I like how people freak out about this not being a left versus right but a people versus government setting. Also that flag bomber scene goes super hard.
Finally! A review that gets what the movie was about. I’ve seen so many reviews and it’s primarily been political leaning. I saw the movie with my wife last night.
As a journalist, I’ve got to say the boutique scene reminded me of those times where we have to take our journalistic ‘clothes’ / ‘persona’ off and remind ourselves to enjoy life and care for ourselves, especially if we’re on assignment or just filed a story that is emotionally taxing
Great chat! Feels like so many people wanted this to be some preachy social satire in the vein of "Don't Look Up" and that was a fear I had going in so I came out of it pleasantly surprised it delivered something nuanced and with visuals that are now seared into my brain
People saying it's apolitical are not paying attention. It's anti-fascist, so it doesn't fit neatly into the "left/right" perceptions of today. But that's because Trump is passing as a "right/conservative", which Ann Coulter has been calling him out on. It's political alright, but not in a "left/right" sense. Its in a "Democracy/Authoritarian" sense.
Its especially funny since it's a movie that shows how dividing into sides in a country called the United States is a complete paradox and will only lead to innocent deaths all over
From another journalist, PTSD is a growing discussion in the field. Even when we aren't in war zones, we can be covering stories where people are having the worst day of their lives. Look at documentaries about the Joplin, Mo., tornado. Yes, they were doing their jobs, but it was their home as well. At least one reporter broke down in tears in camera. His family was safe, but he was also seeing his community in pain. That takes a toll, especially long term.
Nice! Needed a bit of critical thinking. A couple of reviewers mentioned that the trailer gave the wrong impression of what the movie really is - so that distorts the idea of the Rorschach / projective device
I want to go see the film again. The most frustrating criticisms I've heard is that the film doesn't say anything completely ignoring the fact that it's all about asking questions and reminding people they should fight their fantasy of war and how they think it would go.
Also the speech something along the lines of “ the greatest victory ever in the history of victories” Theres different things you can latch onto but its not overt
Great discussion, thank you. I loved the movie. Haunting, yet beautiful. My favorite scenes were the sniper scene and the drive through the fire forest!
I m from Italy so I don't get all you say. But I agree with Rorschach theory. A great art director don't forget political "coherence" so if the movie it s not politicsl coherent is cause Garland want to get the audience attention on other elements. In my opinion this movie is the opposite of "Stagecoach". In that old movie many different characters symbolizing different perspectives gather to fight a common enemy. In Garland's movie is just division and fracture the main element.
I watched the SXSW interview w Garland he says the film is absolutely political and that there is all the info on screen to answer the questions but it’s not spoon fed in dialogue.
I'm also an professional journalist and I can tell you journalism HAS NEVER been a political and saying that the "best kind" is a political is laughable. Deciding on what to cover and how it's covered is political itself. Just look at the Palestine-Isriel war or NATO bombing Yugoslavia as examples!
So true. That was what I wanted to say. Very few jobs are fully apolitical and ahistorical. What you chose to photograph ( or choosing to photograph at all) is political. That does not mean it is bad, it just means the journalist is shaped as we all are by our personal and collective history.
Another journalist, and you're right. We're human. We have perspectives and they inform how we cover things. It's also important we be honest and upfront about it and making sure we communicate verifiable facts and communicate the story as honestly as we can. And most of us, especially down on the ground level work towards that goal every day.
It is true that there is no way to avoid politics but it is also true that the best journalists do not use loaded, ideological, or moralistic words in their coverage and instead report cold facts. They make sure to offer everyone they are covering the chance to comment and they do not make assumptions or report something as fact unless it can be fully verified, even if people complain that they need to take sides.
I think the movie was fine. But you can't blame people who expected a movie about the division of the country leading to civil war and commenting on the issues The whole marketing was about it being a Civil War in America and they put out maps of the diffrent factions and stuff. I think if you market it as a film about war journalism and just make it a "normal" war on american soil the backlash would be much smaller. But the marketing and the title suggests this is a different movie than it actually is.
From interview with the film director.. he said that they avoided the movie to represent which side is whom. Both warring parties wear the same military uniform, not mentioning about R or D, Blue or Red.. None.. The context of the movie is that Southern States in which they used TX and CA were already taken over by the South American countries... where they clearly depict Pres in the DC is the last standing old United States. Western Front aka WF are basically rebellions and do not represent the 'old' USofA. Which that scene the ragtag republic sympathizers guy in Elton John shades - asked a very simple question... "where are you from? Oh HongKong... thats China!" boo, go meet Jesus on the spot. The movie does not mention anything about South American invaders.. Russians, nor any Middle Eastern war of today... But that if you said 'China'... Kapow you are dead! It not even about the evil 'Communist' China.. the guy got shot... is not at war.. he does not have any weapons on him.. he is a journalist like any color skins of the planet earth. SO... movie director ploy is very clear. He is is anti-black, mocks LGBTQ and hates anything about China. -- That's the whole message of the movie --
Good journalism provides context. It doesn’t just say “here is war, here is violence.” It tells you why that violence matters and what got us to that point so we never reach it again. Just showing destruction with no context is bad journalism and bad media.
