When you first hear of a movie whose premise revolves around a contemporary U.S. civil war, some initial skepticism would be warranted.
When you hear that it comes as the brainchild of infamously-spotty writer and director Alex Garland — riding in fresh off his widely-panned horror-commentary bluntly titled “Men” — you would be justified in heaping on several more grains of salt.
When you remember that the movie is releasing in an election year — one marked by an extreme rise in political polarization — you might conclude that you should just throw up your hands and hunker down for an all-hell-breaks-loose, pedal-to-the-medal disaster of a film.
Somehow, though, through what can only be described as sheer force of will, Garland’s “Civil War” is far from the reactionary, achingly watered-down dreck that many — myself included — were expecting.
Instead, what comes through is a smart, often savvy examination of brutality and the act of bearing witness to trauma which acts in concert with a thrilling and engaging story. It’s all the more disappointing, then, that at the foundation of its effective message is an ultimately unsustainable, borderline-exploitative premise that fundamentally sours an otherwise-successful enterprise.
The film’s story centers on a group of journalists, led by veteran photographer Lee (Kirsten Dunst) and rounded out by reporters Joel and Sammy (Wagner Moura and Stephen McKinley Henderson). An eager teenage photographer, Jessie (Cailee Spaeny), tags along as the group makes the dangerous journey toward the frontlines of the conflict in Washington, D.C.
There is certainly a case to be made that “Civil War” leans too hard into the pulpy, sadistic fun that its premise allows for rather than grappling more meaningfully with the new reality of this fractured nation. The film makes it unambiguously clear how willing it is to exploit the shock value created by seeing many national hallmarks draped in smoke and camo-covered ruin, and it certainly knows how to keep you on the edge of your seat, for better or for worse.
At the same time, though, the way that the film arranges its cast of characters and draws upon their various experiences and attitudes toward conflict ultimately vindicates much of its cheap thrill-seeking.
As the story steers into the third act, the cold pleasure derived from the gory — and it is gory — spectacle quickly turns to pain. With sharp, carefully-concentrated blows, the film deals back its initial frivolity and punishes both the characters and the viewer for deluding themselves into finding enjoyment in such a hellscape in the first place.
The cast plays no small part in this; Dunst and Moura both add weight to every scene and showcase why they’ve been entrusted with such heavy material, and I would be remiss not to laud Jesse Plemons’ standout role in a heart-stopping one-off scene, as well.
Yet for all of the unexpectedly self-aware emotional and thematic “oomph” Garland offers, one can’t quite shake the feeling that there’s something deeply rotten about “Civil War,” even as everything feels like it should be sliding into place.
This is caused in no small part by the elephant — or donkey — in the room, or lack thereof; as improbable as it may seem, this is a largely apolitical film.
While much of A24’s flashy marketing may harp on the mystifying and oh-so-tweetable division within the dystopian nation — attendees of my early screening were given cards emblazoned with the to-the-point zinger: “What kind of American are you?” — in practice, the film provides shockingly little differentiation between the multiple sides’ ideologies.
Garland makes no effort to establish any real, grounding substance for the film’s titular conflict. Ideas about politicians’ abuse of power, corporate collapse, regional divides, supply chain issues and inflation are all gestured at and quickly tossed away, puppetted in front of viewers to create the illusion of complexity where none actually exists.
Its story wants you to believe that it’s set in the context of some vast, multi-faceted conflict while simultaneously picking and choosing its in-universe logic as it goes along to garner the biggest reaction in any given scene. In a film whose most haunting moments come from characters’ blinding and misguided obsession with capturing a historic moment rather than preserving real human life, The desire of “Civil War” to have its guns and shoot them too ultimately comes across as nothing short of hypocritical and irresponsible on the part of the filmmakers.
It would be an understatement to say that one’s mileage may vary with this film. For as much as I was taken by its impressive transformation of a sleazy premise into something genuine and emotionally affecting, the film feels ironically at war with itself. In the end, its most memorable effect is to beg the question of whether such a haphazard, overtly fictionalized story could ever truly capture something insightful and relevant to today’s political climate in the first place.
Those looking for an exciting, one-of-a-kind moviegoing experience will find a lot to love here; anyone searching for meaningful and well-realized political work, though, would likely be better served by the fourscore and seven better options available elsewhere.
“Civil War” releases in theaters on Friday, April 12, 2024.
Kevin Lynch can be reached at lync1832@stthomas.edu.