"Civil War:" the Movie
"Either this nation shall kill racism, or racism shall kill this nation." (S. Jonas, August, 2018)
"A Vote for 'ABBB' (Any Body But Biden) is a Vote for Trump and Republo-Fascism" (S. Jonas, March, 2024)
Bombardment of Fort Sumter. In this civil war, we know who fired the first shots, and why.
(Image by Wikipedia (commons.wikimedia.org), Author: Uploaded by Christophe cagé 12:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)) Details Source DMCA
The movie "Civil War," currently in theatres (at least as of this writing) has received a number of respectful reviews. Among them are: "Snap Judgements: 'Civil War' " that appeared in the April 22-29 issue of The New Yorker, "Alex Garland's Sharp New Film 'Civil War' " by Lindsey Bahjr, that appeared on apnews.comon April 9, 2024, and "Civil War" by Matt Zoller Seitz that appeared on rogerebert.com on April 10, 2024.
Mr. Seitz says in part:
". . . both early raves and pans seem to be operating under the reductive assumption that it's one of three things: (1) an alternative future history of a divided United States that's intended as a cautionary tale; (2) a technically proficient but empty-headed misery porn compendium that derives much of its power from images redolent of genocide and/or lynching, but ducks political specifics so as not to offend reactionaries; or (3) a visionary spectacular with ultra-violence that might or might not have something important to say but will definitely look and sound great on an expensive home entertainment system."
I'll go with (2). In summary, to me itis an old-fashioned Western shoot-em-up, with the active shooters all regaled in various forms of camo. and all using various forms of semi-automatic weapons, plus an occasional (modern) pistol.Helicopters and some forms of mechanized armor come in at the end. The title has nothing to do with what the movie is about politically, because it is impossible to tell what the movie is about politically. And that lies at the heart of everything that is wrong with it.
Before proceeding to the important part here, one should say several things about it, as a movie. First of all, the acting is superb. Kirsten Dunst is most notable as the very experienced war-photographer who (spoiler alert) is tragically killed at the end of the film. This film is filled with so many formulaics about "war" (although, to repeat, it very purposefully shies away from what this one is about [see below]) that and the ending she really has to be, and very heroically too --- shielding a younger colleague from gunfire with her body.
In this sense, her story in this film reminded me of the famous World War II war-correspondent Ernie Pyle who was killed on the island of Ie Shima (very close to the site of the last major battle of the Pacific War, Okinawa) very close to the end of the war. As it happens, I am old enough, and Ernie Pyle was famous enough, for me to have memories of him, as I followed the news of World War II, as a child.
The film is dramatic and filled with surprises, literally around every corner of the for-the-mostly unnamed cities through which the correspondents group moves. Technically it is of very high quality (although the helicopters used for the attack-scene-at-the-end seem to have been drawn from the Viet Nam War era. Presumably they were the only kind that the producers of a movie of this sort could get their hands on). There are car-chases, many explosions, both expected and unexpected, organized and dis-organized military actions, individual, mostly random acts-of-violence from armed men who are not identified in terms of which-side-are-they on (or even if they are even on a side, but just like wearing camo. and shooting up people).
Which brings us to the main problem with this film. Civil wars have frequently occurred throughout human history (and we will get to reviewing a few of the major ones just below). But they always have been about something, and always about something or somethings that are of very major concerns to the residents of the country/nation in which the civil war occurs.
In this movie, to repeat, supposedly about a civil war, there is none of that. Or at least there is nothing that can be clearly identified as causing two, armed, sides to rise up against each other, in one country. Actually, we don't know whether there are actually only two sides --- there have been civil wars which in practice had three sides. Two of them did fight to achieve the same outcome, but they essentially fought alongside of each other, not integrated with each other. I am speaking of the Spanish Civil War, which would not have been won by the fascist side without the active intervention of the Nazi and Fascist militaries, essentially coordinating with each other, but fighting separately in many battles.
In "Civil War," the nation has been divided. One is nowhere informed just how this happened, and as noted, the viewer also doesn't know how many sides there are actually engaged in the fighting. Early on, a map is shown, briefly, which defines four regions into which the former United States has somehow been divided: the Loyalist States, the Florida Alliance, the New People's Army, and the Western Forces (which, oddly enough, consists of a totally politically unimaginable alliance between California and Texas). It is WF which, somehow getting through territory separately controlled by the Florida Alliance and the Loyalist States, gets to Washington, D.C. to, totally without legal process, execute the President of the Loyalist States. (And oh yes, we don't know what happens after that.)
