“Civil War” May Not Be In Your Face, But It Is In Our Moment

Civil War folds a tremendous human drama into its thin, vague politics -  Polygon

For years the annual South by Southwest arts and tech festival in Austin, Texas has been a kind of marketing launch pad for music and films … and media “elites” asserting their influencer status. The hype this congregation can create is pretty impressive.

At the top of the list of the “most hyped and hyper-ventilated over” at this year’s SXSW was the new film, “Civil War”, which I finally got around to seeing last night.

If you follow news and culture at all you know that “Civil War” imagines a modern day USA in all out violent conflict between at least two factions. In the film the focus is on a small group of journalists looping through the eastern seaboard countryside. Leaving a war torn New York and looking for a back way in to Washington D.C., where they tell us they plan to interview the President. Kirsten Dunst is the lead, playing a hardened war photographer.

As they are so often wont to do, those at the levers of the hype machine — declared “Civil War” “a masterpiece!”. I’m pretty sure this is the same crowd constantly declaring every new pop song, old building and pricey hand bag “iconic”. (For me, the constant over-use of “iconic” has gotten so bad it’s like someone hammering a gong next to my head every time I hear it.)

I’m not here to say “Civil War” is bad. It’s not. It’s quite a good film, and thoroughly admirable in giving life to the nightmare imaginings of quite a few Americans. But, please people. This is not “8 1/2” or “2001” or “Lawrence of Arabia.” What it is is a very well crafted piece of speculative fiction with an umbilical attachment to our 2024 zeitgeist.

The film’s creator, writer-director Alex Garland, (his earlier film, “Ex Machina”, about a Peter Thiele-like tech billionaire who has created a sentient robot in his New Zealand-y forest hideaway is excellent, and bit closer to a “masterpiece”), is quite canny about the set-up for his film. While the sitting President, played by Nick Offerma, is clearly a thuggish autocrat, serving a third term and demagoguing about “restoring America … “, the film plays with little other sense of who is “right” and who is “wrong”.

Perhaps its for this reason that audiences after screenings this past week in Texas and other red areas were not offended by what they watched, suggesting they did not see themselves in Offerman’s Trump-like character or his supporters, several of whom Dunst and her crew encounter on their way to DC.

How any MAGA cultist fails to see a full Trump Part Deux future in Offerman and “Civil War” is beyond my ability to understand. But then as I say, Garland’s construction is canny in the way he doesn’t rub anyone’s nose in ham-fisted ideological soliloquies or red meat antagonisms. That, and as we all know, MAGA America is not exactly known for its grasp of nuance.

Part of Garland’s plan for avoiding “in your face” partisan antagonism lies in the decision to make his lead characters journalists. Professionals doing a job. People out there just “getting the story” and letting audiences back home “decide.” The characters’ entrenched apoliticism has apparently bothered some lefty/blue audiences, who find the characters unsympathetic to what’s going on around them.Never mind that Dunst and her crew suffer terribly at the hands of various combatants, most notably Dunst’s real-life husband, Jesse Plemons, playing a, dare I say?, highly recognizable modern American “type.”

Civil War' Isn't as Scary as Modern America

What’s perhaps most admirable about the film, which as I say is very well staged and acted (with another excellent sound design, BTW), is that it can’t help but engender a conversation about how close we could be to this sort of open warfare in real modern American life?

As I watched, I couldn’t help but ask myself something I think about perhaps too much. Namely, what exactly will my response be if Donald Trump were to suffer yet another substantial popular vote defeat and be elected (again) thanks to the Electoral College. The college being a wildly anachronistic device sustained primarily by right-wing politicians and judges that is 80 years older and arguablyt even less relevant to modern America than the much-mocked 1864 abortion ban recently held up as standing law by the same type of political crowd in Arizona.

Worse, what if this next election is riddled with nefarious activity by Russia or whoever, and then subjected to the kind of blocking and delaying tactics imagined by Trump legal advisor John Eastman, substituting state legislatures, like Arizona’s and Wisconsin’s, for the popular vote of their people?

At my advanced age and obvious decrepitude I’d have to think twice about smearing camo makeup on my face and learning how to fire an AR-15, but I seriously … and I do mean seriously … suspect tens of thousands of people younger and equally outraged Americans will say, in effect, “No fucking way!”

And at that point “Civil War” becomes something more than speculative fiction.

9 thoughts on ““Civil War” May Not Be In Your Face, But It Is In Our Moment

  1. I am so worried about the upcoming election! There are a lot of variables that make a Trump Presidency more possible than I would have ever guessed a year ago. Brian, are you feeling positive about Robert Reich’s push w/ the National Popular Vote Compact? I am afraid it is too late now to move this, but what are your thoughts about him and his work in this regard?

    • Hi, Mary. And congratulations on 40 years. You are what they call, “indomitable.” Right now the Compact has 209 of the 270 votes needed to become law and effectively do away with the Electoral College. Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina and Wisconsin would push it over the top. But legisatures in several of those states are still heavily gerrymandered. So I doubt anything will happen/improve for several more cycles to come.

  2. My son-in-law, a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, tells me I shouldn’t worry about another civil war. Some isolated flareups, perhaps, but no “war.” He says the out of shape MAGA yahoos have no idea how to mount a multi-front war plan and, even if they did, don’t have the energy or patience to sustain it.

    • This may well be true. Many of the MAGA warriors I see would have a hard time pushing back from the Golden Corral all-you-can-eat buffet.

  3. It seems like they narrowly structured the story around neutral photojournalists to avoid discussion of the roots of the conflict and cause of the combatants. I wonder if that was done more for commercial reasons (i.e. staying neutral about the conflict and the combatants doesn’t offend red or blue ticket buyers…so they make more at the box office) or more altruistic reasons (i.e. they wanted to focus more on ‘war is hell and to be avoided’ because they think that’s what both sides need to hear…and making the film less than neutral would have caused roughly half the country to tune out that “bloody civil war is to be avoided at all costs” message).

    I also hated the glorification, or at least normalization, of journalists refusing to have a viewpoint about what presumably was an authoritarianism v. democracy conflict. With authoritarianism on the doorstep, that kind of journalism could be dangerous.

    The film was worth my time and cash dollars, but I personally would have liked even a brief description of the genesis of the conflict and a point of view about American authoritarianism. Those things felt conspicuous by their absence.

    • I fully agree. I’ve been looking for some kind discussion with the director and his producers at A24 — one of Hollywood’s “hot and hip” companies. It has the biggest budget they’ve ever given to a film and I have to think they strategized how best to avoid a culture war boycott. As I say, the authoritarian actions of the President were clear enough to me. But through the middle section the good guys and the bad guys kinda blurred … until we got to the Jesse Plemons scene. Would I have put a finer point on the Trump-ish characteristics of the existing White House and its supporters? Sure. But that’s just one reason why no one’s giving me $50 million to make a movie.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.