I've been to war 2 tours in Iraq with the Marines. War is failing to get along with others. The veneer of human civilization is damned thin. Don't romanticize war. This movie does a good job of it. No one dies heroically. Death is repulsive and horrific. If we lose that reaction we're doomed.
@@UCp6Q6kiCeqBUSLE7IYCO35g Der, by making reporters, the most shit people alive, the brave truth tellers. Do you not see this applying to journalist takes on Ukraine?
@@therealmrsteve Where you from? I'm from Aroland First Nation. I watched it in Thunder Bay, Ontario. I kept thinking while watching the film I wonder if Canada got taken over!?
@@CrowCreatorif Canada got take over how would the Canadian currency even exist anymore and why would the gas station people accept that as payment 😂😂😂😂😂
@@CrowCreator In contrary I believe that the movie makes it clear that Canada isn't touch by the civil war. The Canadian currency is still intact compared to the American one which shows the Canadian economy still works. I'm from Lévis, Quebec
I’ve been to war and I think it’s great for Americans to see the violence of combat on their own soil. We often only see curated images of conflict in far away places so the idea of being in a warzone is pretty nebulous for the average American.
People who can't imagine CA and TX uniting against a fellow enemy spends more time on Twitter than in the real world. It's not about being ideological besties, it's about survival.
The director use the union between CA and TX to show that te movie is not taking a party the movie not even let you clear that the journalist and photographer was inside of the moral, the intention of this is to let the people know that the news should never take a party too and the journalism is far more important than the reporter.
@@paulcarfantan6688the point of the film is about polemics and how incredibly tribal the world has become, the point of those 2 states coming together was to show things have seriously got f’d up if those 2 states are in alliance, and that alliance is you don’t f with the democracy, 2 terms max, the army is not to use against the people etc etc etc
It’s strange to hear him say that this was a love letter to journalism, because I got the polar opposite of that while watching the film. I got lots of “Nightcrawler” vibes, and there were sequences in the film that made me feel extremely unsympathetic towards the journalists, very strange.
@@WCX I think, besides Wagner's character, and that cameraman that was embedded with the WF, that they all had a reasonable attitude and approach towards the conflict, and honestly, if you think about it, it does make sense that they would have to have a certain level of detachment towards what is happening and their ability to participate or intervene, in order to cope with the circumstances they find themselves in. I feel like that's universal across all of the characters we encounter, they're all detached and callous, and ultimately only focused on their objectives, because a moral compass is a liability in a combat zone.
So much talk about "journalism", but not about the critical distinction of "good journalism". What passes for journalism in most cases in the modern media space is simply opinion, and it's no wonder people don't trust it.
@@vikupogi Is their name on here supposed to delegitimize their point?... Because yours is both a worse name and you said absolutely nothing. What they said is completely true.
You mention some interesting value judgements and assumptions in your statement here. Good Journalism is not a defined concept - I guarantee you that what you consider good journalism will not necessarily be the same as another person, right down to to the importance of opinion vs fact. I'm gathering from your implied preference that you prefer or value a liberal media system which strives for objectivity (This is the ideal that many people who live in America, Britain , Australia would espouse), but in many nations opinion is counted as important as the facts. You'll see this in many European countries - and its not necessarily a bad thing. In some ways used correctly its more honest since it accepts the basic fundamental fact that humans cannot be objective - but they can make reasoned statements and astute observations. I think choosing war journos is a great choice here because as far as putting your money where your mouth is (Or your life in their case) its hard to think of a group of people who absolutely do this on a regular basis. Its very hard ot level a them that they are only interested in clickbait. Also your gripe with journalism has more to do with corporatism than actual journos (who despite some incredibly obstacles still to this day manage some excellent reporting). I hope you bother to support your local news outlets - particular independents - because they need you to (and it seems you just might care to).
To be fair, the main characters were not journalists, they were war photographers. One of them even said something to the effect of "it's not our job to judge what we're seeing, but to get pictures out and let other people decide." When people talk about hating journalists, they're usually talking about people who write/regurgitate their hot takes from the comfort of their home. All that said, this movie is BORING. I appreciate that they didn't make it a cliche good vs bad story, but you're left knowing nothing about the war. You have no idea why the war broke out and the only thing you know about the President is that he gave a speech claiming his side was winning when that clearly wasn't true. I don't think anyone should be offended by this film because it's such an empty void of a movie, there's nothing to be offended by.
As a filmmaker who has actually been in warzones in Colombia, I should say this movie is too realistic for those who have never seen war at a 50mm lens distance. Americans have glamorized war for the last +70 years in films, but when a foreign director dares to depict war as something that suddenly nulifies your reality, desolates your cities and destroys your family and friends, they reject it in a prideful behavior that, ironically, makes them a lot more vulnerable to suffer such tragedy.
I'm maybe naively hopeful that the central message in the film, “No reason explains war, no reason explains the human cost of a war” as Moura alludes to, is a reminder to everyone that though we may be on opposite sides of a widening divide, a violent solution will not bridge the gap, but send us all into the chasm below.
most people chose peace and compromise and getting along. its the extremists on both sides that force the issue into violence. all it takes is enough of a push and enough extremists.
I think you nailed it. Its is exactly how a topic should be handled. Anyone that wants to pick and chose a side with it likely haven't seen the movie, but after watching this I think I will go see it now I more fully understand the message.
That's a nice and pretty thought but when the state is committing that violence how else should someone react? Especially when peaceful options have been ignored or shut down with violence
@@DragonKeeper69 I think there is a difference between defending yourself and inciting violence. Violence for violence doesn't solve anything and creates more problems. Like I said in the video, we don't live in a utopia and violence is just a reality. But I think it just is up to each individual to decide if they want to participate in something that has a negative generational impact.
Listen, I'm not American, and I didn't watch the film just yet. But I'll let every American will know, whether if you're progressives or conservatives, left or right, north or south, east or west, You're always be Americans. No matter what skin color, religion, sexuality, gender, and where you come from. God bless y'all, Greetings from Philippines. 🇺🇲🤝🇵🇭
I agree giving the vote to women and blacks ruined this country, dammed leftists also ruined Jim Crow, and now THEYRE TRYING TO STOP US FROM ENSHRINING OUR CHRISTIAN BELIEFS INTO NATIONAL LAW! Pro choice is murder
People need to understand the truth in what you are saying. Unfortunately we are talking about America... we disagree vehemently with each other, unfortunately it comes to blows sometimes. Shay's and the Whisky Rebellion, and Ohio v Michigan over Toledo, all happened before the war of 1812. Things get volatile when you have a bunch of wartribes in a trenchcoat, and sometimes we fight each other, a sad reality but reality none the less. No one wants it, but there are many things no one wants. Those who are sane pray for peace, even though we know it shall not last forever. "If there must be trouble, let it come in my time, that my children might have peace." -Thomas Paine Good Luck and Godspeed.
Be quiet Pinoy. You're not American. And you haven't even seen the movie yet. Don't talk nonsense. Pinoys should take your advice and stop hating on other pinoys.
Because both political parties are after the same thing and serve "American Interests" (making themselves richer and imposing power over the world in the name of "peace," "security," and "morality") which is all a lie. Fake journalists are loved by both parties because they serve the status quo by inciting culture wars, distrust in fellow man, and painting vile politicians as celebrities who care about us.
Both sides don’t hate him. Maybe the politicians on both sides but most people want to know the truth, not cover it up. Unfortunately the criminals are in charge and don’t want us to know what they’re up to.
I watched the movie on opening weekend. It shook me and I can't stop thinking about it. There are so many underlying meanings in the film. The black and white still shots during the movie envoked tears. It is truly a horrifying spectical that needs to be seen.
Some of the stills shown in the movie were actually shot with the on-screen Nikon film camera, when they'd put a film in it for some scenes so the actress could take real photos. Meanwhile, Lee's "photos" were taken with a RED-camera to get the ultra-fast framerate and the "global shutter" for single-moment images.
My issue with the film is not that it didn’t pick a side - it’s that it didn’t show any side at all. You don’t have to choose a side to tell the nuanced story of the conflict. Because they left out the context of the political conflict (literally gave us no history besides a 3 term presidency), the movie fell short for me. I felt it lacked substance.
@@benjix5500thats what im saying. seems like evryone has the comprehension skills of a 1st grader. The mentions of Antifa and the fact that the Bugaloo boys are in the movie ( the dudes with the hawaiian shirts) indicates that the context of the movie is based off the reality of the issue we have today in America . the fact the president goes for a 3rd term is most likely the reason the war started
Yea I thought the overall point was clear. Wars aren’t started by the people over political ideology. They are started by 1 or multiple leaders. Irl it is the same. Google most oil rich countries. And you will see a list of all the countries who either have proxies fighting wars over oil, or have been invaded over oil, or both. We didn’t invade Iraq over abortion or gun control I’ll tell ya that.