As noted, there have been many civil wars throughout history. The Peloponnesian War 431-404 was fought between the two major city-states of the Grecian peninsula of the time, Athens and Sparta (with various alliances formed). The conflict was both economic and political. The war was fought within very small spaces geographically, the participants spoke a common language, and, at the beginning at least, they had two very different forms of government. (In the end, Sparta won.) There were numerous civil wars fought within the Roman Empire, over more than a millennium. They were often about power, but they were always about something ---more than who could do the biggest shoot-em-ups (that is swords/arrows/spears-em-ups). The Wars of the Roses in 15th century England (known at the time as the Civil Wars) were fought between two noble houses over which one would lay claim to the English Throne. The next civil war in England (17th century) was fought between the supporters of absolute monarchy (Charles the First, who lost 'is 'ed for 'is troubles) and the first force in history, under the leadership of Oliver Cromwell, which promoted some kind/ form of democracy.
Of course, the various causes of the U.S. Civil war, related in one way or another both politically and economically, to the institution of chattel slavery, are well-known. Then in the last century three major civil wars occurred. First was the one which followed the Russian Revolution of 1917 (1917-21, which did, by the way, have major foreign Intervention on the side of the Czarist forces which were eventually defeated). Second was the Chinese Civil War, 1927-49, which eventually led to the triumph of the Chinese Communist Party. And then came the Spanish Civil War, 1936-39, in which the Right-Wing Spanish forces under the leadership of Francisco Franco, (aided, as noted above, by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy) overthrew an elected republican government. What did all of these civil wars down thorough the millennia have in common? To repeat, they were about something (or some things) significant. Again, in "Civil War," we have absolutely no idea what that is or might be. As Manohla Dargis says in her New York Times review:
"By the time 'Civil War' opens , the fight has been raging for an undisclosed period yet long enough to have hollowed out cities and people's faces alike. It's unclear as to why the war started or who fired the first shot. Garland does scatter some hints; in one ugly scene, a militia type played by a jolting, scarily effective Jesse Plemons asks captives 'what kind of American' they are. Yet whatever divisions preceded the conflict are left to your imagination, at least partly because Garland assumes you've been paying attention to recent events. Instead, he presents an outwardly and largely post-ideological landscape in which debates over policies, politics and American exceptionalism have been rendered moot by war."
Indeed, to repeat: "the fight has been raging for an undisclosed period yet long enough to have hollowed out cities and people's faces alike. It's unclear as to why the war started or who fired the first shot." And aye, there's the rub. And it's why at the beginning of this commentary on it, I said that: "In summary, to me it is an old-fashioned Western shoot-em-up, with the active shooters all regaled in various forms of camo. and all using various forms of semi-automatic weapons. Helicopters and some forms of armor come in at the end."
But, as history shows, civil wars (indeed all wars, but that's another subject) are about something. That something is most often about who and what will control the political-economy of the nation in which it is being waged, and for whose benefit. This movie doesn't even take a whiff in that direction. It is unkind of me to say it, but I believe that Mr. Garland put the title "Civil War" on the movie simply to try to attract the largest possible audience to it (which indeed he has done).
Our nation faces the real possibility of a second civil war down the road. And that is because one of the two leading parties has clearly set its eyes on creating, through the person of Donald Trump, a fascist dictatorship of one kind or another. And they are not shy about promoting it, from The Heritage Foundation's "Project 2025" which would destroy the U.S. Constitutional government which for better or worse has been in place since 1789, and replace it with a Trumpian form of fascism (see the definition at the end of this column), to the new Chair of the Republican National Committee, the ex-President's daughter-in-law Lara Trump proclaiming that if D. J. Trump gets back in there will be "Four Years of Scorched Earth."
What an interesting turn of phrase. It just happens that it was name of the policy of total destruction of the civilian infrastructure that the Nazi Wehrmacht implemented in their long retreat from the Gates of Moscow and the Battle of Stalingrad, 1942-44. (Of course, I can't imagine that Ms. Trump knows that. Or maybe she does [which would be worse].) Prospectively, should Trump win again in 2024, legally or some other (sic) way, Secession, if not civil war, is already being talked about on the Left, and also on the Right.
Now in this country, secession, instituted by either the Democratic or the Authoritarian forces, would not necessarily lead to civil war. And, one or more fascinating movies could be made about those prospects. But of course, at the center of them, made either from the Left or the Right and from the let's-try-to-be-in-the-middle perspective, would be the POLITICS of what led to the break- up and then the POLITICS of the break-up's consequences.
But as for this movie? Politics? Oh no! Which is why, to repeat, it is indeed nothing more than: "an old-fashioned Western shoot-em-up, with the active shooters all regaled in various forms of camo. and all using various forms of semi-automatic weapons."
Fascism:
"There is a single, all-powerful executive branch of government, in service of a capitalist ruling class that controls, for the most part, the functions of production, distribution, finance, and exchange. There is no separation of the principal governmental powers: executive, legislative, and judicial. There are no independent media. There is a single national ideology, based on some combination of racism, misogyny, religious bigotry and authoritarianism, homophobia, and xenophobia. There is a political party supporting the movement. There is a state propaganda machine using the big and little lie techniques. There may be a full-blown dictatorship, a charismatic leader, engagement in foreign wars, and the use of the mob/private armies to enforce governmental control."