infer that the President has done questionable and bad things: taking a third term, shutting down the FBI, and calling air strikes on Americans-implying a cause for people to want to overthrow him.
Also, compare this film with say “Full Metal Jacket”. It does not explain how they got to that point in time in the movie (all the politics that let to the Vietnam War), it focuses on the rigors of boot camp at the soldier level and then combat after that.
Originally, “Civil War” had a detailed opening explanation about everything that caused the war in the movie. Alex Garland removed it entirely because this “why” we got to this point is not what the story is about. It is about war photographers capturing senseless carnage, and the arc of for instance Kirsten Dunst’s Lee realizing that all that time she thought her work was like a warning to Americans about the horror of war was ultimately futile on her part and life’s work…
This kind of discourse reminded me of some of the great ones from Siskel and Ebert. Always great to see a review from both sides.
Sorry, but Christie has the better take here - I get the feeling it's about the division itself and not the nuances and minutiae of the issues.
I feel like just the movie existing in a way is a stance.
If this movie is about "what if the rifts in our society were to get to that extreme", then how could completely obfuscating what those rifts are in this movie's universe be illuminating in any way?
Because it's obviously not about real life stupidity fabricated by the media, so stop projecting real life stupidity onto it. It's inspired by real life DIVISIVENESS, but clearly not the actual real life DIVISIONS, if you can understand the difference.
my presumption is that they wanted to sort of generalize it so it could continue to be applicable for as long as possible into the future
Obviously I have not seen the movie but realistically speaking how could a civil war start in the united states , a government that rejects the constitution and democracy . The whole synopsis of this movie is a president who seeks a third term and uses force to keep that third term. It's as simple as that and it is a very good story and warning to the current situation in the united states . DEMOCRACY MATTERS.
He wanted the director to lecture everyone ideologically… she realizes that the specific absence of any ideological pre-commitment on the part of the director made it a far more existentially nuanced and complex film experience.
Totally disagree. I'm a centrist who deplores hyper-partisan preaching. But there is a way to flesh out backstory without actually taking sides or being preachy Like he said, it doesn't even have to be about real politics... make it about a water shortage leading to one state invading another. Whatever you want, but give us something. This isn't about wanting to be preached to, it's about wanting world building. It's a lazy cop out to call it nuance- nuance means being able to explore multiple facets of a conflict... this movie didn't explore ANY facets of the conflict. A complete lack of perspective is not nuanced, it's apathetic.
@@jasonibanez9855 that’s the point, though. If you need to know the why to be empathetic to human lives affected by the conflict, something more basic has gone missing. “Worldbuilding” would be a distraction because Garland is saying it could happen anywhere, for any reason. Do you care or not? That’s why he focuses on the journalists, not the issues behind the war. Remember, “a just cause” has been used too many times in history by those in power.
@@mhawang8204 It's not about being empathetic or not. It's about understanding what is going on. In real life, it may be enough to simply see suffering. In fact, in any healthy human that's all it takes.
But Civil War is fiction. And so it can be judged by it's storytelling. Showing sad things for the sake of showing sad things is gratuitous misery porn. That's not enlightened, it's schlock.
"Garland is saying it could happen anywhere, for any reason."
"It" being violence? Violence can certainly happen anywhere for many different reasons. But it DOES always happen for A reason. That's the point. If he were to use a real event as the backdrop, then he wouldn't need to expound because we would already know the context or if not could research and learn the context. But since he's making up a scenario, good story telling demands context. Period. Again, you should look up what misery porn is. And let me give you this food for thought: what if someone told their child the story of the Holocaust. They explained exactly what happened. When the child asks why that happened, the answer is "it doesn't matter. It can happen for any reason at any place at any time". Not only would that be... not true. It's also inaccurate and irresponsible.
"Do you care or not? "
No offense to you, but don't you think that's kind of a stupid question? Literally no sane person is excited for bloodshed. The very small percentage of people who are, are mentally unstable and Garland's film is not going to cure them. So for the rest of the sane world who watches this movie, what is the profundity? Are we supposed to feel guilt for or feel bad about a hypothetical situation?
@@jasonibanez9855 what do we know about any real war until after the fact? we are spoon fed what ever works to get behind the effort, and both sides do this. to pick a side in USA is ridiculous for this film... it's not about why, it's about it happening and that's why it follows the journalists, they are meant to be somewhat neutral if they are good at the job
@@jasonibanez9855aaw
Here's how I see it. If you are biased toward one side or another, you want the other side to be the "Bad guy" so you can justify your belief that you are right and the other side is wrong. However, if you are non-biased, you would be open for a more ambigious movie.
