Controversial ‘Civil War’ movie includes reference to ‘Portland Maoists’

At a time when the United States is suffering from extreme political, social and cultural divides, it’s surprising that the number-one movie for the past two weekends has been “Civil War,” a dystopian vision of America at war with itself.

But that’s just what has happened, as The Hollywood Reporter and other sources note that “Civil War” was the box-office champion this past weekend, marking two weeks in the row the film has held the top spot. In its second weekend, according to the Hollywood Reporter, “Civil War” took in $11 million, bringing its domestic total to $45 million.

The movie, from British writer-director Alex Garland (”Ex Machina,” “Annihilation”), follows a group of journalists as they travel from New York City to Washington, D.C. The time isn’t specified, but it looks like the present or the very near future.

Areas of America have turned into a war zone, with an authoritarian president (played by Nick Offerman) and government forces locked into battle with states such as California and Texas — which have seceded from the Union — and hostilities breaking out everywhere from bombed-out cities to vigilante-ruled rural areas.

While there’s much to alarm and upset viewers in the film, Portlanders are particularly likely to notice a comment made by Joel (Wagner Moura), a reporter who’s working with Lee (Kirsten Dunst), a photojournalist with extensive experience covering wars around the world.

Early in the film, Joel and Lee are hanging out at a hotel where journalists gather. As they talk, Joel discusses the chaotic nature of the country and its conflicts. “West Coast forces, (expletive) Portland Maoists— it’s all the same,” he says.

There’s no added context, so viewers don’t necessarily know why Joel references “Portland Maoists.” It’s not clear if this relates to well-publicized protests and activist movements in Portland, though that’s at least implied.

Other moments in the film may also resonate with locals. During a moment of respite, the young, aspiring photojournalist Jessie (Cailee Spaeny), talks to her idol, Lee, and mentions how Lee’s accomplishments include taking a legendary photo of “the Antifa Massacre.”

Viewers have no idea what that was, and whether it refers to anti-fascist, or antifa, activists committing a massacre, or being massacred.

Such vague allusions align with the fact that, though “Civil War” includes scenes of graphic violence and carnage, Garland doesn’t provide any explanation for how this conflict came about.

In an interview with The New York Times, Garland said, “I think civil war is just an extension of a situation,” adding, “that situation is polarization and the lack of limiting forces on polarization.”

In response to a question about why he chose to omit details in the film about the civil war, the politics of those involved, and why he didn’t make the film about a clash between liberals and conservatives, Garland said, “Then it would be an issue that only related to this country, but it’s not. You can see it right now playing out in Israel. You can see it happening in Asia, in South America, Europe; you can see it in my own country. Now, if one is talking about polarization, extremism, the Fourth Estate, all of those things, would it be wise to make a Republican-Democrat conversation that immediately shuts down the other half? Would it even be true? It can’t be entirely true, because otherwise it wouldn’t apply to all these other countries. Now, I understand why people want it to be like that for exactly the reason that some of these news organizations have been so successful, which is that if you preach to the choir, the choir digs it.”

Garland’s approach has drawn pushback from some quarters. In The New Yorker, for example, Andrew Marantz writes that “‘Civil War’ remains resolutely incurious about what might cause a contemporary civil war in America — and thus how one might be prevented. (To oppose a hypothetical conflict without confronting the conditions that could ignite it is a bit like claiming to oppose mass incarceration while deliberately avoiding questions about crime, policing, poverty, psychology, judges, and laws.)”

On the other hand, writing In The Hollywood Reporter, Richard Newby argues that “It’s this exploration of death or evolution, within the framework of a highly politicized time in America and an election year no less, that makes ‘Civil War’ necessary.”

The film, Newby writes, “washes us, and its central characters, in discomfort with no warning, no invitation to look away, and with no tribe to cling to and tell us what’s right and what’s wrong. ‘Civil War’ is an abrasive and uncomfortable film, not because it fully subscribes to any particular ideology, but because it doesn’t — and we hate not having clearly defined sides to root for or against or media that doesn’t perfectly align with our worldview so we can walk out of the theater confidently knowing we’re a good person.”

Despite — or because of — its lack of partisan viewpoints, “Civil War” has been doing strong business in both conservative and liberal areas. As an article in The New York Times says, “The opaque politics have helped the movie attract an audience that bridges political divides. Exit interviews conducted for A24, the studio that produced the movie, found that half of moviegoers identified as ‘liberal’ and half as ‘conservative,’ according to a person with knowledge of the film’s performance in various markets.”

The article goes on to say that “The film outperformed expectations in traditionally conservative markets like Oklahoma City and Colorado Springs, as well as more liberal ones like Portland, Ore. In Phoenix and Dallas, a majority of filmgoers identified as moderate or conservative. The top reason viewers cited for seeing the movie was not an interest in independent cinema or action films but the ‘political dystopian story line.’”

In yet another example of conversations stirred up by the film, the end credits of “Civil War” include acknowledgements of some sources of archival footage, including the Associated Press, Getty and Andy Ngo, the controversial conservative writer who, when he lived in Portland, covered protests here, and has gone on to gain both supporters and fierce critics.

— Kristi Turnquist covers features and entertainment. Reach her at 503-221-8227, kturnquist@oregonian.com or @Kristiturnquist

Our journalism needs your support. Please become a subscriber today at OregonLive.com/subscribe