"I implore you. I promise you." I find these shocking words for a critic to be saying. I think your determination to claim this movie is apolitical is a deep agenda to allow Pro-Left, Pro-Blue, Pro-Democat Political Speech to be categorized as apolitical. An astonishing agenda for a Critic IMHO. Thank you nonetheless for the content - I was fully engaged by your discussion.
I know this film was trying to be neutral because thats what journalists are supposed to be so people wanting this to fulfill some fantasy of being right is out of pocket. However I can see the necessity of establishing what the sides are in the movie. Not so it can stear in the "right" direction but just to flesh out the world. The scene where the sniper boils everything down to kill or be killed is great but I feel like knowing the motivations of each side involved would have been a great addition.
@@blaze14ZX The movie is a warning to the extreme elements of both sides of the political spectrum where talk of political violence is increasingly brought up. The movie is telling these people, this is what you want? Are you sure? This? It doesn’t matter what your goals or motivations are, what side you are on, your politics don’t matter, this is the cost of civil war. If highly partisan people were able to latch onto one side or the other the movie becomes an argument about “well side X had a point and maybe war crime Y was justified, and well side Z are the good guys clearly
@@gigatears2574 my point is if you don't want people obsessing on the "civil war" part, then don't call the movie Civil War. And the title of a movie is fair game for criticism, just as the movie itself is... Whether someone has made a movie or not is irrelevant.
@@Oldhandlewasabitcringe the title and marketing were NOT accurate... the movie is set during some fictional civil war in America, but the movie itself is not really about an American civil war... Again, my point was that the movie makers and pro-Civil War-movie people kept dissing anyone who complained that this civil war movie didn't really explore the civil war concept that much... and that is wrong, because, at the same time, the Civil War producers were trying to capitalize on the civil war concept... it's just not right to try to have it both ways. Hence, the negative reactions
It’s sad how so many of the positive take reviews are essentially “if you didn’t like it as much as me it’s because you watched it wrong. Watch it how I watched it and you will like it.” It’s so dismissive of criticism. Just because somebody doesn’t like the movie doesn’t mean they are coming into it disingenuously.
It's not political as in left versus right. But it does point out that in times of conflict or polarization, even being apolitical is a political statement. But in our country, we have a very hard time not linking politics only to left or right
i think that's what critics are responding to - the rorschach thing only really works if you're not aware that that's what it's doing. but if you get whiff of what the film maker is trying for, it just becomes OBNOXIOUS. it might also come across like garland is just too afraid to say anything. and that's actually not a good look for an artist.
I don’t think he was afraid. It was very apparent. The “bo0gal00 b0ys”, the “Third term President” not wanting to leave the White House, the feminine “painted nails” on the soldiers. There were a lot of cues.
I couldn't disagree with you more. What's wrong with being aware of it? I recognized what it was doing, and it got me thinking about my own relationships to politics and to the politics of others who are close to me. It got me thinking about how we relate to one another, and it got me thinking that, on the ground, while bullets are spraying all around you, no one gives a shit about what to do about taxes. I understand there are deeper, more personal issues at stake in the United States besides taxes, but I think the point still stands. I think that because everyone is coming away from Civil War with a slightly different interpretation speaks to the power of the film.
"Civil War is a Rorschach" - Brilliant take!
I like how people freak out about this not being a left versus right but a people versus government setting.
Also that flag bomber scene goes super hard.
Finally! A review that gets what the movie was about. I’ve seen so many reviews and it’s primarily been political leaning. I saw the movie with my wife last night.
As a journalist, I’ve got to say the boutique scene reminded me of those times where we have to take our journalistic ‘clothes’ / ‘persona’ off and remind ourselves to enjoy life and care for ourselves, especially if we’re on assignment or just filed a story that is emotionally taxing
And that can be surprisingly hard to do.
cringe, does it remind you how "journalism" is a zombie career because of the internet?
This is a great discussion of a very nuanced film. Glad to have found y’all
Great chat! Feels like so many people wanted this to be some preachy social satire in the vein of "Don't Look Up" and that was a fear I had going in so I came out of it pleasantly surprised it delivered something nuanced and with visuals that are now seared into my brain
People saying it's apolitical are not paying attention. It's anti-fascist, so it doesn't fit neatly into the "left/right" perceptions of today. But that's because Trump is passing as a "right/conservative", which Ann Coulter has been calling him out on. It's political alright, but not in a "left/right" sense. Its in a "Democracy/Authoritarian" sense.