I'm the opposite, I thought it was the smart choice to leave out the "why" the war happened. A voiceover explaining how it all happened, or forced dialogue would have been contrived. I feel bad for all the people who get hung up on California and Texas teaming up, the explanation for why is not needed for the story.
As always, this was a pleasure to watch. Your videos are fantastically written and produced, sir. Thank you for putting the time in to ensure your content is of such high-quality. As a fellow creator, I have a great appreciation for all the fine details you strive to include.
This video has good production value. Pretty slick. I don't agree with the points of Civil War herein having a controversial production. Maybe i heard most of the points on other film analysis videos. Maybe these well worn points strikes me as another facet of advertising culture. Alex Garland's heartfelt entreaty in this video about journalists and doctors will get standing ovations. Not from me. Doctors are not pure. Like cops there is a mainstream assumption that the people in these positions are good guys....and therefore it entices bad actors wearing a mask of respectability. The current age of doctors are fouled up with corporations corrupting health work into a for-profit thing. For example doctors getting extra money for prescribing people medication they don't need (that will harm them later). Doctors pushing for surgery on people who don't need it. People being denied health care for being poor. The practice of health care can be good but the universal saint hood assumed to doctors is as flimsy as it is for most politicians (either in the movie or in our reality) I find fault in this discussion on the current age of journalism because it overlooks how information gathering and sharing is also largely profit driven. The bigger news agencies are owned by rich people. What we read is their truth. What most people call "news" is from people who learned the way to control and manipulate information. I believe more people ("media consumers") see this, feels this --and it contributes to a growing dislike of journalists. This is largely a misplaced scrutiny. To hyper focus a debate about journalists misses the other players behind the scenes deciding what is news worthy. The editors, the publishers and the advertisers have the most influence on what you are debating about over dinner. It's a sad reality that we inherited (and pass on) where if anything this video should champion....what Alex Garland should champion is free speech. Free Speech includes me as well as the fat cats. Civil War isn't controversial. The movie does not threaten/critique this world we live in--organizing this reality on a system of profit. A system of profit that rewards destruction of resources and life for the benefit of a few people. It does not threaten capitalism its not a controversy. The film Civil War is a puzzle or game you play with when you're not working (for someone else)
After a 4 days and some reflection as well as hearing some criticism and reviews of Alex Garland's new movie "Civil War," the most interesting part of it, and also, one of the parts that challenged me as a viewer, was that Garland refused to dumb the story down to make it easier to watch and comprehend the atrocity being displayed. THAT is filmmaking. And that is what has intrigued me the most since I watched it. A filmmaker actually refusing to make it easy on the viewer for once and making them think. I like it even more after.
I felt the film pulled its punches quite a lot, compared to real civil wars. But the film would have probably been accused of being exploitative had it been more realistic. It did enough to be effective.
@@e1orac177 I think the "war" was just a plot movement device anyway. The focus was the journey. To me I mean of course. It is a roadtrip movie not a war movie;.
Camera clarification: The Sony in the film is actually from the a7r series not the a7s series. You can tell due to the red “r” versus the blue “s”. Looks to me to be an a7r IV but could be the a7r V. This makes more sense for a photo journalist to be using with its higher megapixel count compared to the 12mp on the a7s III which is optimized for 4K video shooting rather than stills.
I was the assistant propmaster on the film. It was the Sony a7 iv r. We had to buy a second cam when the first one was broken during production. She also used a Sony a7 II as her second camera. The lens was real and Kirsten wore it during the entire final battle scene. With no photo double. When you see the tank drive past her, the tank is that close.
The movie was amazing. It felt surreal. My only complaint was that it wasnt A. Longer to understand what happened in depth or B. A mini series to show the escalation of the war. Idk why people are crying about there not being any sides or anything. It's literally good (the people) vs the the bad (the fictional fascist president) As the director put it in response to people asking why he decided to have texas and cali in an alliance, he wanted to show that even though they may have their differences politically, they can both (liberal vs republican) agree that a what the president is doing is tyrannical. Its the people vs evil.
THIS (imo) is a cautionary tale...that despite which side (or where) you find yourself politically, we DON'T want this to happen here! We need to ALL come together and work at fixing the many issues that are dividing and hurting people in today's America. We need to find a way forward together! Here and abroad! Cheers! 😎👍
The most funniest of the Civil War plot is that of Texas and Califronia forged an alliance it's like oil and water. 😂😅 Let's hope A24 gives this a trilogy or a sequel. This has the potential to be amazing
It is pretty hilarious that aspect of it. I think it could make sense if specific events happened, but I like that they throw that in there so it's not pitting certain groups against each other and making the film polarizing.
@@FrameVoyager It would be more plausible if the cartels influenced California and Texas by making their children and allies political figures in the country and then manipulated the system to start a war.
I don't think it's unrealistic at all. I think it's a reference to the fact that we all actually have more in common than we disagree with. A suitably corrupt and oppressive federal government would unite us against them.
Might seem funny on the surface, but I'm thinking Garland's point is that California and Texas forged an 'alliance of convenience', for lack of a better term. The three-term US president of the story is probably despised enough, even by Californians and Texans with otherwise often very different mindsets, that they're willing to unite their war effort just to depose said autocratically minded president. However, I don't think the internal geopolitical plausibility of the story is the main point, at all. The main point is what wars do to people, to society, to how people perceive each other and treat each other, to what sort of divides civil wars (and wars in general) create between people, between whole regions, nations, countries. All real wars leave behind trauma, in civilians and soldiers alike. Including in the people covering the conflict, like the group of journalists in this film, and real war journalists, the world over. Of course, war is rarely about simple good guy and bad guy narratives, and the film is all about the toll of war on ordinary people and society as a whole. Like it or not, dying for particular politicians and what ideologies they represent is short-sighted. Ordinary people need to always bear in mind that we're living our lives to be good to each other and live fulfilling lives. Not to sacrifice lives for politicians or any other surface-level charismatic personalities. I remember a famous Czech war journalist, a middle-aged man who's exact name escapes me right now, being interviewed on an afternoon broadcasting block I watched some twenty or so years ago. He spoke very openly, clearly, but humanely about his experiences with covering various conflicts that occured around that time, in several countries. Very grim subject matter and his dead-serious face said it all. His voice occassionally rang with grief when he talked about particularly gruesome things he saw first-hand. Even so, he felt he was doing important work, precisely to snap people out of apathy, and make it clear to them that war takes a very, very deep toll on any human society, regardless of country and culture. Snap people out of apathy about the human toll of those wars he covered, and make them appreciate just how important peace, coexistence, tolerance, democracy and equal rights are in a modern society. They are things we can't and mustn't take for granted. This latest film by Alex Garland covers a lot of the same message: When we divide ourselves or allow ourselves to be divided, when we take peace, prosperity, democracy and daily coexistence completely for granted, we become more vulnerable to people who like to manipulate with spreading fear, anger, lies, trying to convince us we should hate each other and hurt each other. No individual human society has ever advanced if all it did was fight itself and try to destroy itself. They only truly advanced ahead when they stopped mutually excluding and bullying each other, and realised they need to live together and help each other as human beings. Not through forced compromise, but through mutually voluntary compromise, with an effort to understand each other and find common ground. Even in seemingly small things. Find common ground in the simple, seemingly small things, and then you can keep expanding that common ground to bigger things.
I didn't want to drive 70 miles to see it in the theater, so I waited 'till it came out streaming and I just saw it. I thought it was amazing, and I'm disappointed with Jeff VanderMeer because I really respect his Southern Reach Trilogy novels, which are atmospheric and brilliant science fiction. I believe this movie is a warning.
One minor comment-- the Leica lens used is a Summicron 35 ASPH II adapted with a TTartisans mount. There was one shot early on that shows the mount branding clearly, and much later a clear shot down the barrel where you can see "Summicron" clearly, and with that hood, there's only one option. The detail there (I shoot primarily with an adapted Summicron IV on a Leica SL2-S) was spot on for something to be used in that situation
Spoiler Below **** Great pickup on that! Crazy detail for sure. The only thing that bugged me as a photographer is in the final scene in the White House when they never get Lee’s SD card 😭. I know that they were in a rush to get to the president but also when the whole film is focused on getting the shot and sharing the narrative of what’s going on it seemed like leaving that behind was a miss!
I was the assistant propmaster. And you are dead right. We had a few of the lenses that we would switch out depending on what the shot was. A cheaper knock off lens was used in wide shots and the leica was used for close ups.
Thanks for clearing this up, as a photojournalist for 30 years, I do care to hear the nerdy camera stuff if I can. And as a photojournalist I felt this movie portrays my profession more accurately than other movies prior to this.
