Civil War (2024)

Alex Garland's movies never seem to be without controversy, just not the form that you would expect. Annihilation is a sci-fi mystery that seems to leave the viewer either dumb-founded at its conclusion or impressed by its depth. Needs a rewatch from me though.

Ex Machina - a movie I have not seen - is apparently about the need for innovation in technology and the corruption and toxicity that naturally occur in a capitalist state. At least that what I've gathered from various reviews and Podcaster. I'll edit this if/when I see it. But the point remains that Ex Machina is a divisive movie of its own right, as all Garland's movies seem to be. I am not sure I've talked to a single person who watches an AG movie and leaves it anything short of pensive; his movies illicit a reaction even from the staunchest, most cynical viewer.

So Civil War is released in 2024 featuring highly controversial subject matter - a dystopia United States having fallen into civil war, thereunto the title - amid a highly-divisive election year. All clues point to this film being discordant in some manner, and yet the film manages to remain largely a-political, mimicking its primary set of characters' apathy and disillusionment. Instead the film labors along through expository scenes to lay the thin groundwork for its plot: the rebel forces are marching upon Washington, representing the last opportunity to photograph a tyrant. 

Children of Men comes to mind while thinking of this movie, another dystopia near-future-now movie about western civilization crumbling. Although that movie leaves us with some hope at the end, it takes on the same hard-nosed THIS IS FUCKING HAPPENING violence to punctuate its points. I would argue both movies even hit the same beats throughout, with beautifully-shot and imagined action set pieces leading up to a monster one at the conclusion. Also both are road movies, for what its worth.

So what is the point of this exercise? Garland is obviously alluding to several wartime movies, and the violence is abrupt and grotesque. Also is the journalism which, while Joel never seems to do anything but get hard watching, as a framing device services remarkably good photography of awful images. When the movie hits its climax, Lee shrinks more and more from the moment while Jessie rises to it. And Jessie's recklessness leads ultimately to Lee's heroic but stupid demise, and she flashes a few frames of Lee being shot through dead, an allusion apparently not lost on anyone. While Joel and Jessie don't show much care for Lee as they press on to capture the moment, this moment of Lee's death defines I think the divisiveness of the film; either the idea of photographers shooting the literal shooting is either a celebral image of hyper-violence and a powerful statement, or perhaps is too on the nose.