Cringe
people saying it's cowardly for not picking a side is the same as people calling monkey man Indian John wick 😭
Its especially funny since it's a movie that shows how dividing into sides in a country called the United States is a complete paradox and will only lead to innocent deaths all over
It definitely picked a side.
From another journalist, PTSD is a growing discussion in the field. Even when we aren't in war zones, we can be covering stories where people are having the worst day of their lives. Look at documentaries about the Joplin, Mo., tornado. Yes, they were doing their jobs, but it was their home as well. At least one reporter broke down in tears in camera. His family was safe, but he was also seeing his community in pain. That takes a toll, especially long term.
Watched a bunch of analysis videos weeks ago and your video just hit my feed. You guys said what very few others managed to pin down. Great work!
Thanks for watching!
Nice! Needed a bit of critical thinking. A couple of reviewers mentioned that the trailer gave the wrong impression of what the movie really is - so that distorts the idea of the Rorschach / projective device
FYI, Dredd was completed before The Raid but was just released afterwards.
Great talk. Thanks! About president Offerman. He did give somewhat a clean Steve Bannon... 🙂
He does give that vibe, right? And he's the opposite of Bannon in reality.
I want to go see the film again. The most frustrating criticisms I've heard is that the film doesn't say anything completely ignoring the fact that it's all about asking questions and reminding people they should fight their fantasy of war and how they think it would go.
This is the kind of dialogue that I was looking for. Well done. 💯👌🏾
they cast Nick Offerman, who has a certain iconography... maybe that's part of why people are thinking of a certain president or party?
Also the speech something along the lines of “ the greatest victory ever in the history of victories”
Theres different things you can latch onto but its not overt
Great discussion, thank you. I loved the movie. Haunting, yet beautiful. My favorite scenes were the sniper scene and the drive through the fire forest!
I m from Italy so I don't get all you say. But I agree with Rorschach theory. A great art director don't forget political "coherence" so if the movie it s not politicsl coherent is cause Garland want to get the audience attention on other elements. In my opinion this movie is the opposite of "Stagecoach". In that old movie many different characters symbolizing different perspectives gather to fight a common enemy. In Garland's movie is just division and fracture the main element.
Definitely THE BEST OF 2024 so far (even above FURIOSA: A MAD MAX SAGA).
Anyone figure out the pink, blue, and green paint in the first firefight, and also in the sniper scene?
I watched the SXSW interview w Garland he says the film is absolutely political and that there is all the info on screen to answer the questions but it’s not spoon fed in dialogue.
I'm also an professional journalist and I can tell you journalism HAS NEVER been a political and saying that the "best kind" is a political is laughable. Deciding on what to cover and how it's covered is political itself. Just look at the Palestine-Isriel war or NATO bombing Yugoslavia as examples!
So true. That was what I wanted to say. Very few jobs are fully apolitical and ahistorical. What you chose to photograph ( or choosing to photograph at all) is political. That does not mean it is bad, it just means the journalist is shaped as we all are by our personal and collective history.
Did you mean apolitical? Sorry, just tying to understand. You put it twice so not sure if that’s what you meant.
Another journalist, and you're right. We're human. We have perspectives and they inform how we cover things. It's also important we be honest and upfront about it and making sure we communicate verifiable facts and communicate the story as honestly as we can. And most of us, especially down on the ground level work towards that goal every day.
It is true that there is no way to avoid politics but it is also true that the best journalists do not use loaded, ideological, or moralistic words in their coverage and instead report cold facts. They make sure to offer everyone they are covering the chance to comment and they do not make assumptions or report something as fact unless it can be fully verified, even if people complain that they need to take sides.
The “journalist” who doesn’t know how to spell “apolitical.” Eye roll
I think the movie was fine. But you can't blame people who expected a movie about the division of the country leading to civil war and commenting on the issues
The whole marketing was about it being a Civil War in America and they put out maps of the diffrent factions and stuff. I think if you market it as a film about war journalism and just make it a "normal" war on american soil the backlash would be much smaller. But the marketing and the title suggests this is a different movie than it actually is.
Super good movie Jessie was bad ass spooky He was so good .
From interview with the film director.. he said that they avoided the movie to represent which side is whom. Both warring parties wear the same military uniform, not mentioning about R or D, Blue or Red.. None..
The context of the movie is that Southern States in which they used TX and CA were already taken over by the South American countries... where they clearly depict Pres in the DC is the last standing old United States. Western Front aka WF are basically rebellions and do not represent the 'old' USofA. Which that scene the ragtag republic sympathizers guy in Elton John shades - asked a very simple question... "where are you from? Oh HongKong... thats China!" boo, go meet Jesus on the spot. The movie does not mention anything about South American invaders.. Russians, nor any Middle Eastern war of today... But that if you said 'China'... Kapow you are dead!