Just saw it and can't stop thinking about it. It reminded me of black summer and many other apocalyptic shows but i think some of the scenes were just plain frightening. It focuses on human behavior and what people are capable of
I have mixed feeling about Alex Garland, on one hand I like where his ideas come from, on the other hand I don't really like where they go, they just don't feel fully thought out. On one hand he was a writer first and apparently his great writing ability is what got him the directing opportunity, on the other hand his characters and dialogue aren't very interesting, having characters say "fuck" frequently that are supposed to be intelligent adults just to express that they are frustrated is kind of embarrassing to watch from someone that's supposed to be a good writer.
@@phoenixfunny4517 It's more the lack of intelligence of the writing wearing off on the characters. There's nothing wrong with having characters say the word fuck now and then, like in Goodfellas that's clearly the culture in which they speak, but I just finished his mini series Devs which is about an eccentric tech company and when I heard the mild mannered main character first say fuck I thought it was a little out of character because she didn't even have to vocalize her frustration in that scene, but then I noticed that any time a character reached a certain level of stress or frustration they would vocalize it and only by saying fuck and after a while it's just seems like Garland has to tell us a character is frustrated rather than just showing us and that he only knows one way to do it. It reminds me of how college kids seem like they have to use that word every chance they get Cancel Reply
@K.C-2049 its fine once or twice in a script but when it feels like the only way he knows how to express frustration across a broad spectrum of characters it just seems dumb
Maybe instead of trying to make a circle jerk pice that reporters are somehow the “good guys” maybe the director should have asked what the reporters have done in recent history to gain that reputation because as it stands right now for the last ten years juniors have been the direct enemy of a free thrinking nation.
@@sean748 I was paying attention and if you think there’s any scenario where Texas and California team up to fight “fascism” when their definitions of such couldn’t be farther apart then you aren’t living in reality.
As an Australian, keeping the politics neutral made it relevant to all countries, not just the US. I thought it was brilliant. I can see why people going in with expectations were upset. It isn't an action film, and no side was shown as good. You could see several presidents used to create the character. This film is one to keep in my favourite list.
I laughed so hard the first time I saw the title and trailer for this movie. I was like "This is the most centrist thing ever created that it can summon a black hole in the movie theatre"
This is a great video. But I didn’t see anything that suggests controversy. It doesn’t appear to have been a controversial shoot despite your title. Thanks for the video though. Keep up the good work.
Appreciate it! When we say "production" we mean the entire process of it. If you read other comments on this video you'll see what I mean by "controversial" 😅
I’ve seen movies like The 5 Day War and “ A Private War” that are based on real war journalist that when I saw this movie I have to admit that I wasn’t impressed and it was kind of predictable. The setting in a USA scenario didn’t throw me off what was evidently the outcome. The rest is the nonsense and stupidity of war and how useless and non productive it can be to any society. It reminds me of a Statement “In war, truth is the first casualty. “ Aeschylus
I saw this movie. It's too vague and incoherent to really make the impact that it should have. A MUCH BETTER movie told from the perspective of journalists is The Killing Fields
I thought that the relationship with the hardened war photographic journalists and the young girl wanting to break into their lifestyle was very interesting. The detachment and the apathy to all the horrors they witness, the way some of the characters chase the conflicts and battles like stormchasers, and how they capture moments of deeply traumatic events is the most self destructive and dangerous way of creating art and creating records of truth. The truth is important.
I think there's a TON of missed symbols in this movie. The whole point of the movie was to direct the viewer through the chaos and the carnage of it all as if you were a fly on the wall as you watched these journalists work. The black and white filter for their photos is fully intended to illustrate that no one person's life in this world is truly that special, and they even threw a child's body into the middle of one of the CGI scenes to show that same theme in a completely different way. There were some great shots like the lumpy grass lawn in that one farm's front yard which implied that there were piles of bodies buried under there, as the next scene cuts to a picture of people's bodies being buried followed by an appropriately timed forest fire later that night. This was clearly a movie for film buffs more than it was meant to be a casual watch, and you can tell by the nuances of the film. Very well produced, although I think it left people feeling a bit disoriented by the end and that's why so many people didn't like it.
I have so many problems with this movie, mainly given how contrary it is. Garland, being a non-American, not understand the country enough to tell an authentic story, as well as pretending like it's not bias when it's very clearly biased, while also lacking any bite had it simply been more open about its bias.
Great film but I have a problem with the premise. If a civil war is considered the death of a nation, the film portrays journalism/ journalists as being seperate even transcendent from it. I don’t think journalism would survive a civil war in this country.
I’d like to use this film as a great example of something even more controversial than politics… the Full-Frame look is real… and you can easily see it on display here.
As a veteran I have a question for more average viewers who've never served. How many of you felt the "What kind of American?" Scene was batshit crazy as if it came out of nowhere? Maybe like it wasn't "earned" or whatever. Genuine question, reply if you felt that way as I'm kind of conducting a poll here to confirm a suspicion I have about this film's approach to NOT romanticizing war.
On thing you got wrong, is the camera Lee uses in this Film is definetley a A7R, because on the right side is a red R, that stands for Resolution. Being nerdy sorry not sorry;)
Folks, look, okay, this movie is scary. But not enough. Don't go watch it. It's bad. It's not a movie wherein one maverick pilot sticks a rocket up into the butthole of an alien. So, bring the Snyder's cut! Make it even darker.
The world that Civil War paints is completely unrealistic. Sure a war amongst the states could exist but it would never play out like this. It's as if Alex Garland has not studied any of world history. I feel he does humanity a disservice by pushing his simplistic portrayal of a conflict that would be far more violent, bloody, and devastating than a bunch of troops rolling up on the White House lawn with little to no resistance. I just finished watching this film and was thoroughly disappointed. If you want to watch a movie about photo journalists in war-torn countries, in the middle of a civil war done correctly, watch "Under Fire" starring Nick Nolte.
I get why they did it but unfortunately, by avoiding real world politics, the film is basically science fiction and about as relevant as "Red Dawn". Texas and California allied so we're avoiding the notion of Red v Blue, the fascist president's party undisclosed so that people are going to insert the party they oppose into the role, etc. This was a chance for the filmmaker to really say something relevant and, while I admit I haven't seen it yet, it looks as though he surrendered that chance in order to not acknowledge the "bad guy" and alienate members of the audience.
You are exactly right. I walked out of the film and some good old boys with 2nd amendment shirts on were really jazzed about this "ant-war" film, truly irresponsible to play the both sides card and give a movie to glorify militias and killing the president who they can easily see represents Biden or Trump depending on your viewpoint. Alex Garland needs the safety of Sci Fi or "dream like" to cover up his really dumb ideas.
@@reedraeburn its a shit movie, if you dont see that, you been watching too many D movies. Its called having a brain and being objective if something is a waste of your time or not.
@@monkhead7217 Korea had a civil war, and Vietnam, and Libya, USA had no problems fueling those wars, you probably voted for a president who did that, just saying.
I didn’t mind him doing a fictional political divide, but if you are going to do that, you have to give the audience some world building to understand what caused the civil war in the first place.
But then it would've been clear that it was Republican vs Democrat and there's no way Alex Garland was gonna let a Republican militia come in and take out a Democratic tyrant president.
He doesn't, that wasn't his point dude. He used doctors as an example of a profession, pointing out that it's weird to say you hate EVERYONE with this specific job. In another interview he said the same but with, if i remember correctly, taxi drivers
Just saw it and "liked" it. I was anxious the entire time. It has a residual impact on me which is what I hope for from a movie. I don't nitpick intentions, I prefer to impose my own.
Alex Garland is not "quitting directing", he said in a recent interview that he is busy writing a couple of films for other directors so he won't have time to direct anything himself "for the foreseeable future".
I just lol at all the conservatives boys getting disappointed in the film. They went to the movie to find something they can relate to. Instead, it was just a journalist film. Lol
I'm basically moderate/liberal and I haven't seen it yet, but I'm already starting to sour on it because it seems to be utterly toothless(despite what the fans are saying, sorry but you people are striking me as easily impressed as well as liking it solely due to being fans of the writer). IMO it would have been more impressive if he was more overt in his approach and didn't try to play this safe, spinless "let's all hold hands" direction purely for the sake of winning accolades while sucking off daddy's profession. I think it's fairly clear to most aware people the majority of the violence and aggression has come from one particular "side", and it isn't like this is ancient history. It was only a few years ago they were sh00ting politicians playing baseball, attempting to b0mb places, ect. This "both sides" nonsense is not only cowardly, but tone-deaf and rejects reality.
His take on violence never being the answer comes from a comfortable, privileged, and rich place. It bothers me to see him pretend that our corporate news media is something worth saving. I'm a leftist, not a liberal. And I can hate on conservatives all day, but at least they're honest. Neoliberals who pretend to be protecting democracy are protecting a system that requires poverty to exist. I hated his message being "our divisions divide us, please don't revolt violence is bad". What a waste of money. If you really believe voting hard enough is going to change how capitalism operates you're not only incredibly naive you're outright stupid.
