At The Movies

Civil War (written and directed by Alex Garland)

I found Civil War by Alex Garland a very, very good movie. I wouldn’t have expected, or predicted, this, given that Garland’s previous films were certainly very watchable, but his Amazon Prime series Devs didn’t quite work out and turned out to be more and more annoying and so I never finished watching it. Garland’s new movie Civil War is in a quite different league, despite the fact that his previous films were already quite good, not least when it comes to American filmmaking. And I might need to stress that Kirsten Dunst impressed with an Oscar-worthy performance.

»Contrary to what the trailer might suggest, „Civil War“ is far from being a clumsy dystopian action thriller. Nor can the scenario be read as a commentary on Donald Trump and his authoritarian right-wing politics. As in all his films, Alex Garland explores issues of a both a structural and philosophical nature. In his horror film „Men“, he exposed the mythical dimensions of abusive masculinity; now, in „Civil War“, he is concerned with the politics of images and the journalistic business of war.

(…) Yet „Civil War“ does not simply leave it at this reflection on journalism. Rather, the film increasingly develops into a biting critique of the hubris of the United States. (…) „Civil War“ is a great, self-confident and intelligent film about the current times.«

(Translated from German review by Sebastian Seidler.)

The Hollywood Reporter review, »The Compellingly Packaged Cowardice of ‘Civil War’«, suggests the movie doesn’t really go below the surface, as quite some people have been saying about Garland’s work in general. I feel it is telling that the Hollywood[!] Reporter runs a film review criticising a European filmmaker for not providing enough Hollywood storytelling in his mainstream movie. I certainly can understand a film critic writing, „I would much rather have seen a film by Alex Garland that provides me with answers than one that leaves central points of the film open and for the viewer to find answers“. But maybe it is also quite an American thing to write that like five times in a review.

Generally, it’s claimed that Germans have a penchant for telling others how things ought to be done right or wrong. But the fact that the reviewer makes a point of writing at least five times in this text that „Why is this happening?“ remains unanswered illustrates a fundamentally divergent understanding: mainstream cinema typically doesn’t leave any big questions hanging, normally offers „safe“ answers to avoid irritating (or challenging) the audience too much, whereas European filmmakers regard this as a quality and at times believe that giving answers and explaining everything is a rather inherent weak point, as viewers will then feel like, „Phew, thankfully the situation on screen is not the same as in my reality, so I don’t need to worry about this issue.“

It’s also something I see increasingly in movie reviews these days , this tendency to literally write, “I would have preferred to see a different movie than the one this director/writer/producer chose to tell” or “a pity they didn’t tell the story the way I think is the right one.” Not saying this film is perfect, I think this aspect is actually a very positive thing about this US mainstream production. And, from what I read, Civil War went to the number one spot in US movie charts. I think Civil War is a really interesting approach to mainstream American filmmaking. I didn’t expect more than his previous films gave me, so I was surprised i found it bolder, more uncompromising and relentless (than those others), but also quite tense and very well directed. Warning: not for the faint of heart!

Written by Ingo J. Biermann