It not even about the evil 'Communist' China.. the guy got shot... is not at war.. he does not have any weapons on him.. he is a journalist like any color skins of the planet earth.
SO... movie director ploy is very clear. He is is anti-black, mocks LGBTQ and hates anything about China.
-- That's the whole message of the movie --
That’s reaching a bit much
You sound completely off your meds
Plemons played a militia member
Yeah that’s what I thought too - he was chilling
I thought he was a soldier but they took off their patches before committing a war crime. Like Russian “Little Green Men”.
Good journalism provides context. It doesn’t just say “here is war, here is violence.” It tells you why that violence matters and what got us to that point so we never reach it again. Just showing destruction with no context is bad journalism and bad media.
"I implore you. I promise you." I find these shocking words for a critic to be saying. I think your determination to claim this movie is apolitical is a deep agenda to allow Pro-Left, Pro-Blue, Pro-Democat Political Speech to be categorized as apolitical. An astonishing agenda for a Critic IMHO. Thank you nonetheless for the content - I was fully engaged by your discussion.
I know this film was trying to be neutral because thats what journalists are supposed to be so people wanting this to fulfill some fantasy of being right is out of pocket. However I can see the necessity of establishing what the sides are in the movie. Not so it can stear in the "right" direction but just to flesh out the world. The scene where the sniper boils everything down to kill or be killed is great but I feel like knowing the motivations of each side involved would have been a great addition.
I feel like fleshing out the sides would completely undermine the point of the movie
@@Oldhandlewasabitcringe Genuine question, how exactly would it hwve done that?
@@blaze14ZX The movie is a warning to the extreme elements of both sides of the political spectrum where talk of political violence is increasingly brought up.
The movie is telling these people, this is what you want? Are you sure? This? It doesn’t matter what your goals or motivations are, what side you are on, your politics don’t matter, this is the cost of civil war.
If highly partisan people were able to latch onto one side or the other the movie becomes an argument about “well side X had a point and maybe war crime Y was justified, and well side Z are the good guys clearly
they called it "Civil War"... yet made a movie about journalists... they could have/should have used a different title.
how are you going to tell them what title they should have used? what did you title your last film?
@@gigatears2574 my point is if you don't want people obsessing on the "civil war" part, then don't call the movie Civil War.
And the title of a movie is fair game for criticism, just as the movie itself is... Whether someone has made a movie or not is irrelevant.
But it is a movie about a civil war set in a civil war. Im pretty sure the title is accurate
@@Oldhandlewasabitcringe the title and marketing were NOT accurate... the movie is set during some fictional civil war in America, but the movie itself is not really about an American civil war...
Again, my point was that the movie makers and pro-Civil War-movie people kept dissing anyone who complained that this civil war movie didn't really explore the civil war concept that much... and that is wrong, because, at the same time, the Civil War producers were trying to capitalize on the civil war concept...
it's just not right to try to have it both ways. Hence, the negative reactions
It’s sad how so many of the positive take reviews are essentially “if you didn’t like it as much as me it’s because you watched it wrong. Watch it how I watched it and you will like it.” It’s so dismissive of criticism. Just because somebody doesn’t like the movie doesn’t mean they are coming into it disingenuously.
The movie was definitely NOT apolitical. I don’t think you guys are aware about US politics.
It's not political as in left versus right. But it does point out that in times of conflict or polarization, even being apolitical is a political statement.
But in our country, we have a very hard time not linking politics only to left or right
I honestly thought the writing was cringe. The action scenes were cool but everything else was somewhat lame.
Not really an analysis or a true reading...
i think that's what critics are responding to - the rorschach thing only really works if you're not aware that that's what it's doing. but if you get whiff of what the film maker is trying for, it just becomes OBNOXIOUS. it might also come across like garland is just too afraid to say anything. and that's actually not a good look for an artist.
I don’t think he was afraid. It was very apparent. The “bo0gal00 b0ys”, the “Third term President” not wanting to leave the White House, the feminine “painted nails” on the soldiers. There were a lot of cues.
I couldn't disagree with you more. What's wrong with being aware of it? I recognized what it was doing, and it got me thinking about my own relationships to politics and to the politics of others who are close to me. It got me thinking about how we relate to one another, and it got me thinking that, on the ground, while bullets are spraying all around you, no one gives a shit about what to do about taxes. I understand there are deeper, more personal issues at stake in the United States besides taxes, but I think the point still stands. I think that because everyone is coming away from Civil War with a slightly different interpretation speaks to the power of the film.
@@QuietExplorationsand you are, evidently, self-aware. How many of our fellow Americans can we say that about?