I do like the passing of the baton from the older Journalist to the new Generation… implying that journalists must evolve and pass the so important mission of informing the people to the new journalists.
Marvel movies have the emotionally intelligence of a 5-year-old I am so sick of anybody referencing those movies as if they have anything interesting to offer. Also, I loved this breakdown
I agree that by taking out politics and philosophy you are making a nothing film. There are plenty of better movies about war is terrible and should not happen (see the amazing “Come and See”). The reality is there are political, and especially economic reasons for every war. If we don’t understand it, we can’t change it.
I think this film doesn't take "everything" out, but Garland trusts the audience enough to understand some of it without having to spell it out to you. I think the difference between this and other war films is this is showing visuals of things many people in the country, 40% as a year ago, think will happen. I think it's a weird line to balance for sure, will be interesting to see how he walks that line in the film.
I only know the background of the director's ideas for the film from this video, but there are a few issues that I agree would make this movie not as impactful as he thinks it should be. First, people don't trust journalists because news is no longer news. "News" shows are opinion shows made for entertainment and the people on screen are not journalists. Most newspapers are geared towards an audience because that's what makes the most money, so the business people are the ones making the decisions on what gets published. There are very few journalists that are covering stories that are unbiased by profit motives that people get to hear about. Second, there can be a side that is objectively bad in politics. The actual US Civil War was fought between one side that wanted to own other humans and one side that rightfully believed that was wrong. We're not going to have another civil war because one side thinks the healthcare industry should be regulated at the state level and the other the federal level. It will happen because one side wants to take away important rights from the other that they would rather fight and die to protect rather than give up. I'll see the movie to see if it has any good substance, but if this is the basis for the movie, it really doesn't apply to our current situation.
@@jasons5916 Exactly. Well said. "Let`s see California and Texas form an alliance because........they both have hot and dry weather. Okay, what else ? That`s it. That`s it ? Wtf ? But the director doesn`t want you to know why they formed an alliance, he wants you to guess, he thinks he`s Stanley Kubrick. But he`s not". This movie sounds like a dud.
Well let's analyze the first civil war. First off on a civil war you're fighting your own brother or cousin. So im that moment then you already lost because your killing your own family/country. Second off people keep saying a civil war isn't about ideologies but instead survival. Civil wars are always fought because of ideologies. The south didn't go to war against the United States because it was a survival aspect. It was because their ideologies didn't match the constitution. Same thing if you look at another country. Finally the issues with this movie is you already had trump supporters hunted because the left doesn't like them. Trump got shot because of the verbage of the left. Innocent people have been shot and killed for nothing but voting who they think would be the best president. We're already in a pre civil war state because people are too stupid to talk instead of using their feelings. You see it all the time in the news. Y'all see it on the screen and it looks cool. Watch band of brothers and see what real war looks like. Where you lose your foot because you're in 40 degree weather wearing only a summer uniform. The comments here suggesting other wise are people who have never been in actual combat or in the military.
We all interpret it as big and small, all aspects. Not red and blue but purple going at it everywhere and thats what this movie portrays. CHAOS BABY!!!
Why not state the real-life make and model of the Sony camera, action films love stating gun brands and models in a glorifying way. I saw this like the characters proudly stating their weapons of choice for their craft grounded in reality.
He did pick a side. Leftist leaning. President had Antifa eliminated. Does that sound like something the left would do. And the president was made out to be a dictator which we know who Garland is trying to depict. Even though the left are the true dictators of the day; free speech infringements and abuse of power by going around the Supreme Court and so on.
Lee uses an A7 R camera, the R branch of the Sony A cameras, optimized for stills, brilliant camera for photos, superhigh resolution. The A7Siii is a hybrid mirrorless optimized for video, brilliant camera for video, amazing low light capabilities, stills are trash tho. Two very different Sony A7 cameras.
Ive seen the movie today. I only liked 2 scenes, i thought the last scene at the white house was badass. But it seemed rushed and low action throughout the movie which sucks. The movie focuses too much on the characters than what is going on in the government and it isnt explained why they are fighting in the first place. At least 2 of the characters suck, the 23 year old girl and the old man. In the end, the movie is NOT worth it.
Yo Voyager, I believe the Timing for a flic like this is really poor for now, so I won't be seeing this in a theater. Perhaps as a Philosophical Exercise I'll catch the disk, but the level of division that is occurring has taken Decades to reach this pitch and it's so disingenuous to lob an Indie movie at it and think you'll get much more than adding fuel to someone's fire afterword. Thanks for the Post, ~Mark~
Are you going to see Civil War in theaters?
Can't my Away for holidays 😢
@@neilhannan7525 Same, I've got a film shoot I'm out at and NAB until next week. Super sad I can't see it on Thursday
Hahaha no. Garland has no conservative friends and hates us.
Yes. I am intrigued but not quite excited.
@@mattisimo I'm not sure I'm "excited" for the film, as I think it's going to be more of a "gut-punch" type film
I've been to war 2 tours in Iraq with the Marines. War is failing to get along with others. The veneer of human civilization is damned thin. Don't romanticize war. This movie does a good job of it. No one dies heroically. Death is repulsive and horrific. If we lose that reaction we're doomed.
It was a revolting film in a lot of ways
Thank you for your service.
How does this movie romanticize war?
@@UCp6Q6kiCeqBUSLE7IYCO35ghes saying that it does a god job at not romanticizing
@@UCp6Q6kiCeqBUSLE7IYCO35g Der, by making reporters, the most shit people alive, the brave truth tellers. Do you not see this applying to journalist takes on Ukraine?
As a Canadian the best part of the movie was when he said 300$ American is worth nothing and 300$ Canadian is worth a lot 😂
Lol that made me chuckle too
@@CrowCreator there was also another guy in the movie theater that was almost hyped about that
@@therealmrsteve Where you from? I'm from Aroland First Nation. I watched it in Thunder Bay, Ontario. I kept thinking while watching the film I wonder if Canada got taken over!?
@@CrowCreatorif Canada got take over how would the Canadian currency even exist anymore and why would the gas station people accept that as payment 😂😂😂😂😂
@@CrowCreator In contrary I believe that the movie makes it clear that Canada isn't touch by the civil war. The Canadian currency is still intact compared to the American one which shows the Canadian economy still works. I'm from Lévis, Quebec
I’ve been to war and I think it’s great for Americans to see the violence of combat on their own soil. We often only see curated images of conflict in far away places so the idea of being in a warzone is pretty nebulous for the average American.
Agreed.
absolutely, seeing war in your own home, hits different
Trump 2024
@@davidvice3720this is what’s gonna happen if trump wins
Guess you were under a rock on 9-11
People who can't imagine CA and TX uniting against a fellow enemy spends more time on Twitter than in the real world.
It's not about being ideological besties, it's about survival.
And who`s the enemy ? Ronald MacDonalds ?
The director use the union between CA and TX to show that te movie is not taking a party the movie not even let you clear that the journalist and photographer was inside of the moral, the intention of this is to let the people know that the news should never take a party too and the journalism is far more important than the reporter.
lol wtf are you on about?
@@paulcarfantan6688the point of the film is about polemics and how incredibly tribal the world has become, the point of those 2 states coming together was to show things have seriously got f’d up if those 2 states are in alliance, and that alliance is you don’t f with the democracy, 2 terms max, the army is not to use against the people etc etc etc
Finally, someone gets it.
It’s strange to hear him say that this was a love letter to journalism, because I got the polar opposite of that while watching the film. I got lots of “Nightcrawler” vibes, and there were sequences in the film that made me feel extremely unsympathetic towards the journalists, very strange.
Same here. The film seems to depict them not just as unlikable, but as 'war tourists' completely detached from humanity.
@@WCX I think, besides Wagner's character, and that cameraman that was embedded with the WF, that they all had a reasonable attitude and approach towards the conflict, and honestly, if you think about it, it does make sense that they would have to have a certain level of detachment towards what is happening and their ability to participate or intervene, in order to cope with the circumstances they find themselves in. I feel like that's universal across all of the characters we encounter, they're all detached and callous, and ultimately only focused on their objectives, because a moral compass is a liability in a combat zone.
So much talk about "journalism", but not about the critical distinction of "good journalism". What passes for journalism in most cases in the modern media space is simply opinion, and it's no wonder people don't trust it.
Okay temple guitars
@@vikupogi Is their name on here supposed to delegitimize their point?... Because yours is both a worse name and you said absolutely nothing. What they said is completely true.
They mean CORPORATE media.
You mention some interesting value judgements and assumptions in your statement here. Good Journalism is not a defined concept - I guarantee you that what you consider good journalism will not necessarily be the same as another person, right down to to the importance of opinion vs fact. I'm gathering from your implied preference that you prefer or value a liberal media system which strives for objectivity (This is the ideal that many people who live in America, Britain , Australia would espouse), but in many nations opinion is counted as important as the facts. You'll see this in many European countries - and its not necessarily a bad thing. In some ways used correctly its more honest since it accepts the basic fundamental fact that humans cannot be objective - but they can make reasoned statements and astute observations.
