Civil War by Alex Garland

@ theLibrarian

I sensed that this movie won't commit a good chunk of it's time for worldbuilding considering it's premise.

As Lone Courier 0, it seems to be too soon to have a movie with a second US Civil War premise. I devised a similar premise for my novels but I haven't gotten to that part yet and it's just one out of many consequences of the point of divergence from real life (it's an Alternate History whose backstory started from 1985) but I'll stop here.

As for that trailer, it seems to me one of the belligerents may have the right wing nuts as we have someone with a rifle asking "What kind of American" and aiming his gun at the main characters, some of whom aren't WAS Ps.

Edited by HallowHawk on Dec 13th 2023 at 1:29:31 AM

Oh definitely not; like I said it seems more like it will focus on the journey rather than what caused it.

But yeah, that scene at the end does seem to imply things. You can understand it as "considering it's a civil war, just saying 'We're American' doesn't help" but who knows at this point.

This is actually the second "Second US Civil War" movie I've seen advertised; the other is a movie called "Bushwick" that takes place entirely in New York. That one came out a few years ago though.

Edited by theLibrarian on Dec 13th 2023 at 3:32:23 AM

I was gonna mention it also, but there’s also the The Second Civil War which was directed by Joe Dante back in the 90s. That movie though is more a satire about anti-immigration policies than any culture wars nonsense.

Plus there's DMZ, the comic book about a war reporter heading to NYC following a ceasefire in a second civil war.

That got made into a miniseries starring Rosario Dawson a few years back that was quietly released on HBO Max and quickly forgotten about.

Thinking about it, my guess is that it will be a straightforward case of "tyrannical president and his direct supporters verse everyone else". The President will either have a vague political party or will be from a fictional new political party.

California and Texas working together will be because he managed to tick off enough people across the political spectrum that it's not a traditional right/left split and the big western states were in the best position to actually rise up.

Not especially plausible since in all likelihood a tyrannical president would get into power by exploiting the traditional right/left split, but the American political landscape has significantly reoriented before.

Texas would also be purple if there was actual fair voting. There's the possibility that in the event of a secession, the people have overthrown the governments of their state.

I suspect they won't get too deep into the President's actual policies outside of the blatantly unconstitutional stuff that helped instigate the rebellion.

At most they might lampshade the fact that Texas and California are improbable allies in a civil war scenario, but exactly what he did that angered both states to the point of rebellion will be undefined.

I plan to watch this movie when it comes out, but After the Revolution and the first season of It Could Happen Here have really raised my expectations of what a fictional 2nd civil war should look like.

However, the aforementioned works do have a political slant, and like it has been said before, I do think the creators of the movie are trying to avoid alienating half of the country by catering to one political faction or another.

Seen both of the trailers and find the concept interesting. Hoping it has something important to say.

The film is out now, so what do people think?

Haven't seen it, but from the trailer, I got the distinct impression it wasn't really willing to choose sides or make any sort of political stance, what with the idea of Texas and California being on the same side of the war. Reviews seem generally good so far, though.

So why do people feel this movie is Too Soon? It does feel culturally relevant, at least, at a time where more and more Americans believe a new civil war is imminent or even inevitable.

Edited by Redmess on Apr 14th 2024 at 6:28:55 PM

The story seems to be a lot more focused on the actual characters rather than the war itself.

It focuses more on war journalism and the effects of war on normal citizens than anything having to do with the logistics of the conflict or what the politics of anybody is beyond the surface level "President Nick Offerman is a fascist wackjob".

So does it say anything about the idea of a new American civil war in particular, then? Or is it more a general commentary on war?

I saw the film last night. I've generally enjoyed Garland's previous films but they are not exactly easy going, casual viewing. When the movie ended I left with conflicted feelings, not about the quality of the film but about what I'm supposed to take away from everything that was seen. That is by design, the movie is centered on journalistic ideals where it is about putting information into the open so that other people can get something from it. The two main characters of a group of four are photojournalists, about the most neutral as one can be. I found myself oddly emotional during the climax, not because the characters were so compelling I feared for their lives but the intent was to make you work for the meaning of it all. The subtle changes to the characters over what they've experienced hit me harder than I expected.

The film is more a snapshot of a very tight place in the conflict, so many things we take for granted is falling apart and the characters just accept their situation as normal. Bombings in New York are regular occurrences. The Interstate Highways are said to be heavily broken up. Power, gas stations and cell signals are spotty at best. Canadian currency is more valuable than the US dollar.

The one aspect that kind of bugged me throughout was multiple sequences where the press were side-by-side with the soldiers doing combat operations, getting photos with the camera between their legs. I don't doubt they are close by, but if soldiers are tripping over you you're likely to get shoved out of the way, restrained or shot.

So there is no resolution to the war itself?

The movie ends with the President being executed by WF troops, but there's no indication of whether or not the war will end because of that.

There are vague statements on more factions than just DC and Western Front, including a Florida Alliance, so the third act provides some sense of history being made but it doesn't indicate that they are on the way to a "Reconstruction" era.

Well, if this works, this would lead to a saga of films, while, it takes too much on that part of the journalists taking pics and working around the war zone... probably Garland should have made some background investigation in Mexico where reporters always put their lives on risk to get the latest notices about government and narco issues.

Surely the feeling and the angst would be the same...

Huh, that's surprising, I figured this would be a one time stunt film. It doesn't sound like your average crisis action film, at least.

I just so happened to watch Battle: Los Angeles the other day, and that was a very different movie (an invasion movie, but still similar in that the war takes place in the US).

We already have a series of movies about an American Civil War-ish. That was the Purge.

Wasn't that more about class warfare?

Yes. It does kind of devolve into a civil war at the end though with the events of The Forever Purge.

Edited by theLibrarian on Apr 15th 2024 at 8:10:49 AM

The original Purge is a home invasion movie. Most of the other Purges are political thrillers with a "rich vs poor" lens. The Forever Purge is more what you're looking for.

Ah, I see, I only knew about the first one.

The first one is just a home invasion movie, yeah, but it's a Bottle Episode in terms of the grand narrative.