The Celluloid Correspondent

In a dystopian future America, a team of journalists race against time to reach Washington DC before rebel factions descend upon the White House. 

Mild spoilers ahead. 

In his final directorial feature, “Civil War,” Alex Garland transports audiences to an alternate, not-so-distant future America torn apart by civil strife, where we shadow a group of photojournalists navigating the tumultuous crossfire. Despite the trailer’s promise of a gripping war narrative depicting America’s fragmentation, the film transcends mere conflict portrayal to offer a profound meditation on the desensitization experienced by war journalists and photographers amidst the chaos.

The film’s strength lies in its incisive commentary. We witness our journalists thrusting themselves into perilous situations in pursuit of that perfect shot, whether braving sniper fire in open fields or enduring the explosive siege of The White House. The action sequences, crafted with meticulous attention to detail and supported by impeccable sound design, resonate deeply, evoking both exhilaration and fear. The deft editing and direction further intensify the suspense, ensuring a gripping viewing experience. Yet, what truly resonates is the stoicism exhibited by our journalists, even in the aftermath of traumatic events, underscoring the profound desensitization to human violence.

However, amidst the film’s praise, there lingers frustration. While “Civil War” purports to be apolitical, its very setting and premise inherently carry political undertones. The film’s refusal to confront these themes feels evasive, especially as it subtly comments on real-world groups and events throughout its runtime. The irony is palpable as the film jests at those who remain apolitical during times of war while the film adopts that same stance. It’s a case of wanting to have it both ways.

Introducing context to the Civil War’s origins could have enriched the screenplay, allowing for an exploration of journalists’ internal struggles with their bias and their duty to tell the truth. This, in turn, could have elevated the film beyond entertainment to offer a nuanced reflection on the complexities of journalism. By shying away from this opportunity, “Civil War” misses the chance to delve deeper into its themes, leaving viewers longing for a more robust exploration of the issues at hand.

One aspect that left me frustrated was the lack of depth in the characters. They felt one-dimensional, fitting neatly into archetypal roles: the hardened veteran, the wise old mentor, the eager youngster, and the somewhat clichéd horney sidekick. On paper, that’s as far as their development goes. However, one standout performance manages to transcend this limitation. Kirsten Dunst’s portrayal breathes life into her character, elevating her beyond the stereotypical hardened persona. Through subtle nuances and a compelling portrayal of internal conflict, Dunst imbues her character with a sense of humanity struggling to endure amidst the horrors she witnesses. It’s a captivating portrayal that adds layers to a character that feels underdeveloped in the screenplay. While the other members of the journalistic team deliver solid performances, they fail to reach the same depth that Dunst achieves. 

Yet, amidst Dunst’s standout performance, Jesse Plemons deserves recognition for his brief but impactful appearance. In just five minutes of screen time, Plemons captivates with an intimidating yet enigmatic portrayal of a soldier whose allegiance remains uncertain.

Unfortunately, the characters are further hindered by their unintentionally cold actions. One particular instance highlights this: when a character is wounded, his comrades opt to let him bleed out for hours instead of providing aid once they reach safety. This callous indifference to their friend’s suffering is infuriating to witness. A narrative where they attempted to save him, only to tragically fail, would have added depth and emotional resonance. Instead, their decision to prioritize capturing his demise for the sake of a photograph feels hollow and devoid of empathy, ultimately detracting from the characters’ humanity.

Overall, I am left deeply conflicted with “Civil War”. On one hand, it is a very well-made and entertaining film that dives into the desensitization of journalists through compelling action pieces. But on the other, it feels incredibly hollow with its messaging as it is afraid to take a stance besides just being anti-war. I understand that the film is trying to be apolitical, and I don’t agree it should be. 

My Rating: B-