I think choosing war journos is a great choice here because as far as putting your money where your mouth is (Or your life in their case) its hard to think of a group of people who absolutely do this on a regular basis. Its very hard ot level a them that they are only interested in clickbait.
Also your gripe with journalism has more to do with corporatism than actual journos (who despite some incredibly obstacles still to this day manage some excellent reporting). I hope you bother to support your local news outlets - particular independents - because they need you to (and it seems you just might care to).
To be fair, the main characters were not journalists, they were war photographers. One of them even said something to the effect of "it's not our job to judge what we're seeing, but to get pictures out and let other people decide." When people talk about hating journalists, they're usually talking about people who write/regurgitate their hot takes from the comfort of their home. All that said, this movie is BORING. I appreciate that they didn't make it a cliche good vs bad story, but you're left knowing nothing about the war. You have no idea why the war broke out and the only thing you know about the President is that he gave a speech claiming his side was winning when that clearly wasn't true. I don't think anyone should be offended by this film because it's such an empty void of a movie, there's nothing to be offended by.
As a filmmaker who has actually been in warzones in Colombia, I should say this movie is too realistic for those who have never seen war at a 50mm lens distance. Americans have glamorized war for the last +70 years in films, but when a foreign director dares to depict war as something that suddenly nulifies your reality, desolates your cities and destroys your family and friends, they reject it in a prideful behavior that, ironically, makes them a lot more vulnerable to suffer such tragedy.
I'm maybe naively hopeful that the central message in the film, “No reason explains war, no reason explains the human cost of a war” as Moura alludes to, is a reminder to everyone that though we may be on opposite sides of a widening divide, a violent solution will not bridge the gap, but send us all into the chasm below.
most people chose peace and compromise and getting along. its the extremists on both sides that force the issue into violence. all it takes is enough of a push and enough extremists.
@@forsaken841 Oh, totally agree. The hard thing is not getting complacent with allowing those people to gain control.
I think you nailed it. Its is exactly how a topic should be handled. Anyone that wants to pick and chose a side with it likely haven't seen the movie, but after watching this I think I will go see it now I more fully understand the message.
That's a nice and pretty thought but when the state is committing that violence how else should someone react? Especially when peaceful options have been ignored or shut down with violence
@@DragonKeeper69 I think there is a difference between defending yourself and inciting violence. Violence for violence doesn't solve anything and creates more problems. Like I said in the video, we don't live in a utopia and violence is just a reality. But I think it just is up to each individual to decide if they want to participate in something that has a negative generational impact.
Listen,
I'm not American, and I didn't watch the film just yet.
But I'll let every American will know, whether if you're progressives or conservatives, left or right, north or south, east or west,
You're always be Americans. No matter what skin color, religion, sexuality, gender, and where you come from.
God bless y'all,
Greetings from Philippines. 🇺🇲🤝🇵🇭
I agree giving the vote to women and blacks ruined this country, dammed leftists also ruined Jim Crow, and now THEYRE TRYING TO STOP US FROM ENSHRINING OUR CHRISTIAN BELIEFS INTO NATIONAL LAW! Pro choice is murder
People need to understand the truth in what you are saying.
Unfortunately we are talking about America... we disagree vehemently with each other, unfortunately it comes to blows sometimes. Shay's and the Whisky Rebellion, and Ohio v Michigan over Toledo, all happened before the war of 1812. Things get volatile when you have a bunch of wartribes in a trenchcoat, and sometimes we fight each other, a sad reality but reality none the less.
No one wants it, but there are many things no one wants. Those who are sane pray for peace, even though we know it shall not last forever.
"If there must be trouble, let it come in my time, that my children might have peace." -Thomas Paine
Good Luck and Godspeed.
Yeah but there's right and wrong... Good and Evil.
Be quiet Pinoy. You're not American. And you haven't even seen the movie yet. Don't talk nonsense. Pinoys should take your advice and stop hating on other pinoys.
What a kind and wonderful comment:)
A movie about the dangers of sectarism being hated for not being sectarian. Interesting.
Exactly. Great point.
Sorry what is sectarism?
Real journalists are hated by both political parties. Just look at Julian A.
Because both political parties are after the same thing and serve "American Interests" (making themselves richer and imposing power over the world in the name of "peace," "security," and "morality") which is all a lie. Fake journalists are loved by both parties because they serve the status quo by inciting culture wars, distrust in fellow man, and painting vile politicians as celebrities who care about us.
Both sides don’t hate him. Maybe the politicians on both sides but most people want to know the truth, not cover it up. Unfortunately the criminals are in charge and don’t want us to know what they’re up to.
Julian A didn't pushed for mass immigration, wokeness, to take parental rights, for mutilation of teenagers, etc
maybe the center hates him. But the far left and far right both like him very much from what I have seen
Amen
I watched the movie on opening weekend. It shook me and I can't stop thinking about it. There are so many underlying meanings in the film. The black and white still shots during the movie envoked tears. It is truly a horrifying spectical that needs to be seen.
The movie must be doing something right that Russian/Chinese troll accounts are mass attacking it.
Their bots rely on tribalism and polemics to destabilise, so yeah this film is mighty annoying to that context
Some of the stills shown in the movie were actually shot with the on-screen Nikon film camera, when they'd put a film in it for some scenes so the actress could take real photos.
Meanwhile, Lee's "photos" were taken with a RED-camera to get the ultra-fast framerate and the "global shutter" for single-moment images.
My issue with the film is not that it didn’t pick a side - it’s that it didn’t show any side at all. You don’t have to choose a side to tell the nuanced story of the conflict.
Because they left out the context of the political conflict (literally gave us no history besides a 3 term presidency), the movie fell short for me. I felt it lacked substance.
Are you kidding? The situation by the end was pretty clear. Maybe you just weren't paying enough attention. It just doesn't spoon feed you the story.
@@benjix5500thats what im saying. seems like evryone has the comprehension skills of a 1st grader. The mentions of Antifa and the fact that the Bugaloo boys are in the movie ( the dudes with the hawaiian shirts) indicates that the context of the movie is based off the reality of the issue we have today in America . the fact the president goes for a 3rd term is most likely the reason the war started
Yea I thought the overall point was clear. Wars aren’t started by the people over political ideology. They are started by 1 or multiple leaders. Irl it is the same. Google most oil rich countries. And you will see a list of all the countries who either have proxies fighting wars over oil, or have been invaded over oil, or both. We didn’t invade Iraq over abortion or gun control I’ll tell ya that.
I'm the opposite, I thought it was the smart choice to leave out the "why" the war happened. A voiceover explaining how it all happened, or forced dialogue would have been contrived.
I feel bad for all the people who get hung up on California and Texas teaming up, the explanation for why is not needed for the story.
@fleshvehicle9140 as someone who 100% would wear a hawaiian shirt under my body armor if this happened in real life I loved their inclusion.
As always, this was a pleasure to watch. Your videos are fantastically written and produced, sir. Thank you for putting the time in to ensure your content is of such high-quality. As a fellow creator, I have a great appreciation for all the fine details you strive to include.
Appreciate it!
Your vids are also good. Subbed 👍🏽
@@ElvisDeckard Ah thank you, sir!
This video has good production value. Pretty slick.
I don't agree with the points of Civil War herein having a controversial production. Maybe i heard most of the points on other film analysis videos. Maybe these well worn points strikes me as another facet of advertising culture.
Alex Garland's heartfelt entreaty in this video about journalists and doctors will get standing ovations. Not from me. Doctors are not pure. Like cops there is a mainstream assumption that the people in these positions are good guys....and therefore it entices bad actors wearing a mask of respectability. The current age of doctors are fouled up with corporations corrupting health work into a for-profit thing. For example doctors getting extra money for prescribing people medication they don't need (that will harm them later). Doctors pushing for surgery on people who don't need it. People being denied health care for being poor. The practice of health care can be good but the universal saint hood assumed to doctors is as flimsy as it is for most politicians (either in the movie or in our reality)
I find fault in this discussion on the current age of journalism because it overlooks how information gathering and sharing is also largely profit driven. The bigger news agencies are owned by rich people. What we read is their truth. What most people call "news" is from people who learned the way to control and manipulate information. I believe more people ("media consumers") see this, feels this --and it contributes to a growing dislike of journalists. This is largely a misplaced scrutiny. To hyper focus a debate about journalists misses the other players behind the scenes deciding what is news worthy. The editors, the publishers and the advertisers have the most influence on what you are debating about over dinner. It's a sad reality that we inherited (and pass on) where if anything this video should champion....what Alex Garland should champion is free speech. Free Speech includes me as well as the fat cats. Civil War isn't controversial. The movie does not threaten/critique this world we live in--organizing this reality on a system of profit. A system of profit that rewards destruction of resources and life for the benefit of a few people. It does not threaten capitalism
its not a controversy. The film Civil War is a puzzle or game you play with when you're not working (for someone else)
After a 4 days and some reflection as well as hearing some criticism and reviews of Alex Garland's new movie "Civil War," the most interesting part of it, and also, one of the parts that challenged me as a viewer, was that Garland refused to dumb the story down to make it easier to watch and comprehend the atrocity being displayed. THAT is filmmaking. And that is what has intrigued me the most since I watched it. A filmmaker actually refusing to make it easy on the viewer for once and making them think. I like it even more after.
