I think that the politics of the movie are implicit but not *that* implicit. The President is Trump, he seized dictatorial power; the forces resisting him are probably justified (they are slightly "queer-coded" and are sympathetic to the press) but have been so brutalized by the civil war they are likely not an improvement; we are expected to be thrilled when pseudo-Trump is summarily executed but then feel guilty and interrogate our reaction to what we've seen.
The movie just leaves out a bunch of the middle steps that lead from pseudo-Trump being elected to the last stages of the civil war, and with slightly unrealistic literalness it makes the US civil war strongly resemble recent foreign civil wars so that its visual style can mimic press coverage of those wars.
I think the film certainly supports your interpretation, and I will keep it in mind when I revisit the film. I also noticed a strong visual resonance with footage from contemporary civil wars that I've seen on the news. In the film's opening moments, my first thought upon seeing The President was of Donald Trump but I thought less and less about the 1:1 allegory as the film progressed. By the time the film reaches its conclusion, I was so committed to the abstract conflict that my 1:1 interpretation had unraveled. But that was my experience! I think that's one of the best parts about narrative ambiguity and political abstraction, it allows individuals the space to interpret the text and developing a reading of the film based on subjective perceptions. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Secret Squirrel!
You're right that the President isn't a 1:1 Trump allegory, he's more like Turmp meets Saddam / Milošević. Trump would have said "the greatest victory in the history of victories," not the more restrained lines they give Nick Offerman.
But the movie doesn't give a millimeter to the possibility that the President might actually be in the right, or even that a misinformed person might *believe* the President was in the right. The politics of the Western Forces are opaque, but we hear the case against the President (which is that he did all the things liberals worry Trump wants to do: stole an unconstitutional extra term, dissolved the FBI and used military force against his political opponents) directly from the fearlessly objective journalists.
I'd have loved it if, in an isolated scene, they'd raised the possibility that actually the President is on the side of democracy, that the claim he's authoritarian is propaganda, like the Russians saying Zelenskyy is a Nazi. Instead there isn't even a fanatical baddie who gets to say that the President violated the Constitution because he stands for America and that the Western Forces are controlled by China.
Skylar--this is such a perceptive commentary on Civil War, which I just saw yesterday. I haven't read Sontag's essay before, so that's a fresh lens on the subject of war photography. I'll need to read the whole essay soon. It seems to me that most reviews are ignoring the film's true subject: the role of the conflict photojournalist and the trauma/ethics associated with their work (both in front of and behind their cameras). I found the film as disturbing as you did and agree that it's political -- not in terms of the cause of the civil war or its different ways of fighting -- but in terms of what we are to make of the images these photojournalists take and what they ask us to do in response to them.
The real question, it seems to me, is can these photojournalists justify the risks they take and the violence that they feed off of. It's important that Garland stops every now and then to show them at rest or absorbing the beauty of nature and human life amid even the worst carnage. They do have souls and they do suffer (each of the main journalists portrayed here suffer a breakdown of sorts at various points of the film), even as they carry on at all costs. When Moura's character says the violence is giving him a hard-on, it's the surface, macho posing we sometimes associate with these kinds of vultures, but underneath that we can see the toll it takes on him until he's is consumed with grief and terror (the image of him screaming silently as the military trucks roll by is particularly searing).
On a separate note, I want to highlight how good Cailee Spaeny is in her role as the fledging photojournalist. Spaeny has a presence and sweetness (and vulnerability) that makes me excited for her future as an actress. I haven't seen Priscilla yet, but I was impressed with her work with Dunst throughout the film.
Thank you so much for your kind words! I think ethical questions surrounding war journalism are the parts of Civil War that I personally find most compelling. I would love to discuss them further when we have the chance.
As you mentioned, each character's different relationships to their work and war form the foundation of their character, all of which is directly tied to the broader thematic content. I think it is such an effective and efficient way to approach characterization.
I wasn't taken by Priscilla, but I also thought Spaeny's performance was excellent in Civil War. Her vulnerability never teetered into naivety and she avoids all the pitfalls of the "plucky kid in-over-their-head" archetype. She's not a helpless damsel. As the relative newcomer, I thought she was the best vessel for audience identification. She is inexperienced but intelligent and earnest and, I think, reflects Garland's disposition towards prospective viewers.
