yes, I watched civil war and have thoughts

Okay, first? There be SPOILERS here. If you want to see the Alex Garland film Civil War with innocent eyes, then DON’T READ THIS.

Second, Civil War is NOT a movie about how the United States split up into various factions. In fact, you can basically ignore the underlying premise of the story. It’s just not very important. Well, it’s not important to the story. Sure, it’s weird as fuck that California and Texas have somehow joined together to overthrow the fascist government of the United States (and even weirder that–and I swear I’m NOT making this up–they are supported by the armed forces of Florida), but none of that really matters. It could have been Wakanda and Ruritania teaming up to fight against Fredonia and the story would be the same.

Because this is a movie about two journalists and two news photographers covering a story. That’s basically it. They don’t take any moral or political stance; they’re simply documenting and reporting what they see. And what they see is pretty fucking awful.

It’s also a sort of road movie. Instead of a traditional plot, this movie is a series of related vignettes. As the four make their way from New York City to Washington, DC, they encounter a series of deeply localized situations. Here’s a gas station controlled by a few guys who maybe belong to some sort of community militia, there’s a town where life goes on without any apparent awareness that a civil war is taking place (until you notice the snipers on a rooftop), and over there are some uniformed sociopaths quietly filling a mass grave.

Obviously, the four characters are affected by these scenarios. The two journalists–one a sort of adrenaline junkie, the other an older obese man at the end of his career–are an important part of the story, but they’re essentially supporting roles. The ‘stars’ of the movie are the photographers. The journalists just have to observe and report; the photographers have to get the photos, which requires them to expose themselves to the action.

This was the aspect of the film I was most interested in. Unlike a lot of movies in which an actor pretends to be a photographer, Kirsten Dunst and Cailee Spaeny clearly knew how to hold a camera. While I’m skeptical that a photographer–even a rookie–would rely on a 1980s-era Nikon FE2 film camera (without a motor drive, no less) in a modern combat situation, I wasn’t particularly troubled by it. After all, the FE2 was Don McCullin’s camera of choice in Vietnam, so I assume that choice was no accident. Kirsten Dunst’s more modern Sony A7 camera bodies made a lot more sense, although I’m not convinced an experienced conflict photographer would be running around during close quarters combat toting a camera with a massive and highly visible 70-200mm zoom lens.

But overall, both actors looked natural using their cameras. There was no sense that the cameras were just being treated as props. And I have to say, I got a kick out of the fact that Kirsten Dunst (like me) has a dominant left eye–which is sort of inconvenient for a photographer.

I was especially pleased when the film referenced Lee Miller, one of the pioneering women photojournalists during World War 2. And doubly pleased by a brief early scene that was (intentionally, I hope) a callback to Miller. The scene shows Kirsten Dunst in a bathtub, which I found was reminiscent of the famous photograph of Lee Miller sitting in Hitler’s bathtub on the day he committed suicide.

My only real complaint about the film is that the climactic scene was predictable–and frankly, that’s a pretty small complaint. Fairly early in the story, Jessie (the rookie) asks Lee (the veteran) if she’d photograph Jessie’s body if she was killed in action. Lee responds, “What do you think?” (or words to that effect). At that point, it was clear that one of them would be killed and the other would shoot the photograph. It could have played out either way, but it seemed more likely there’d be a sort of ‘passing the torch’ moment in which the rookie becomes the veteran. It’s a seriously stupid scene. Jessie exposes herself to gunfire and Lee, instead of tackling her and removing both of them as a target, stands in front of Jessie, facing her (her back to the gunfire). It makes for a nice photo of Lee’s face as she’s being killed, but is still stupid.

However, the final shot of the film–the shot on the screen as the credits roll–is perfect. In the final scene, Jessie photographs some troops summarily executing the president. It’s a very matter-of-fact scene, not particularly dramatic. As the credits roll, though, we see the shot taken after the execution. It’s depicted as if the image is very slowly being developed in a darkroom–the gradual revealing of the scene. It’s a classic military trophy photo, similar to every awful trophy photo shot in every war. Soldiers standing over a body, smiling proudly.

That final image is disgusting. It’s brilliant. It’s horrible. It’s perfect in that it says everything that needs to be said about war and violence. THAT is the shot that people need to think about and discuss. It reminds us that violence is the worst form of seduction.

5 thoughts on “yes, I watched civil war and have thoughts

  1. I’ve not heard of this film until now. Not sure I want to watch it, but I do like Kirsten Dunst. She’s very under rated I think. She’s excellent. And I have recently made myself watch Dunkirk, although that wasn’t half as bad as I thought it might be. Still haven’t managed Saving Private Ryan.

    On the subject of war journalism and photography though, have you watched the outstanding documentary 28 Days in Mariupol? It’s just won Ukraine it’s first ever Oscar. There were times watching that when I had to remind myself that this was real and these journalists and film camera operators were actually right there in the thick of it. They should be force feeding the Republicans this film on constant loop!

    Liked by 2 people

    • Now I want to see this movie. And thanks for the “28 Days in Mariupol” recommendation. Now I’ll add that one to the list.

      I watched Saving Private Ryan. It was flawed .

      The beginning beach scene was totally awful, as it should have been. But then they went on to ignore the necessities of war. I didn’t really notice allowing an enemy to take off (mercy) but hubby pointed out that you just can’t do that in a war situation. If you can’t guard him or hand him off to someone who can – you can’t leave them behind you or you’re jeopardizing your own troops.

      But even I, with my lack of military or war understanding, was totally offended when our little group prepared to defend a town against Nazis. MFers “prepared” by sitting around and flirting and playing guitars until someone spotted the enemy soldiers. Then it was “Oops! Time to set up the defenses!”

      Pearl Harbor upset me too.

      Like

      • It’s a good film and well worth seeing. Like I said a moment ago, I have deeply mixed feelings about any film featuring combat. I’ve never experienced it myself, though I spent 4 years as a medic and trained for it. Both my brothers were Marines in Vietnam, my father was a Marine in the South Pacific during WW2, most of my uncles served in WW2 or the Korean War.

        When I watch a war movie, I seem to spend a lot of time shouting “Watch your interval” at the screen as a patrol wanders along.

        Liked by 2 people

      • As a combat vet and a WW II history nerd, Hubby filled me in on a couple of major historical inaccuracies that I wouldn’t have been aware of. His contention: if you’re going to name a movie after actual events you should try to avoid major mistakes.

        Like

    • Yes, I’ve seen 28 Days in Mariupol, and it’s brilliant. There are a lot of documentaries about conflict photographers and a lot of feature films about them as well. Which makes sense, since it’s an inherently dramatic occupation.

      I have very mixed feelings about war movies in general. They often glamorize or romanticize the heroics of war, and that often seduces young men to join the military in order to experience it. Even films about veterans suffering from PTSD tend to make the tragedy of war seem perversely enticing.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment

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