You need a Story to begin with in order dumb it down
@ottersirotten4290 lol. Not everyone can handle thinking of course lol.
I felt the film pulled its punches quite a lot, compared to real civil wars. But the film would have probably been accused of being exploitative had it been more realistic. It did enough to be effective.
@@e1orac177 I think the "war" was just a plot movement device anyway. The focus was the journey. To me I mean of course. It is a roadtrip movie not a war movie;.
Camera clarification:
The Sony in the film is actually from the a7r series not the a7s series. You can tell due to the red “r” versus the blue “s”. Looks to me to be an a7r IV but could be the a7r V. This makes more sense for a photo journalist to be using with its higher megapixel count compared to the 12mp on the a7s III which is optimized for 4K video shooting rather than stills.
I was the assistant propmaster on the film. It was the Sony a7 iv r. We had to buy a second cam when the first one was broken during production. She also used a Sony a7 II as her second camera. The lens was real and Kirsten wore it during the entire final battle scene. With no photo double. When you see the tank drive past her, the tank is that close.
*“I Remember the Secret Service Being Tougher”*
-Red (2010)
The movie was amazing. It felt surreal. My only complaint was that it wasnt A. Longer to understand what happened in depth or B. A mini series to show the escalation of the war. Idk why people are crying about there not being any sides or anything. It's literally good (the people) vs the the bad (the fictional fascist president)
As the director put it in response to people asking why he decided to have texas and cali in an alliance, he wanted to show that even though they may have their differences politically, they can both (liberal vs republican) agree that a what the president is doing is tyrannical. Its the people vs evil.
Mistrust in journalism isn't PARTLY journalism's fault. It is entirely journalism's fault. They lie to us all the damn time.
Oh yea? ALL journalists lie to you ALL the time? Or just the journalists that you follow?
@@axelotlgaming7921 ENOUGH of them lie ENOUGH of the time to foster mistrust. Like Walter Duranty and the Holodomor. No different today.
@@axelotlgaming7921 Ooh ! That hit a nerve.
@@axelotlgaming7921 enough journalists lie enough of the time to blow trust out of the water.
The 100's of murders with AR 15's has been true. The press has not lied about this!
The timing of this film is pretty impactful faced with what is going on in society (globally) today.
Very much so. Hoping there is some impact of the messaging of the film against inciting violence or even a Civil War.
@@FrameVoyager yeah, I was thinking the same. Hopefully, those ones wake up and realize the bigger picture.
Its not an accident that this movie was made
I just doubt it’s going to have much of an impact. The people that already want this aren’t going to be swayed by a random movie.
@@larrygraham4875yeah, I couldn’t imagine stuff like this being made back in the day like 07
Alex Garland rules. I am hyped for this film. Those I respect and opinions that hold weight to me are the ones calling it a potential masterpiece.
THIS (imo) is a cautionary tale...that despite which side (or where) you find yourself politically, we DON'T want this to happen here! We need to ALL come together and work at fixing the many issues that are dividing and hurting people in today's America. We need to find a way forward together! Here and abroad! Cheers! 😎👍
The most funniest of the Civil War plot is that of Texas and Califronia forged an alliance it's like oil and water. 😂😅 Let's hope A24 gives this a trilogy or a sequel. This has the potential to be amazing
Umm that makes a lot of sense if you study history. Don't Forget ALLIES in WW2.
It is pretty hilarious that aspect of it. I think it could make sense if specific events happened, but I like that they throw that in there so it's not pitting certain groups against each other and making the film polarizing.
@@FrameVoyager It would be more plausible if the cartels influenced California and Texas by making their children and allies political figures in the country and then manipulated the system to start a war.
I don't think it's unrealistic at all. I think it's a reference to the fact that we all actually have more in common than we disagree with. A suitably corrupt and oppressive federal government would unite us against them.
Might seem funny on the surface, but I'm thinking Garland's point is that California and Texas forged an 'alliance of convenience', for lack of a better term. The three-term US president of the story is probably despised enough, even by Californians and Texans with otherwise often very different mindsets, that they're willing to unite their war effort just to depose said autocratically minded president. However, I don't think the internal geopolitical plausibility of the story is the main point, at all. The main point is what wars do to people, to society, to how people perceive each other and treat each other, to what sort of divides civil wars (and wars in general) create between people, between whole regions, nations, countries. All real wars leave behind trauma, in civilians and soldiers alike. Including in the people covering the conflict, like the group of journalists in this film, and real war journalists, the world over.
Of course, war is rarely about simple good guy and bad guy narratives, and the film is all about the toll of war on ordinary people and society as a whole. Like it or not, dying for particular politicians and what ideologies they represent is short-sighted. Ordinary people need to always bear in mind that we're living our lives to be good to each other and live fulfilling lives. Not to sacrifice lives for politicians or any other surface-level charismatic personalities.
I remember a famous Czech war journalist, a middle-aged man who's exact name escapes me right now, being interviewed on an afternoon broadcasting block I watched some twenty or so years ago. He spoke very openly, clearly, but humanely about his experiences with covering various conflicts that occured around that time, in several countries. Very grim subject matter and his dead-serious face said it all. His voice occassionally rang with grief when he talked about particularly gruesome things he saw first-hand. Even so, he felt he was doing important work, precisely to snap people out of apathy, and make it clear to them that war takes a very, very deep toll on any human society, regardless of country and culture. Snap people out of apathy about the human toll of those wars he covered, and make them appreciate just how important peace, coexistence, tolerance, democracy and equal rights are in a modern society. They are things we can't and mustn't take for granted.
This latest film by Alex Garland covers a lot of the same message: When we divide ourselves or allow ourselves to be divided, when we take peace, prosperity, democracy and daily coexistence completely for granted, we become more vulnerable to people who like to manipulate with spreading fear, anger, lies, trying to convince us we should hate each other and hurt each other. No individual human society has ever advanced if all it did was fight itself and try to destroy itself. They only truly advanced ahead when they stopped mutually excluding and bullying each other, and realised they need to live together and help each other as human beings. Not through forced compromise, but through mutually voluntary compromise, with an effort to understand each other and find common ground. Even in seemingly small things. Find common ground in the simple, seemingly small things, and then you can keep expanding that common ground to bigger things.
I didn't want to drive 70 miles to see it in the theater, so I waited 'till it came out streaming and I just saw it. I thought it was amazing, and I'm disappointed with Jeff VanderMeer because I really respect his Southern Reach Trilogy novels, which are atmospheric and brilliant science fiction. I believe this movie is a warning.
He tried to make the American 'Come and See', but the end result is 'JCPenney Has Fallen'.
One minor comment-- the Leica lens used is a Summicron 35 ASPH II adapted with a TTartisans mount. There was one shot early on that shows the mount branding clearly, and much later a clear shot down the barrel where you can see "Summicron" clearly, and with that hood, there's only one option. The detail there (I shoot primarily with an adapted Summicron IV on a Leica SL2-S) was spot on for something to be used in that situation
Thanks for the info!
Spoiler Below
****
Great pickup on that! Crazy detail for sure. The only thing that bugged me as a photographer is in the final scene in the White House when they never get Lee’s SD card 😭. I know that they were in a rush to get to the president but also when the whole film is focused on getting the shot and sharing the narrative of what’s going on it seemed like leaving that behind was a miss!
I was the assistant propmaster. And you are dead right. We had a few of the lenses that we would switch out depending on what the shot was. A cheaper knock off lens was used in wide shots and the leica was used for close ups.
5$ TTArtisans mount, made in China... probably an intentional choice.
Thanks for clearing this up, as a photojournalist for 30 years, I do care to hear the nerdy camera stuff if I can. And as a photojournalist I felt this movie portrays my profession more accurately than other movies prior to this.
Just saw it and can't stop thinking about it. It reminded me of black summer and many other apocalyptic shows but i think some of the scenes were just plain frightening. It focuses on human behavior and what people are capable of
Your cadence when you said, "Steven McKinley Henderson," made it sound like you didn't know what you wrote in your script 😅
I have mixed feeling about Alex Garland, on one hand I like where his ideas come from, on the other hand I don't really like where they go, they just don't feel fully thought out. On one hand he was a writer first and apparently his great writing ability is what got him the directing opportunity, on the other hand his characters and dialogue aren't very interesting, having characters say "fuck" frequently that are supposed to be intelligent adults just to express that they are frustrated is kind of embarrassing to watch from someone that's supposed to be a good writer.