Ex-Machina and Annihilation have always had ambiguous endings when it comes to who is right or wrong, so it will not bother me if the movie is left vague on who Nick Offerman's character represents.
I am non-biased but stepping away entirely from real world politics... it's just lazy world building. I think people who think it has to be about existing political factions are missing the point. I didn't want a movie that was Republicans Good Democrats Bad or vice versa.
I would have been fine with a movie that was like "So there was a water shortage in Texas and California leading to them both invading and fighting for control of Colorado, leading to XYZ and the outbreak of complete Civil War"
You see how that is ambiguous while still justifying it's setting in a hypothetical American Civil War? This movie didn't justify it's own setting, but it chose to use a controversial specific hypothetical premise and then based all of its marketing on that premise.
@@jasonibanez9855at the end of the day who gives a fuck about the setting? Point is everything has gone to shit and we are documenting the fallout. I swear people are projecting on this film just because it did not confirm their biases…😅
@@TricameralPerspective That's a boring point without context, do you understand that? Death and destruction aren't interesting or a good story without context. And this is NOT real life, it's a fictional movie. It has nothing to do with confirming biases, that's your own projection. I already said the conflict could be completely divorced from reality, that's not the point.
The point is that showing death and destruction in a movie without giving a narrative backdrop is something called misery porn. It's not high art, it's not a new concept, and it's considered schlocky.
@@jasonibanez9855 and in my opinion your opinion is boring too. I don't wanna deal with all that. strip it down and show the core of the premise. And Alex delivered exactly that.
Looking at it from a film viewer viewing a film. I don't need to pick a side. I need a compelling story that makes me care about the characters and what is actually going on. This film did neither.
We live in a time when journalism itself is under political attack; our former president called journalists the enemy of the people. Isn't the choice to make photo journalists the protagonists a "political" statement and a point of view? Admittedly, I haven't seen the film yet, but I can't wait.
I think it's a lose lose situation with the narrative for why the war is happening. The way America IRL is today, even if they came up with fictional rift for why the country is fighting in the movie, real audience members would politicize those issues too IRL...maybe. So, the best way to talk about this possibility but add as little fuel to the real fire is not comment on any ideologies, fictional or otherwise I lMO.
I had NO desire in watching this movie, but with quite a bit of VERY positive reviews coming out of SXSW AND it being Alex Garland, I ended up seeing it last night. Wow was I pleasantly surprised. I agree it was smart to not get into the weeds with politics and instead let the emotional foundation be based on the horror of seeing American-on-American violence through the lens (no pun intended) of the photojournalists. Besides the really good acting I think the sound design is the MVP and is quite haunting. Every bullet shot, missile exploding, the rumbling of the tanks/jets really make the tense moments even more intense while also allowing the movie to have more quiet moments with our characters.
I may see it one more time in theaters, but this is one of the biggest surprises for me in quite some time. Lesson learned: never should doubt Alex Garland
An hour after seeing it, my biggest surprise was how beautiful it was. As far as Alonzo's reservations, I expected them. Here lately I expect him to yell at some point, "stay off my lawn!"
😂😂😂
Maybe the civil war started from disagreements like this🤣
Seriously though. I love it when critics disagree like this. Makes me wanna watch the film more.
Thank you! Let us know what you think when you see it.
Kristy nailed the two biggest points in the film:
1) There is no room for humanity when you’re capturing something inhumane.
Ex: The young photographer is visibly shaken after he brush with gas station hostages she cannot function and while reeling she admits she didn’t even take a photo, to which Dunst character says, “It’s not our job to ask questions, it’s our job to capture, the people who is the photo will ask the questions.”
2) When situations get past words, and get deadly; nobody cares about the debate or politics that started it, all that matters is survival.
Ex: The crew comes across the two snipers trapped in a winter wonderland, the reporter asks the soldier, which side he’s for and who’s he’s against, to which the soldier replies, “Someone is trying to kill us, we are trying to kill them.”
Even the most brutal and unrelenting movies on wars show the spectrum of humanity in order to compare the good possibility of humanity versus the destruction of humanity. So when people are using this argument of "well the movie is showing inhuman events so theres no room for humanity" it comes off as a total cop out due to poor writing.
