New "Civil War" Movie Offers Warning But Also Confusion
Civil War was my first trip to the theaters in 2024. The film comes just in time as the election year begins to heat up.
The prospect of a 2nd American Civil War slipped into mainstream chattering classes at some point in the late 2010s. On one hand, this kind of talk seems dangerous and flys too close to the sun. But on the other hand, we also shouldn’t bury our heads in the sand and pretend we’re living in the Eisenhower administration where Republicans and Democrats hold hands and hug.
Our divisions today present opportunity for writers and filmmakers to use the idea of a 2nd American Civil War as a canvas to paint a preventative warning for America that this isn’t a road we want to go down. 2024’s Civil War film offers a harrowing look into the abyss but also misses a lot of important details to successfully drive this point home.
The filmmakers made it clear that the “how” and “why” of the war and its opposing factions were intentionally left vague. And to their credit, the film does manage to play well to a broad audience across the political spectrum. It stays true to its promise not to alienate large swaths of movie-goers by blatantly advocating for known political causes or groups. But when you have California and Texas on the same side invading D.C. and blowing up America’s treasured monuments, it makes me wonder if this is a serious work of art depicting the current cultural zeitgeist or just an action flick money-grab.
The film lacks so much backstory it could simply be retitled “Photographers Road Trip Thru Generic War Zone”
The scenes go back and forth from bonding sessions the photo-journalists have with each other during quiet moments to the heat of battle where front-line soldiers gun down enemies as the main characters point their DSLRs and snap away.
Sorely missing from the film are scenes of political and military leaders discussing strategy, logistics, or decision-making to let us know what exactly is going on and how we arrived at this point. The opening scene shows a few seconds of POTUS vanity as he psychs himself up for an address and tries to project an image of strength for the camera. But other than that we have zero insight into any leadership or influencers of this conflict.
Again, I know the intention of this film was ambiguity so the focus could be more on painting a frightening picture of war-torn American backyards. But for a modern Civil War movie to actually be good, it can’t leave out storylines centered around political and military leaders weighing the trade-offs of complex decisions.
Also absent in this film is the role Corporate America would play in a Civil War conflict. I would imagine big name companies have an interest in preserving the union. Maybe they would pull their business activity out of secession states and impose economic damage, similar to how many businesses pulled out of Russia when they invaded Ukraine?
Would Apple and Google would give the U.S. government full visibility into devices and communications of iPhones and Androids in the secession states? Would Big Tech just cut off everything and send secessionists back to the Stone Age? Some corporations would surely take sides here to quell a rebellion.
The final scene left me feeling despondent and defiled.
The film ends with the California-Texas secessionist forces storming the White House, barging into the Oval Office, dragging the President out from behind the resolute desk, and firing several rounds into his upper torso. The troops then gather around the presidential corpse for an all-smiles group photo in the Oval Office.
This scene left a bad taste and made something inside me feel violated. I appreciated the intention of this film to provide a warning and show we didn’t want to go down this road. But ending a movie with the desecration of the Oval Office and assassination of an abstract U.S. President whom we know nothing about did not sit well. This particular scene and ending felt disrespectful to the institution and office that should have more reverence attributed to it.
Also, the secessionists win? What kind of ending is that?
To conclude on a positive note, the film did succeed in portraying an America the overwhelming majority never wants to see. In a cinematic exploration of our nation's potential future, "Civil War" delivers a stark warning against the perils of division and violence. While its ambiguous portrayal may leave some questions unanswered, the film's powerful imagery serves as a chilling reminder of the consequences of rampant partisanship. Hopefully it results in bringing Americans together to reject such a harrowing fantasy.