Alex Garland's Civil War, Division, Media [PATREON EXCLUSIVE]
Added 2024-05-31 19:12:15 +0000 UTCThis "video" contains spoilers for Alex Garland's CIVIL WAR.
So, this was supposed to be a review/analysis of Civil War. And it is, mostly, but it isn't as well. It kind of turned into me just rambling for a bit.
Comments
Same
WoodGrainLeatherSeats
2024-07-22 19:38:43 +0000 UTCwould be well interested to hear your thoughts on the beast (2023)! kinda like sci-fi Garland meets Lynch
Lando Vandilla
2024-06-25 00:16:42 +0000 UTCTotally agree. I think leaving out an explanation or clear politics was what made it great.
James Donnellan
2024-06-23 20:36:03 +0000 UTCI totally agree. The movie shows how no one wins in war, and while I’m a leftist who believes it is necessary to dismantle the status quo, devolving into a civil war is not the answer
S. P.
2024-06-03 23:44:25 +0000 UTCCivil War was probably the most disturbing movie I have seen. I didn't really look into it before I saw it, but quickly realized it was an anti-war film a la "Come and See". It was more disturbing though since all the locations were placed I grew up. I had the exact same concern though, that people might not realize it was an anti-war film, and it would stoke up some of their violent passions. Hopefully I am wrong.
Luke Boyd
2024-06-03 12:52:20 +0000 UTCHe did say while marketing the film that it would be "apolitical" and try to center journalists. So, I was expecting this, and he did do that. I think I struggle with my belief that insisting on not taking a political stance is, in itself, a political stance. I have a hard time not assuming poor intentions of Garland, since the people who oftentimes insist on maintaining the status quo that caused this kind of division in the first place are the same who maintain that they are not partisan. I think if the film were more distinguishable from the assumptions of the "enlightened centrist" class, I would see the genuine compassion that Garland asks that his audience sees in his work
Zachary Miller
2024-05-31 23:17:45 +0000 UTCZachary: I felt a little of this walking out of the theater myself, and had to think about it for a few days. However, I did see that civil war is attempting to be primarily an anti-war film, and that I think keeping the morality of political actors out of the story was, while maybe “unrealistic,” absolutely necessary to avoid justifying anyone of the atrocities we witness. This established, how do you think Garland should or could have improved the film to be more like whatever film you and I initially thought it should be? How would you scrub that “both-sideism” feeling from the movie without taking away from the message it conveys? I found myself a little hard pressed to come up with any major changes that honestly preserved the positive aspects of the film that Michael highlights so well. Curious if you have thoughts!
aidan m
2024-05-31 20:33:02 +0000 UTCThis is a refreshing take and I envy your ability to view things from such a high level. I am exactly the kind of leftist that saw this movie and thought it was lazy 'both sides-ism". I do still think this, but you are right that it's counterproductive to deride a movie whose only aim was to be anti-war on the basis of it's intentionally obfuscated politics, especially from someone who self-describes as a pacifist.
Zachary Miller
2024-05-31 19:48:25 +0000 UTCSaving this bad boy for when I finally watch this movie. I love Alex Garland's work and I'm really interested in your take on his work as a whole as well as your insights on this film. Side-note: would love to see more film-related analysis from you!
Andrew Olivares
2024-05-31 19:23:21 +0000 UTC