In terms of what has been shown on screen in the past this movie is pretty weak sauce. You have the most disturbing scene as what the gas station scene? Yeah its messed up, but thats pretty low key compared to other films.
Compare this movie to another that has a whole theme of dehumanization - Sicario 1. That movie isnt even about a war at home. They show more degradation and violence against humanity in the first 5 minutes of that movie than seem to exist in this entire film; I wouldnt even put sicario in the top 20 of most disturbing and horrific acts of war on screen. And yet all of these movies still take the time to show the bleak light of possible humanity.....
She said it would be an artistic mistake to alienate fascists. Was that stated in her review of Zone of Interest? Why not? Did she say Zone would have been "very smart" to not take sides?
WWII wasn’t a civil war.
Edited to add: Seeing how Jewish creators pushed back against Zone of Interest’s director, Jonathan Glazer’s Oscar acceptance speech, not taking sides is the way to go. Because people are too eager to pick a side, then all of war seems to be “worth it” if you just win.
THIS. I hear this entitled take from too many Ken and Karens. "Chaplin alienated his fascist audience with THE GREAT DICTATOR."
Cowardly copout. Exactly. Get some guts. A great profound movie with a capable director who has made great, profound movies flushed down the toilet for the "both sides" bs
From what I've seen in the news over the years, the United States is too divided, so I think it's smart that Garland didn't make a picture that could feed that division. It's too hard to play on both sides, never feels genuine, and at the end the film wouldn't have benefited, IMO
I think people are missing the "pivot" moment. The movie stays apolitical until the scene with Jesse Clemens, and the mass grave. Then it pivots and takes a position against fascism. In the next scene we see the WF forces in a sympathetic and heroic light, as they prepare to take down the tyrant in the White House. I don't understand how people are missing this pivot, except that their misconceptions about Texas and California have blinded them to the fact that both states have active secessionist movements, and both states have high Libertarian natures.
Always great to hear two different opinions on a film review
The movie is about tyranny..... Alonzo lost the plot, thats what happens when people pick a side... When your too busy fighting each other thats when they take over....
I feel that Alonso really was not judging this movie for what it is, but for not being what he wanted. And it is because of reactions like this that making this film apolitical was actually very brave - a rare exception.
Thank you! You worded exactly why reviews like Alonso’s frustrated me. It’s not him. A lot of critics do this. This kind of reviews judge the film against a hypothetical movie in their heads. Personally that’s not what I’m looking for in film criticism.
My take on their being no real "poltical side" is the emphasis that a continious divide that leads to a civil war is one that likely leads with everyone losing.
I respect alonso's opinion but I feel his and other individuals distaste for the film not taking a potitical stance only highlights the importance of it not having one. If your take coming out of this movie is that you are mad the film didn't take your side then you are giving into the philosophies that end up in civil wars happening.
💯
America is the nation of capitalism, wilful ignorance, NPCs, & no freedom or respect. Salivating over the death wish of their nation, while novels/movies like "Leaving The World Behind" go clearly over all their heads.
Globally ban capitalism & enforce respect!
I saw it. The movie loses intensity and meaning for me, because there's no real explanation leading up to the war. "We now return you to the war, already in progress"
The fact that you folks disagree makes me even more interested in watching this. Might go for opening weekend. I've read the same divisive POVs on the story so I'm interested on which side I'd fall in.
I was very disappointed by this😢 movie I expected a lot. If you're going to be vague about the subject matter and the politics, then you might as well not make it at all. You need to make a statement and tell me why this movie is even happening. This being a War journalist movie doesn't cut it for me and the technical genius doesn't work for me anymore I need story
You both are freaking awesome.
To have a conversation about this movie which could be viewed differently.
Loved both your reviews, seeing the movie on Friday.
I knew Alex Garland was going to get some mixed reviews and backlash for making this film.
Still going to see it anyway.
Thank you! Let us know what you think.
I guess I'll be the one to say it ... I don't think Alonso understood the movie and what the overall point of the film actually was.
I think he did. He just disagreed with what the movie was trying to do. He was looking for something the film isn’t interested in discussing and that frustrated him.
His review in turn frustrated me. Critics who dislike a movie because it doesn’t fit their expectation are not giving me useful information about the movie itself. I want to know if it succeeds at what it set out to do, not if it matches what you’d like to see.
Can't believe they got Alex Garland to do an Avengers movie.
Wait, what?
I’m team Alonso.