How does saying the fuck word have to do with the intelligence of the characters?
@@phoenixfunny4517 It's more the lack of intelligence of the writing wearing off on the characters. There's nothing wrong with having characters say the word fuck now and then, like in Goodfellas that's clearly the culture in which they speak, but I just finished his mini series Devs which is about an eccentric tech company and when I heard the mild mannered main character first say fuck I thought it was a little out of character because she didn't even have to vocalize her frustration in that scene, but then I noticed that any time a character reached a certain level of stress or frustration they would vocalize it and only by saying fuck and after a while it's just seems like Garland has to tell us a character is frustrated rather than just showing us and that he only knows one way to do it. It reminds me of how college kids seem like they have to use that word every chance they get
Cancel
Reply
@K.C-2049 its fine once or twice in a script but when it feels like the only way he knows how to express frustration across a broad spectrum of characters it just seems dumb
Maybe instead of trying to make a circle jerk pice that reporters are somehow the “good guys” maybe the director should have asked what the reporters have done in recent history to gain that reputation because as it stands right now for the last ten years juniors have been the direct enemy of a free thrinking nation.
If you think this movie wasn't partially a critique of US war journalism you weren't paying attention.
@@sean748
I was paying attention and if you think there’s any scenario where Texas and California team up to fight “fascism” when their definitions of such couldn’t be farther apart then you aren’t living in reality.
As an Australian, keeping the politics neutral made it relevant to all countries, not just the US.
I thought it was brilliant. I can see why people going in with expectations were upset. It isn't an action film, and no side was shown as good. You could see several presidents used to create the character.
This film is one to keep in my favourite list.
That's the thing most people don't get. The relevancy across a lot of the world.
Interesting because I feel like it was nothing but an action film. Lacked substance
I laughed so hard the first time I saw the title and trailer for this movie. I was like "This is the most centrist thing ever created that it can summon a black hole in the movie theatre"
This is a great video. But I didn’t see anything that suggests controversy. It doesn’t appear to have been a controversial shoot despite your title. Thanks for the video though. Keep up the good work.
Appreciate it! When we say "production" we mean the entire process of it. If you read other comments on this video you'll see what I mean by "controversial" 😅
I’ve seen movies like The 5 Day War and “
A Private War” that are based on real war journalist that when I saw this movie I have to admit that I wasn’t impressed and it was kind of predictable. The setting in a USA scenario didn’t throw me off what was evidently the outcome. The rest is the nonsense and stupidity of war and how useless and non productive it can be to any society. It reminds me of a Statement “In war, truth is the first casualty. “ Aeschylus
I'm amazed they were able to make this film for $50m
I saw this movie. It's too vague and incoherent to really make the impact that it should have.
A MUCH BETTER movie told from the perspective of journalists is The Killing Fields
It was directed by a documentary film maker and it won the 1984 Oscar for Best Film
I was a crew chief and when they were at their location with the 46s I could smell the jet fuel.
I thought that the relationship with the hardened war photographic journalists and the young girl wanting to break into their lifestyle was very interesting. The detachment and the apathy to all the horrors they witness, the way some of the characters chase the conflicts and battles like stormchasers, and how they capture moments of deeply traumatic events is the most self destructive and dangerous way of creating art and creating records of truth. The truth is important.
I think there's a TON of missed symbols in this movie. The whole point of the movie was to direct the viewer through the chaos and the carnage of it all as if you were a fly on the wall as you watched these journalists work. The black and white filter for their photos is fully intended to illustrate that no one person's life in this world is truly that special, and they even threw a child's body into the middle of one of the CGI scenes to show that same theme in a completely different way. There were some great shots like the lumpy grass lawn in that one farm's front yard which implied that there were piles of bodies buried under there, as the next scene cuts to a picture of people's bodies being buried followed by an appropriately timed forest fire later that night. This was clearly a movie for film buffs more than it was meant to be a casual watch, and you can tell by the nuances of the film. Very well produced, although I think it left people feeling a bit disoriented by the end and that's why so many people didn't like it.
As a Hongkonger i feel deeply sad for being misunderstand we as China and....🔥🔥😅😅😅
Politically yes....but😅😅😅you know..🤐
Nothing happened in tianaman square
@@thedarkdot2977Are you being serious?
@@Flamtion no
@@thedarkdot2977 yes
@@Flamtion bruh what
...this movie, grabbed the worst of/in all of us and rubbed it aggressively on our face! I hate wanting to watch it again
I have so many problems with this movie, mainly given how contrary it is. Garland, being a non-American, not understand the country enough to tell an authentic story, as well as pretending like it's not bias when it's very clearly biased, while also lacking any bite had it simply been more open about its bias.
Great film but I have a problem with the premise. If a civil war is considered the death of a nation, the film portrays journalism/ journalists as being seperate even transcendent from it. I don’t think journalism would survive a civil war in this country.
Fascinating concept of an alternate American society, similar to the "man in the castle" series. An alternate universe of America's future.
How long has the war been going on at the beginning of the movie?
I think it says in the movie. 18 months.
I’d like to use this film as a great example of something even more controversial than politics… the Full-Frame look is real… and you can easily see it on display here.
Full frame isn't real.
@@benjamindover4337 Like 24x36 sensors don’t exist?
Cinema is ours
As a veteran I have a question for more average viewers who've never served. How many of you felt the "What kind of American?" Scene was batshit crazy as if it came out of nowhere? Maybe like it wasn't "earned" or whatever. Genuine question, reply if you felt that way as I'm kind of conducting a poll here to confirm a suspicion I have about this film's approach to NOT romanticizing war.
Well, as a "civvie" who's had a number of family in the service, aholes like them piss me the fk off. Their behavior is the antithesis of "American".
On thing you got wrong, is the camera Lee uses in this Film is definetley a A7R, because on the right side is a red R, that stands for Resolution. Being nerdy sorry not sorry;)
Oh I know it does 😅 I have those Sony cameras myself, I just wrote it wrong in the script and didn't catch it when I was editing.
Folks, look, okay, this movie is scary. But not enough. Don't go watch it. It's bad. It's not a movie wherein one maverick pilot sticks a rocket up into the butthole of an alien. So, bring the Snyder's cut! Make it even darker.
Great video! Good amount of depth and research.
The world that Civil War paints is completely unrealistic. Sure a war amongst the states could exist but it would never play out like this. It's as if Alex Garland has not studied any of world history. I feel he does humanity a disservice by pushing his simplistic portrayal of a conflict that would be far more violent, bloody, and devastating than a bunch of troops rolling up on the White House lawn with little to no resistance. I just finished watching this film and was thoroughly disappointed. If you want to watch a movie about photo journalists in war-torn countries, in the middle of a civil war done correctly, watch "Under Fire" starring Nick Nolte.
I get why they did it but unfortunately, by avoiding real world politics, the film is basically science fiction and about as relevant as "Red Dawn". Texas and California allied so we're avoiding the notion of Red v Blue, the fascist president's party undisclosed so that people are going to insert the party they oppose into the role, etc. This was a chance for the filmmaker to really say something relevant and, while I admit I haven't seen it yet, it looks as though he surrendered that chance in order to not acknowledge the "bad guy" and alienate members of the audience.
You are exactly right. I walked out of the film and some good old boys with 2nd amendment shirts on were really jazzed about this "ant-war" film, truly irresponsible to play the both sides card and give a movie to glorify militias and killing the president who they can easily see represents Biden or Trump depending on your viewpoint. Alex Garland needs the safety of Sci Fi or "dream like" to cover up his really dumb ideas.
its a bad movie anyways, saw bits of it and said not gonna bother watching the rest
@@giovanni-ed7zq “saw bits of it and decided” wow you must be living a very fun life if you close yourself off that quickly lol
@@reedraeburn its a shit movie, if you dont see that, you been watching too many D movies. Its called having a brain and being objective if something is a waste of your time or not.
@@reedraeburn its not even Red Dawn quality.
"Violence, extremism and revolution is...LE BAD, complacency, journalism and centrism is...LE GOOD"
Actual meme message kek. Movie glows hard
This comment is cringe as hell, even for me
@@overlordbrandon No one gives a shit what you think
Go outside bro
Go outside man. How embarrassing and disappointing it must be to be you. How hard is it to understand a civil war is bad ?
@@monkhead7217 Korea had a civil war, and Vietnam, and Libya, USA had no problems fueling those wars, you probably voted for a president who did that, just saying.
I didn’t mind him doing a fictional political divide, but if you are going to do that, you have to give the audience some world building to understand what caused the civil war in the first place.
