In theaters April 12.
THE PLOT:
Seasoned war photographer Lee (Kirsten Dunst) and journalist Joel (Wagner Moura) are covering the civil war that has upended America. While in New York to cover protests, Lee encounters freelance photographer Jesse (Cailee Spaeny) who wants to follow in Lee’s footsteps.
Heading south to D.C. to beat the rebel WF (Western Forces), Lee, Joel, Jesse, and Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson) head south into a deeply divided America.
What they will find is both heartbreaking and eye-opening.
KENT’S TAKE:
“Civil War” is the latest film from writer/director Alex Garland (“Ex Machina,” “28 Days Later,” “Annihilation”) and takes audiences into the heart of darkness – a modern American civil war.
Lee and Joel are seasoned war journalists who don’t blink an eye standing among dead bodies, blood, and gore. The disassociation with their subjects allows them to document the horrors without taking an emotional toll, but setting aside your emotions builds pressure on the system.
The President (Nick Offerman) practices his speech talking of near victory as the walls close in and begin to crumble around him. He has remained in office for a third term and disbanded the FBI – this is certainly a dystopian America.
Garland insists on bringing audiences into this war. We are peppered with loud, echoing gunfire as it reverberates off concrete pylons, and bullets embedding in concrete pillars that were once seen as stylish. Now they are simply a barrier between life and death. The violence is very graphic, but that is what Garland wants, he longs to bring the war to us, not allow us to choose whether to participate, nor does he want to romanticize something that is nasty, dirty, bloody, and dreadfully painful. Here, war is pared down to the simplest concept – kill or be killed. U.S. currency is worthless and only Canadian dollars hold value. Looters hang from car washes and allegiances are called into question.
This film is well-paced with viewers spending all 1 hour 49-minutes of running time on the edge of their seats. This narrative is skillfully directed offering style and tight shots that force audiences into a scene. The cinematography is gorgeous and offers beauty even in the throes of war. He mixes the beauty and the bloodshed as Lee and company traverse the east coast. Tranquil lakes still glisten with warming sunlight, roads still wind through dense green forests and there are still a few remaining Main Street Americas – but each is tainted by this war. Some roads are littered with abandoned cars and trash while those gingerbread Main Streets have snipers on their roofs.
This is an extreme visual representation of what has been going on in the U.S. politically and can be interpreted as an accusation of both sides of the political fence. Although Garland has stated that this was not meant to have a political leaning, it’s not difficult to imagine which side is imagined as having the dictator. Ultimately, his message of who loses in any war (political or actual) is on target – the citizens. This film shows the destruction of the innocent as individuals and a country– it/we are forever changed.
Some Americans stick their heads in the sand, others jump into the thick of it. We learn that both Lee’s and Jesse’s parents are acting like the war doesn’t affect them – Isolationism vs. Patriotism. What kind of American are you? – this question is used several ways in the film. Are you with the WF or government? What Garland is also asking is are you an old-world citizen or a new world citizen?
The cast gives strong performances. Jesse Plemons’ disturbing soldier is the pivot point in the film and awakens the beginning of the end. Henderson’s Sammy is the realization that no one can hide from this war – ready or not. Moura’s Joel is the epitome of laughing in the face of death as he deftly pushes, pulls, and drags Jesse into the fray. Spaeny’s Jesse is enthusiastic, frightened, untested, and inexperienced – she is innocent and hungry, she represents the new order being bathed in blood to create a new world. Lee is the old guard, strong and indefatigable, holding steady under pressure . . . until she doesn’t, triggering her downfall. We see a distinct dichotomy between these journalists and their readers – driving lonely, empty roads in glorious sunshine while many citizens in the cities suffer. As soon as they let their guard down, they pay a terrible price. When Lee allows her disassociation to crumble and her emotions to surface, she puts herself in jeopardy. The war has come to roost upon their shoulders as they are now a part of it.
The music is odd and doesn’t seem to fit the situation, but this is purposeful. Just as the music doesn’t fit our sensibilities, neither does a war with other Americans. Just as those of the old guard don’t appreciate modern music, this flags that maybe we are part of the old guard – a wake-up call to accept the inevitable or suffer the same fate as the President in the film (trust me, it’s grim) . . .
The one disappointment in the film is the predictable ending. As Lee and her cronies arrive in D.C. and into the inner sanctum of this story’s resolution, we all know what is coming, a simple twist could have vaulted this story into the stratosphere of instant classics – it’s close, the predictable climax is the only misfire.
“Civil War” fires the first shot of the summer blockbusters as this stylish and tragic film may become a wakeup call to all of us that we are stronger together than divided.
LYNN'S TAKE:
Unrelentingly grim, the harrowing action film “Civil War” is a provocative look at a nightmarish “What If?” scenario -- and claims to be science fiction as it’s set in the future.