This movie is phenomenal. It is important to keep modern day politics out of it. It’s important the movie is tight and under 2 hours. I’m over these long scattered movies. This movie was focused, beautifully shot, well acted, sound was superb and it puts you in the civil war. I will have to see it again on the imax.
2:06 but you already know what people will do with it when they get their hands on it
Any chance in reviewing The First Omen?
I am planning on seeing it Friday -- should I bring my own pitchfork?
I feel like its kind of cowardly to not give us why theyre fighting , feeling underwhelmed after seeing this.
I read a blurb from Alex Garland the other day regarding the movie, and to be honest, he was talking more about how journalism has been attacked and discredited in recent years, and how wrong and messed up that is. He was definitely leaning more into the journalism angle (idealogically) than right and left politics, which is why he purposely mixed things up to not inidcate any side he was taking. It's journalists journey here. For example, California and Texas uniting is obviously absurd, and purposely contrived to keep us off balance about who's left and who's right. He may or may not have succeeded in his aim, I haven't seen the movie yet. But I thought that was interesting, and I'll keep that in mind when I see the film.
That's good perspective Larry, thanks!
I haven't seen the film yet, but listening to this discussion, I, thus far, agree with Alonso. Civil wars are obviously political and pretending they aren't by stripping out the context seems silly to me. If Garland didn't want to chicken out, he could've set this film in a fictional country. Just making the vacuous statement of why we can't just all get along is inane at best and insulting at worst-it depends on what the stakes are.
I thought the dialogue was terrible. And the ending was really bad too. It felt like a stage play in parts. Weirdly I thought the dialogue had too much exposition yet said too little about what was going on. I also feel like the script doesn’t trust the actors to convey messages without speaking them out loud. And some of the lines just sound cheesy.
Completely agreed with Alonso. Garland casts both sides as evil throughout “Civil War”, but then also casts those who choose to not get involved as ignorant agnostics who can’t be bothered to learn about it. So if you’re on one side you’re bad, and if you’re on the other side then you’re also bad, but if you ignore the war and don’t learn about it then you’re also bad. So you’re only a good guy if you’re just there taking gory pictures and not mentioning any of the reasons why we are fighting?
I disagree. War is the bad guy. That's Garland's point, IMO. Assuming you're a normal American citizen like me, you and I are going to be the innocents when our leaders' disagreements get violent. The point of the movie is to show the U.S. what a civil war will look like. I disagree with the guy saying 'they could have set it in Afghanistan'. No. That's not the point. We know what a civil war looks like in Afghanistan. We don't know what a civil war will look like here. It's been 165 years since its happened.
I guess covering the Oscar red carpet could be like a war zone, if you consider all the fashion battles happening for attention?
But who even watches the Oscars anymore?
OMG how dare you disagree in such a wonderfully interesting and respectful way. This 14 minutes needs to be seen by millions of people as it shows what discussion and debate is really all about. I learned more from this than 100 other reviews. I admire both of you immensely and have not seen this film so have no idea what I might think. I love disagreeing with people and discussing stuff. it's so much more interesting. Sadly, most people these days take offense and clam up. Bottom line, film is art and the perception of art is subjective, so you're both right and both awesome! ❤
I'm with Alonso on this one. Why make a movie rooted in American politics if you're not going to explore those politics? It's cowardly to avoid taking a stand on an issue because it comes with the risk of alienating some viewers. That's life. It says to me that Garland doesn't have any strength in his convictions, if he has any at all, which begs the question: why tackle this subject then?
I haven't seen it, but I think Alonso might be missing something. The problem with "fighting for something" is that the movie becomes about that. Maybe Garland simply thinks it does not really matter in the end what they are fighting for. And a lot of great war movies like Fire on the Plains, do not really go into what they are fighting for. Whether it ends up resonating with audiences, though, is another thing.
The problem is if the point of the movie is simply “war is bad”. Many movies already said it and had the same point, whats interesting or fresh about it?
@@bat1579 I can't imagine Garland would simply make a point like "war is bad". His stories tend to be more thought-provoking than that. But I only watched the first half of the review to avoid too many spoilers so not sure if they discussed that.
Great take down Alonzo. Christy never stood a chance. Jk. I like when you two disagree on the style substance or meaning of a reviewed movie.
I think an Afghanistan war photography film would have been same ol thing. That means non-Americans are the bad guys maybe and thats all we ever see. This was nerve wrecking and made you think. “What am I doing here? Where am I? Whats my role in this world” fkn scary.