I think that the politics of the movie are implicit but not *that* implicit. The President is Trump, he seized dictatorial power; the forces resisting him are probably justified (they are slightly "queer-coded" and are sympathetic to the press) but have been so brutalized by the civil war they are likely not an improvement; we are expected to be thrilled when pseudo-Trump is summarily executed but then feel guilty and interrogate our reaction to what we've seen.
The movie just leaves out a bunch of the middle steps that lead from pseudo-Trump being elected to the last stages of the civil war, and with slightly unrealistic literalness it makes the US civil war strongly resemble recent foreign civil wars so that its visual style can mimic press coverage of those wars.
I think the film certainly supports your interpretation, and I will keep it in mind when I revisit the film. I also noticed a strong visual resonance with footage from contemporary civil wars that I've seen on the news. In the film's opening moments, my first thought upon seeing The President was of Donald Trump but I thought less and less about the 1:1 allegory as the film progressed. By the time the film reaches its conclusion, I was so committed to the abstract conflict that my 1:1 interpretation had unraveled. But that was my experience! I think that's one of the best parts about narrative ambiguity and political abstraction, it allows individuals the space to interpret the text and developing a reading of the film based on subjective perceptions. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Secret Squirrel!
You're right that the President isn't a 1:1 Trump allegory, he's more like Turmp meets Saddam / Milošević. Trump would have said "the greatest victory in the history of victories," not the more restrained lines they give Nick Offerman.
But the movie doesn't give a millimeter to the possibility that the President might actually be in the right, or even that a misinformed person might *believe* the President was in the right. The politics of the Western Forces are opaque, but we hear the case against the President (which is that he did all the things liberals worry Trump wants to do: stole an unconstitutional extra term, dissolved the FBI and used military force against his political opponents) directly from the fearlessly objective journalists.
I'd have loved it if, in an isolated scene, they'd raised the possibility that actually the President is on the side of democracy, that the claim he's authoritarian is propaganda, like the Russians saying Zelenskyy is a Nazi. Instead there isn't even a fanatical baddie who gets to say that the President violated the Constitution because he stands for America and that the Western Forces are controlled by China.
Skylar--this is such a perceptive commentary on Civil War, which I just saw yesterday. I haven't read Sontag's essay before, so that's a fresh lens on the subject of war photography. I'll need to read the whole essay soon. It seems to me that most reviews are ignoring the film's true subject: the role of the conflict photojournalist and the trauma/ethics associated with their work (both in front of and behind their cameras). I found the film as disturbing as you did and agree that it's political -- not in terms of the cause of the civil war or its different ways of fighting -- but in terms of what we are to make of the images these photojournalists take and what they ask us to do in response to them.
The real question, it seems to me, is can these photojournalists justify the risks they take and the violence that they feed off of. It's important that Garland stops every now and then to show them at rest or absorbing the beauty of nature and human life amid even the worst carnage. They do have souls and they do suffer (each of the main journalists portrayed here suffer a breakdown of sorts at various points of the film), even as they carry on at all costs. When Moura's character says the violence is giving him a hard-on, it's the surface, macho posing we sometimes associate with these kinds of vultures, but underneath that we can see the toll it takes on him until he's is consumed with grief and terror (the image of him screaming silently as the military trucks roll by is particularly searing).
On a separate note, I want to highlight how good Cailee Spaeny is in her role as the fledging photojournalist. Spaeny has a presence and sweetness (and vulnerability) that makes me excited for her future as an actress. I haven't seen Priscilla yet, but I was impressed with her work with Dunst throughout the film.
Thank you so much for your kind words! I think ethical questions surrounding war journalism are the parts of Civil War that I personally find most compelling. I would love to discuss them further when we have the chance.
As you mentioned, each character's different relationships to their work and war form the foundation of their character, all of which is directly tied to the broader thematic content. I think it is such an effective and efficient way to approach characterization.
I wasn't taken by Priscilla, but I also thought Spaeny's performance was excellent in Civil War. Her vulnerability never teetered into naivety and she avoids all the pitfalls of the "plucky kid in-over-their-head" archetype. She's not a helpless damsel. As the relative newcomer, I thought she was the best vessel for audience identification. She is inexperienced but intelligent and earnest and, I think, reflects Garland's disposition towards prospective viewers.