Disturbing real-life events in recent years have stirred up thoughts of a domestic doomsday, a cataclysmic reckoning with armed militias if our country’s structures of power, authority and social norms are subverted.
Projecting a second Civil War without getting too deep into politics, British writer-director Alex Garland has escalated America’s current divisions to envision a ravaged war-torn landscape with refugee camps, resistance fighters, military checkpoints, and violent conflict zones.
He focuses on the press documenting the atrocities in besieged areas, and their struggles to work and survive in a dystopian dictatorship. Those ethics and their costs personally are a key part of the story.
As a professional journalist for 46 years, I found this very raw and realistic film triggering. It ramped up my anxiety from start to finish, so it’s hard for me to separate fact from fiction here.
However, as a film the technical work is first-rate while Garland’s screenplay, meant to be an allegory, is a tad wobbly.
It’s no coincidence that the national release date, April 12, just happens to be the day in 1861 that the first -- and so far, only -- Civil War started. (Note: The film did have its premiere at SXSW on March 14).
This much is true: Actions have consequences. We can all agree on that.
And whether you’re alarmed by seeing a partisan extremist holding an assault rifle and asking what kind of an American are you while he stands next to a mass grave is going to determine how you feel about this hard-hitting but not entirely convincing film.
The primary character is Kirsten Dunst as Lee Smith from Colorado, a bold taciturn war photographer patterned after the famous World War II chronicler Lee Miller, who embedded with the military in Europe, and was among the first in Dachau concentration camp after liberation.
Dunst plays Lee as a hardened risk-taker who eventually shows signs of being weary of all the horror she’s witnessed. Wagner Moura is her more gregarious but still jaded colleague Joel, a reporter for Reuters News Service.
Their dispatches are defining images for a homeland where some folks are pretending it’s not happening. Their next assignment is taking them from New York City 800 miles away to D.C. to interview the president.
With no mention of a name or party affiliation, he is serving his third term and is played with gravitas by Nick Offerman. We do know he abolished the FBI, and a bit of dialogue refers to an 'anti-fa massacre.'
The pair are trying to get to the White House before rebel factions do, and complications arise with the addition of two passengers.
Their professional rival, a grizzled veteran named Sammy from the New York Times, tags along – and he’s played by first-class character actor Stephen McKinley Henderson.
The film’s strength lies in the performances, with Cailee Spaeny a standout as Jessie, a novice photographer whose encounter with her role model Lee leads to her inclusion in the car. Lee is reluctantly forced to take Jessie under her wing, and it's on the job training in a hurry.
Garland prefers to keep a distance instead of emotionally engaging us, as the desensitized journalists are sketched in broad strokes. Fueled by adrenaline, they fearlessly rush into danger while others flee it – because that is what they do.
Garland uses snapshots of their work to demonstrate the impact of visual images in telling a story. Cinematographer Rob Hardy’s vivid work is exceptional as he contrasts the bucolic countryside with the bloody chaos of bombings. Hardy has collaborated with Garland before, on his acclaimed “Ex Machina” and “Annihilation.”
While journalists are notorious for gallows humor, these cynical correspondents go about their jobs with workmanlike precision. Yet, the trauma they witness has changed them – although we don’t get too many details.
That is a frustrating aspect of this film – the lack of specifics, which is intentional, but confusing because it is so vague. I get Garland's point that he’s trying to be sly, but whether he’s lensing the aftermath of apathy or anarchy -- or both -- is unclear.
Several states have alliances, and soldiers from the Western Forces are headed to the capital. Don’t waste time trying to figure out what California, Texas and Florida are up to because you’re not going to find out.
Garland has written some of the best sci-fi films of the new millennium, including “28 Days Later,” “Sunshine” and “Never Let Me Go.”
His films always pack a visceral punch, and for this one, the examples of torture and war crimes are grisly. Just as chilling, though, are glimpses of random weaponized citizens roaming in quaint small towns.
Editor Jake Roberts has done a fine job of plunging us into the darkness and despair of this depiction. The sound work is award-worthy, from the loud bursts of ricocheting bullets to the primal screams you don’t hear.
However, for all its bravura, the film’s needle-drops are puzzling, and are more jarring than appropriate. Ben Salisbury and Geoff Barrow’s odd choices in music don’t seem to fit the action that we’re witnessing.
In the controversy-courting “Civil War,” a Brit gives us an unsettling look at a fractured America without much rhetoric, which could be a clarion call if it wasn’t so detached in its details.
Yet, it's impossible not to be affected in some way by it. He is fueling opinions, that is for sure. Given such an inflammatory subject matter, the post-release debates should be interesting.
(As Harper Lee wrote in "To Kill a Mockingbird": "People generally see what they look for and hear what they listen for." -- Judge Taylor)