I just got back it was a very slow burn 🔥 and the ending was horrendous
Loved this discussion! Really intrigued with this one! Great work y'all!
Just seen it and agree with both,very good film,felt very real,performances were great,loved the soundtrack,very tense and all that but it was weird not knowing what the fighting was about,really enjoyed though,I’d give it an 8
A masterpiece. I was floored. period.
Thx for the suggestion Christy, will see it today.
Let us know what you think!
Awesome yet chilling. Does not matter who the conflicting forces are, it’s a contemporary insight how an internal U.S. war would be conducted. No reason given why the President opted to do a third term. Maybe two stars on the WF flag represents an allegiance to two presidential terms as mandated by law; nonetheless, the movie is a believable account of the mayhem leading up to an assault on DC. Kirsten Dunst is superb as never seen before who shoulders the realism amongst various scenes which frightens us with underlying foreboding tones along with the combative violence. Nice supporting cast. This movie truly scares the pee wad out of me given the current political atmosphere. Highly recommended.
I'm on christies side on this one.sorry Alonso!
I think the part of the issue is that a lot of Americans (perhaps like Alonso) have become so political brained to the point they're not understanding what fiction is anymore. I saw a load of criticisms by Americans on Twitter - before the film came out - complaining that Texas & California wouldn't be allies in this current political climate, but that's completely irrelevant. Fiction can be about anything you want to it to be, it's how you tell the story that it's about counts. You can't really objectively critique a story on the basis it's not what you personally wanted. Garland didn't want to make that story, therefore he didn't.
Alonzo wasn’t complaining about garland not taking a side lmao. He’s worried about not having sufficient context and the exploration of the politics (without taking sides). For analogy, find me a journalistic piece about a war that doesn’t at least spell out the beliefs and claims from both sides of the conflict. If they do spell out, does that make the piece one-sided?
@@cheekylix That's not really what I'm saying. It's the idea the film has to explain the back-ground politics, when it isn't primarily a film about that. It's a film about war journalists covering the actual effects on the ground toward the end of a war, how they go about it and whether it's ethical. It could be set anywhere, he's just chosen the US because it's an important country (and also striking because you don't normally imagine it happening in places like the US). Garland leaves it up to the audience to fill in all the other gaps themselves.
@@MrDragon1968 War is nothing but a continuation of politics by other means-C.V. Clausewitz
@@cheekylix That's a philosophical point, not an essential fictional narrative point. Also the film certainly does touch on politics.
@@MrDragon1968 It does, and I don't deny that. But it only "touches" on politics. Circumstantial details introduced but with no context. And that's the issue: the context.
Put it this way, suppose you're an alien who knows nothing about earthlings and their wars. Take a look at the famous photo of iwo jima flag. Can you know what it means to the earthlings by just looking at it? Or even if you're the photographer that just happens to be there without knowing anything behind what you're witnessing? A photo is nothing without context. Likewise is warfare. If you study any war, you can't study it in a vacuum without the politics, either the politics in governments or that in the trenches.
Alex is a very interesting and original writer, he has a classic first film in "Ex Machina", his other two were good to maybe very good but this one seems more on the Alonso score. I was really hoping this was gonna be Alex being bizarre again and not what looks like to be pretty generic.
Garland said today in an interview that it was about several countries or the world if you will in general. And it was more of a warning to all of us. Not just America.
The what the flick crew is back ?
We’ve been here for a while now, glad you found us!
Activist Alonso dislikes that there is no left vs right narrative in this movie, sad & pathetic. Beautiful film, strong message.
Agree with Alonso. How are you going to title your film Civil War with the sensationalized imagery, then make an amorphous film that doesn't have a POV? Sounds like a trying to have your cake and eat it to thing where this film might get some attention in the now but will ultimately be forgettable.
The POV is that if a country pushes itaelf to the point it breaks itself out in war no one wins.
If you want to make a movie set in the near future in your own country called Civil War, and your country in real life has extreme demagogues that have been talking about civil war for at least two decades, but you are unwilling to depict any reason (even fictional) for the power struggles in the universe of your film, then you are committing an active artistic cowardice and trading on base sensationalism to sell movie tickets.
I was tentatively interested in seeing this film until I learned in this review that there's no political commentary whatsoever
... Except Alex Garland ISN'T American.
I think the movie did exactly what it is supposed to do. The director is yelling at America, "You idiots, civil war is dumb and pointless no matter what your cause is."
