Movies usually imagine the future in catastrophic scenarios. Almost always associated with the extinction of humanity or the horror of a devastating catastrophe. Alex Garland, which has done both, this time decides to explore a premise that at first glance seems unlikely, but which the director brings to a grim realism. IN Civil War, The United States faces an internal war that pits citizens against each other.
But unlike similar—and less effective—premise like The Purge Saga, Garland’s film is terrifying in its believable nuances. The country described by the script – also by the film’s author – falls apart in the middle of an explosion that begins with an event that is not narrated. But you don’t have to do thisThe consequences are visible, and the film shows them in all their horror.
If something impresses Civil War, is that the conflict it shows doesn’t seem far-fetched and ends up being caricatured to make it shocking. On the contrary, the film begins with an episode that could take place in any area of the current conflict. In the midst of a protest by a thirsty crowd, an attack occurs. The camera shows the devastation of fear, a situation that quickly spirals out of control. and reflects what is happening – or could be happening – everywhere.
Civil War
Alex Garland talks from a direct and realistic perspective about the possibility of civil war in North America. Without going into moral reasoning, much less going into ethical positions, the film shows the corruption of power and the collapse of the system into disaster. And this is in sequences so believable that they are gripping and horrifyingly detailed.
Journalism, privileged witness
Alex Garland very directly shows the devastation of a lawless nation destroyed by the brutality of violence. In fact, some of the harshest scenes have all the rawness of journalistic reporting. As if trying to record rather than tell, the film spends time examining the reasons why a social catastrophe of such magnitude occurred. It’s all in the pictures. Injured people, burned landscapes, inflammatory speeches. Each image sums up a part about the type of violence the film describes in distant, dispassionate detail.
This is not a random decision. The entire plot falls on the shoulders of Lee Smith (Kirsten Dunst). A photographer who, along with her team, travels across American soil to show what is happening. Civil War Questions immediately arise about whether it is possible to maintain a cool and observant conversation in the story being told. Thanks to this, the plot has several layers of meaning. The plot tries to remain ignorant of what is happening and does not take sides. Just like journalists, which are the central thread of everything that is told on screen.
This is, of course, a risky decision. The film could become a series of violent scenes or seem incoherent due to the lack of emotion. But the director and screenwriter have enough skill to avoid this, turning the conflicts of journalists into witnesses, as well as informers of the truth. And what is the truth? The film is not a sermon and does not contain moral statements. Therefore, the film is limited to showing how Lee and his team cross the country burning from all corners.
No answers to destructive conflict
Another bold decision by Alex Garland is his refusal to explain what led the United States to this situation. There is an insinuation that it all started with a separatist action that included the states of California and Texas, but they do not go into details. Obviously, for the director, information about the context is of less value than traveling through the consequences. This saves you from having to justify yourself or even over-explain what the story is about.
However, Garland does not shy away from expressing certain ideas about what could cause a situation of total collapse. About a president with dictatorial aspirations, played by Nick Offerman (Last of us), the ambitions of different journalists. The film keeps changing in relation to certain modern evils of greed and greed, but avoids talking about ethics and morality.
But what really matters Civil War with any other film about time conflicts in his production. Uncomfortable, hyper-realistic, with fights involving bullets and dirty bombs echoing recent attacks, the film exhibits a recognizable horror. Only in the scenario of an industrialized country witnessing its own fiasco. Gradually, the film, which never ceases to show confrontations between citizens indistinguishable in their goals, makes one point clearer. The evil and fall of humanity as we know it will not be due to an external or external event, but due to the weakness of current political systems. A message splattered in blood that Alex Garland shows in all its brutality.
Source: Hiper Textual