It shoul of been Ohio, Texas and Florida. Not California and Texas?
*should have been
But then it would've been clear that it was Republican vs Democrat and there's no way Alex Garland was gonna let a Republican militia come in and take out a Democratic tyrant president.
The fact that he sees journalists as equivalent to doctors is a deal-breaker for me.
He doesn't, that wasn't his point dude. He used doctors as an example of a profession, pointing out that it's weird to say you hate EVERYONE with this specific job. In another interview he said the same but with, if i remember correctly, taxi drivers
It's called an analogy
@@kyleparker5564
Negative.
He clearly sees journalists as equals to doctors in terms of importance.
Do you have brain worms or something? That’s the takeaway you got from his quote?
Excellent review, as usual, buddy.
Just saw it and "liked" it. I was anxious the entire time. It has a residual impact on me which is what I hope for from a movie. I don't nitpick intentions, I prefer to impose my own.
Alex Garland is not "quitting directing", he said in a recent interview that he is busy writing a couple of films for other directors so he won't have time to direct anything himself "for the foreseeable future".
You are awesome! Make the films you want to make.
One of the most visceral movies I’ve ever seen. Dunst’s best performance IMO. Jesse Plemons killed it…😂😂😂😂😂
I just lol at all the conservatives boys getting disappointed in the film. They went to the movie to find something they can relate to. Instead, it was just a journalist film. Lol
I'm basically moderate/liberal and I haven't seen it yet, but I'm already starting to sour on it because it seems to be utterly toothless(despite what the fans are saying, sorry but you people are striking me as easily impressed as well as liking it solely due to being fans of the writer). IMO it would have been more impressive if he was more overt in his approach and didn't try to play this safe, spinless "let's all hold hands" direction purely for the sake of winning accolades while sucking off daddy's profession.
I think it's fairly clear to most aware people the majority of the violence and aggression has come from one particular "side", and it isn't like this is ancient history. It was only a few years ago they were sh00ting politicians playing baseball, attempting to b0mb places, ect. This "both sides" nonsense is not only cowardly, but tone-deaf and rejects reality.
His take on violence never being the answer comes from a comfortable, privileged, and rich place. It bothers me to see him pretend that our corporate news media is something worth saving. I'm a leftist, not a liberal. And I can hate on conservatives all day, but at least they're honest. Neoliberals who pretend to be protecting democracy are protecting a system that requires poverty to exist. I hated his message being "our divisions divide us, please don't revolt violence is bad". What a waste of money. If you really believe voting hard enough is going to change how capitalism operates you're not only incredibly naive you're outright stupid.
Actually she wasn't holding a Sony S3, it was a Sony R5.
Loved this film.
A very frightening film, for the very frightening time we're living in.
All I care about is the monitor hood on the Ronin 4D and where they sourced it - I can't find one online to buy!?!
This video misses the mark with its perspective on journalists. The problem lies in the fact that most “journalists” today are mere impostors.
I do like the passing of the baton from the older Journalist to the new Generation… implying that journalists must evolve and pass the so important mission of informing the people to the new journalists.
I can see this film doing better internationally
This movie was very sobering and honestly left me feeling very marked. Might be a new favorite for sure.
Marvel movies have the emotionally intelligence of a 5-year-old I am so sick of anybody referencing those movies as if they have anything interesting to offer.
Also, I loved this breakdown
I agree that by taking out politics and philosophy you are making a nothing film. There are plenty of better movies about war is terrible and should not happen (see the amazing “Come and See”). The reality is there are political, and especially economic reasons for every war. If we don’t understand it, we can’t change it.
I think this film doesn't take "everything" out, but Garland trusts the audience enough to understand some of it without having to spell it out to you. I think the difference between this and other war films is this is showing visuals of things many people in the country, 40% as a year ago, think will happen. I think it's a weird line to balance for sure, will be interesting to see how he walks that line in the film.
I only know the background of the director's ideas for the film from this video, but there are a few issues that I agree would make this movie not as impactful as he thinks it should be. First, people don't trust journalists because news is no longer news. "News" shows are opinion shows made for entertainment and the people on screen are not journalists. Most newspapers are geared towards an audience because that's what makes the most money, so the business people are the ones making the decisions on what gets published. There are very few journalists that are covering stories that are unbiased by profit motives that people get to hear about.
Second, there can be a side that is objectively bad in politics. The actual US Civil War was fought between one side that wanted to own other humans and one side that rightfully believed that was wrong. We're not going to have another civil war because one side thinks the healthcare industry should be regulated at the state level and the other the federal level. It will happen because one side wants to take away important rights from the other that they would rather fight and die to protect rather than give up.
I'll see the movie to see if it has any good substance, but if this is the basis for the movie, it really doesn't apply to our current situation.
@@jasons5916exactly. well put. haven't seen it yet but sure hope these issues are handled properly!
The film is a masterpiece with a very clear message. All of the choices made are for smart reasons IMO.
@@jasons5916 Exactly. Well said. "Let`s see California and Texas form an alliance because........they both have hot and dry weather. Okay, what else ? That`s it. That`s it ? Wtf ?
But the director doesn`t want you to know why they formed an alliance, he wants you to guess, he thinks he`s Stanley Kubrick.
But he`s not".
This movie sounds like a dud.
By “Controversial” you mean “Predictive Programming”
Well let's analyze the first civil war. First off on a civil war you're fighting your own brother or cousin. So im that moment then you already lost because your killing your own family/country. Second off people keep saying a civil war isn't about ideologies but instead survival. Civil wars are always fought because of ideologies. The south didn't go to war against the United States because it was a survival aspect. It was because their ideologies didn't match the constitution. Same thing if you look at another country. Finally the issues with this movie is you already had trump supporters hunted because the left doesn't like them. Trump got shot because of the verbage of the left. Innocent people have been shot and killed for nothing but voting who they think would be the best president. We're already in a pre civil war state because people are too stupid to talk instead of using their feelings. You see it all the time in the news. Y'all see it on the screen and it looks cool. Watch band of brothers and see what real war looks like. Where you lose your foot because you're in 40 degree weather wearing only a summer uniform. The comments here suggesting other wise are people who have never been in actual combat or in the military.
Nothing justifies war.
We all interpret it as big and small, all aspects. Not red and blue but purple going at it everywhere and thats what this movie portrays. CHAOS BABY!!!
Who would have thought subordinating truth to profit may have consequences.
Ikr ? Crazy ?
Why not state the real-life make and model of the Sony camera, action films love stating gun brands and models in a glorifying way. I saw this like the characters proudly stating their weapons of choice for their craft grounded in reality.
I love movies about stuff that'll almost happen in the next eight years.
lol highly unlikely. its a pipe dream for some small group that think a small group of disinfranchised people can stand up to the swat team even.
Then you might want to watch if you have not: New Order (2021) | Dir. Michel Franco
Well duh.. if Garland had picked a side then he would be part of the problem not the solution. Those saying he should are part of the problem
He did pick a side. Leftist leaning. President had Antifa eliminated. Does that sound like something the left would do. And the president was made out to be a dictator which we know who Garland is trying to depict. Even though the left are the true dictators of the day; free speech infringements and abuse of power by going around the Supreme Court and so on.
Hope it does better than Beau is Afraid
The best part about this movie is that it doesn’t pick sides.
Lee uses an A7 R camera, the R branch of the Sony A cameras, optimized for stills, brilliant camera for photos, superhigh resolution. The A7Siii is a hybrid mirrorless optimized for video, brilliant camera for video, amazing low light capabilities, stills are trash tho. Two very different Sony A7 cameras.
Wagner Moura was amazing
This movie was freaking brilliant and the final act is god tier.
Well done!
Appreciate it!
Ive seen the movie today. I only liked 2 scenes, i thought the last scene at the white house was badass. But it seemed rushed and low action throughout the movie which sucks. The movie focuses too much on the characters than what is going on in the government and it isnt explained why they are fighting in the first place. At least 2 of the characters suck, the 23 year old girl and the old man. In the end, the movie is NOT worth it.
The third term president hints at a breakdown somewhere in the not so distant past.
This film reminds me a lot of the bang bang club one of the best film about war photographers
It baffles me that there is controversy about this film existing
The controversial clickbait title of this video
Yo Voyager, I believe the Timing for a flic like this is really poor for now, so I won't be seeing this in a theater. Perhaps as a Philosophical Exercise I'll catch the disk, but the level of division that is occurring has taken Decades to reach this pitch and it's so disingenuous to lob an Indie movie at it and think you'll get much more than adding fuel to someone's fire afterword. Thanks for the Post, ~Mark~
The camera Lee used was the R line not the S line
Hope is not like Athena, beautifully filmed, but not much substance just vibes and aesthetic
Oh, Mr Voyager, keep going. 💖
She used a a7r with a leica lens ☺️