Civil War returns, but only on screens

What would happen if a civil war broke out in today's America? 

That's the question that has been posed by A24's latest film, 'Civil War'. At a time of a deeply polarised and contentious political landscape in the United States, the movie, directed by Alex Garland, depicts such an imagined landscape. 

In the backdrop of real-world events such as the ongoing legal battles of former President Donald Trump, his conviction on 34 counts of falsified business records, and increasing factionalism in US politics, watching a future civil war on screen has never been so hauntingly real.  
Setting and premise

'Civil War' is set in a dystopian version of the United States, where Nick Offerman plays a generic strongman president who goes rogue and disobeys the United States Constitution, leading to the formation of militias and a succession crisis. 

The Western Forces of Texas and California have chosen to bear arms under a new flag to preserve the true identity of the US (sounds familiar?) and a civil war ensues.

The film, set in the near future, paints a vivid picture of a deeply divided and violent nation. Kirsten Dunst leads the cast as Lee Smith, a photojournalist, accompanied by three other journalists travelling from New York to Washington DC, hoping to interview the president before rebel forces from Texas and California reach the White House. 

The story is a harrowing exploration of humanity—or the lack thereof. It depicts a broken nation, where rules and decency no longer exist.

Themes and execution

Garland does not shy away from showing the grim realities of war, but he avoids providing clear-cut answers or taking a definitive political stance. This nonpartisan approach has led to mixed reactions among critics and audiences alike. 

The film is unnerving, partly because it feels alarmingly possible. Perhaps the most unrealistic part of the film is California teaming up with Texas. Otherwise, it feels too real for comfort.

Alex Garland chose to leave many questions unanswered, presenting the war's moral sides ambiguously. He told the story through the eyes of journalists. The film is so deathly afraid of sparking controversy that it remains neutral to the point of keeping the viewer completely in the dark about the factions of the civil war. 

Garland's directorial style shines through in the film's visual storytelling. He creates a hauntingly vivid depiction of a war-torn America. The imagery is both stunning and unsettling. The movie is impressively well-shot despite having a modest budget compared to Hollywood's standards.

There are fantastic shots of the chaos and destruction slowly engulfing the country, and the climactic action scene is a sharp, brutal, gritty combat that feels real and believable. The emotional tone never turns melodramatic. 

The film feels cynical, devoid of any moral or political preaching, nonchalantly showing an entire country physically and emotionally worn out. The feeling of mistrust and the deep fissure are expressed in one dialogue, when a fighter asks the journalists at gunpoint, "What kind of American are you?"  

Characters and performances

Lee Smith grapples with her own disillusionment. She is shown in a dreary light, focusing on her rough days during the war. Wagner Moura as Joel, her colleague, is driven by the thrill of being on the front lines of history. 

Stephen McKinley Henderson's character Sammy, a veteran reporter who provides a stabilising presence; and Cailee Spaeny's Jessie, a novice in war journalism, slowly learns of its brutality on screen.

The film's strength lies in its character-driven narrative. The closer they get to their destination, the more intense the fighting becomes. Friends and neighbours turn against one another, until, at last, they find themselves right there on the front lines in the final battle to capture DC. 

Political and social commentary

The most interesting aspect of 'Civil War' is that it doesn't offer a straightforward critique or endorsement of any particular ideology, which has sparked debates. 

Some viewers have criticised the film for its perceived neutrality, arguing that it fails to take a stand during a time when clear moral and political positions seem necessary. Meanwhile, others have suggested that the film is a provocation to liberals, challenging their expectations of cinematic political discourse.

Others appreciate Garland's refusal to engage in overt propaganda, seeing it as an invitation for audiences to draw their own conclusions.

Some visions of the director unquestionably owe much to the vivid scenes that beamed across the world on Capitol Hill Riot when rioters, some wearing t-shirts emblazoned with 'MAGA civil war', swarmed the Capitol.
Critical reception

Despite its divisive reception, 'Civil War' undeniably captures the essence of a nation grappling with its democratic ideals and the spectre of internal division. The timing of its release, coinciding with Trump's legal battles and the rising tide of right-wing ideologies in US politics, lends the film a prophetic quality.

'Civil War' is a provocative and visually arresting film that reflects the tensions and uncertainties of contemporary American society. Alex Garland's direction and the strong performances from the cast ensure that it is a gripping and thought-provoking cinematic experience. 

While its noncommittal stance on political issues may frustrate some viewers, it also invites a broader discussion about the nature of conflict and the role of the media in documenting and interpreting such events.

In a time when the prospect of civil strife feels increasingly plausible, the film serves as both a cautionary tale and a mirror to the fractured state of modern American politics.