I agree with Christy. And I don´t think the film is "apolitical", it just doesn´t spell everything out. The sniper scene clearly shows the absurd of the situation. And, come to think of it, I really don´t know which side Jesse Plemmons character was, or those guys in the building. And it doens´t matter. But, again, I don´t think the characters were apolitical. I think it´s clear they are against the President.
Ben Sailsbury and Geoff Barrow who did the score were actually going to record the score for Dredd, but Alex Garland went with Paul Leonard Morgan at the last minute.They released the soundtrack later as DROKK ( Garland and Barrow are huge Judge Dredd/2000AD fans). I'm 99% sure this is Garlands loose prequel about the end of democracy of America, before the fascistic Judge system took over. If you know 2000AD/Judge Dredd lore, you can see it!
Let me guess, Alonzo hates it?
Breakfast All Day movie reviews, This made me so happy! I liked and subscribed!
Awesome! Thank you! We're delighted to have you here.
I'm so conflicted about my interest in this. I've loved Alex Garland's work (even Men) and it looks impressively made, but Garland going out of his way to be "apolitical" and the way he's gone about it seriously rubs me the wrong way.
Alonso def missed the point of a lot of this movie
Eh the movie doesn’t have a lot ta say
@@bat1579 hmm we saw different movies then . I think it was saying civil war would be bad here … but I don’t know if that is saying much
He just wanted lefty propaganda with the left being the heroes and the conservatives being the villains.
I will see it next week (not out here yet) but my guess is that I will join Christy's side. We'll see.
But the discussion is really interesting, especially because of your different views on the movie.
It just occurred to me: how would Mr. Garland feel if an American filmmaker made a movie called Civil War that took place in Ireland, but makes no mention of Catholics, Protestants or loyalty or lack thereof towards Britain and instead makes up some vague convoluted scenario that deliberately ignores existing regional affiliations? How would the Irish feel about an American director telling a story that implies that Ireland’s actual history and contentious issues don’t matter and the real problem is simply that people disagree on things and war is bad?
Now that I'm watching the movie, I think the prob with the narrative not focusing on the details is that it focuses on the journalists waaay too much. Like they're talking about the girl journalist and that is NOT where my mind is at right now movie!
I look forward to seeing this, then coming back to comment on which of your opinions I agree with more. Solid arguments from you both. Thanks!
Do you all remember when Nikki Hailey was asked what was the cause of the civil war and she could not answer it? Well, I agree with Alonso here: if you have a movie called "Civil War" I as a movie goer really need to know what caused the conflict to escalate into extreme violence. Without that, it's a cop-out to not want to offend 50% of the country.
The 4D camera needs to be used in more movies ! Brilliant invention 🎉
Apologies, but how well does this play as a double feature with the Scoot McNairy flick Monsters (2010)?
This film's no-sides-ism approach is stunningly gutless.
Re: exploring the political divide in detail and having it come off as biased. I understand this point on some level, but I cannot help but reflect on one of my favourite pieces of media: the original Mobile Suit Gundam timeline. In that story, we explore two sides of a conflict that are broadly identifiable (planet earth as the colonizer and the people of space as the colonized), but the story *constantly* challenges the notions of goodness and badness by depicting kindness and pure evil on both sides of the conflict. I think doing that allows us to reflect on our political and moral positions infinitely more than signposting images of conflict without explicit meaning behind them. I’ve certainly thought about Gundam a lot whenever a massive global conflict erupts. From the sounds of this film, it doesn’t seem interested in exploring much other than “war bad,” but I could be wrong. Much love to you both and your channel!
Also, I hope yall interview Problemista! The film deserves more love!
I have yet to see the movie but have seen plenty of reviews and I had a feeling Alonso wont like it for its apparent lack of stance. Don't ask. Just a hunch.
I'm more on Alonso's side but Christy made some really great points. I did want to know more about the actual war but I understand not choosing sides was wise for Garland. I liked this way more than Men
1:05 I'm assuming that when you say President Nick Offerman, you don't mean literally. As in, you're just naming the actor, and the character is not actually named after him. That would be weird. Right?
Correct. Nick Offerman plays the president.
@@BreakfastAllDay Which of course, is President Ron Swanson.
This is literally the first time we have fallen one side of the discourse, and that leaves us bewildered, and it's ALL so subjective, but we have to sidle towards Christy's POV here, even while getting what Alonso is experiencing -- and that's why we love B.A.D. More, please, thank you.