Civil War (2024)

Jun 28

No civil war, just a massacre.

Presentation:

The film is presented on new tech DJI Ronin gimbal cameras, which allow the camera to implement a gritty budget handheld style, which is confusing when this is one of A24's most expensive budgets at $50million grossing $114million. The film utilizes a painfully realistic rec709 color grade with untouched greens, clipped sunsets, maybe the only editing was some blur and contrast for a few things. It feels incredibly cheap and lazily implemented especially the night shots, it's like they didn't even bother. The only explanation is they wanted the film to be almost documentary, realistic, which is fitting for the theme of the film and the political climate. The excessive depth of field is implemented to make mundane setting less ugly, but I'm not sure the blur helped. The film looks bad and might as well have been shot by a Youtuber, worse than most TV series. Whether this is by design or budget, let's just assume the former. Action sequences are decently immersive but noticeably CGI rendered.

Analysis:

Opening in 2024, the film is released during tense political climates in modern America, so much that talented British screenwriter Alex Garland felt the need to voice his opinion. The film is misleading, titled to make you think it is a political discussion on left versus right, but it is not. It is intended to be a parable for the dangers of political escalation from one stubborn man in office, yet Garland is smart enough to know exactly what he's doing. The context for the abuse of power is never explained, likely cut in post for a more ambiguous presentation, and yet it's quite clear where the script leans politically due to racial and specific references to third terms. As someone as talented as Garland, you'd expect some better writing from this high school level plot, which I'm sure right leaners will consider exaggerated and left leaners will find un-nuanced. If the film is designed to bring both sides together (Texas and California), then the film failed in providing a voice for each side. Similar to Top Gun: Maverick not disclosing the villains, the film tries to engage in bold commentary, yet cowardly refrains from saying anything meaningful by omitting politically sensitive details, so crucial for the topic of the film. It's like you paid tickets to see The Lakers vs The Warriors and it's their collegiate team. The journalism photography aspect is a nice touch, attempting to glue everything together with an artistic flair, which is extremely necessary when there's actually no story to be found in order to present this ineffectively neutral artistic stance. There is no story, just action with minimal context. However, some of the dramatic aspects are well written if you can forgive some of the incredulous situations they find themselves in.

Conclusion:

This movie is clickbait. If you are familiar with Alex Garland's work, this project might make sense, which is that he doesn't want to direct and wants to go back to writing. Well from this story it seems he doesn't really care about either. There are some moments that are executed well, but overall fall flat under the guise of ambiguity. While warning America not to go down a certain path, Garland inadequately portrays only one side (and poorly), probably causing half the audiences to be butt-hurt and half the audiences to weakly revel in a political I-told-you-so. Regardless, this film fails to close the bridge between opposing parties and likely further divides and fuels animosities, the exact opposite of Garland's intended message. Unfortunately, in an attempt at avoiding offending political sides, Garland has offended moviegoers instead, whom have to suffer through a lukewarm story, which you'll have to fill in with your own imagination colored by your political interpretation. This can only be summed up as a cash grab redemption from movie jail Garland has put himself in from poor economic performances of Annihilation and Men. Disappointing, I expected more.

more rotten chilis