Okay, I saw CIVIL WAR yesterday with my best friend...and I don't really think it's about present-day America at all, except glancingly. It's got a lot more in common with THE YEAR OF LIVING DANGEROUSLY and SALVADOR than it does with current American politics—it's a movie about war correspondents and how they got that way, rather than about anything to do with the United States of America other than "Mate, your country's really fucking divided right now, innit?"
Honestly, I think the only reason Alex Garland didn't set it in Whatthefuckistan or The Republic of Femurica is because A24 could raise the money and get military surplus more easily in the U.S. than in Latin America, the Philippines, or Australia. While he might have intended some resonances with what's currently going in the USofA (and to an extent in much of Western Europe), I also think Garland knew he didn't *grok* enough about U.S. politics to make it specifically about the U.S.—but somebody, either the producers (a Finnish investment fund IPR.VC, and UK producers of Alex Garland and Danny Boyle movies DNA Films), U.S. distributor A24, or Kirsten Dunst herself, insisted it had to be set during a "second Civil War" in the United States with a faintly Trumpian President (Nick Offerman, in his few scenes, plays him more like Nixon) versus various breakaway states.
To somebody not in the stew of current 'Murkian Polyticks, a secession of California and Texas would make sense—they're the two states with the biggest populations and they're generally considered the most prosperous. Garland's certainly heard about Greg Abbott and Ken Paxton, but since he's setting his movie in the (near) future he clearly feels Texas will be kicking the Right Wing bums out sooner rather than later and will become the Purple State everybody keeps saying Texas really is, no matter HOW many Nazis they put into power! I think we all know that's too optimistic, but...he's more likely to understand why London and Manchester would never ally than Texas and California....
The things that bothered me about the movie are kind of dumb things, really—like, why is Jessie (Cailee Spaeny's newbie photographer) shooting with FILM in a war zone? Dunst's Lee, an older photographer, sensibly shoots digital—why is the kid using an older format that she can run out of far more easily, especially given that by the end we see her shooting everything that moves!
The end also bothers me a bit because it's...just what my friend and I expected the end to be, and we'd hoped that Garland would subvert our expectations rather than play right into them.... 🤨
I...seem to remember your review being more negative and wanting it to go head-on into Trumpism....
I'm going to re-read it now.
EDIT: Okay, I've re-read it and, while there's more nuance in there than I'd originally thought, I still think you're beating up on the movie for not being what you wanted it to be.
It does lead me to ask—what would be the CIVIL WAR movie that would satisfy you completely? Would it take a side and stick with it, even when that side commits atrocities (like the pimply murdering thug played by Dunst's husband, Jesse Plemmons)? Would it be a more to the moment accurate rendition of what that war would be in the U.S., right down to Alec Baldwin trotting out his Trump impersonation? Or am I missing the point entirely in that, while you don't entirely know what you want CIVIL WAR to be, what Alex Garland did wasn't it...?
I guess at the end of the day, I don't really disagree with you. I just liked it better than you did. 🤷♂️
I mean, I think it's not really about US division, but is instead a reverse colonial exercise in centering Americans as the victims of their own colonial bullshit.
I don't generally think of movies in terms of "what would I want this to be." I mean, sometimes, but more often I think it's fine to just say (a) what this tries to do is stupid and bad, (b) this fails at what it tries to do, or (c) both. (or of course, (d), this movie is good!)
Oh, it’s because April 2023 was when notes opened; substack’s algorithm boosted my posts into everyone’s feed for unknown reasons, and a lot of people signed up for a year. Year’s over, and a bunch of ppl aren’t renewing (though some are.)
I really appreciate this weekly round up- I never would have seen the Civil War piece or the Alice Shaddle piece. You expand my world. Thank you.
of course!
It's mostly for my mom, honestly; she doesn't do social media so the only way she finds my writing is through the weekly roundup!
So, is CIVIL WAR a nondenominational war, where the villains are neither Left or Right? They just...are?
Pretty much. We don’t know anything about either side’s ideology.
Okay, I saw CIVIL WAR yesterday with my best friend...and I don't really think it's about present-day America at all, except glancingly. It's got a lot more in common with THE YEAR OF LIVING DANGEROUSLY and SALVADOR than it does with current American politics—it's a movie about war correspondents and how they got that way, rather than about anything to do with the United States of America other than "Mate, your country's really fucking divided right now, innit?"
Honestly, I think the only reason Alex Garland didn't set it in Whatthefuckistan or The Republic of Femurica is because A24 could raise the money and get military surplus more easily in the U.S. than in Latin America, the Philippines, or Australia. While he might have intended some resonances with what's currently going in the USofA (and to an extent in much of Western Europe), I also think Garland knew he didn't *grok* enough about U.S. politics to make it specifically about the U.S.—but somebody, either the producers (a Finnish investment fund IPR.VC, and UK producers of Alex Garland and Danny Boyle movies DNA Films), U.S. distributor A24, or Kirsten Dunst herself, insisted it had to be set during a "second Civil War" in the United States with a faintly Trumpian President (Nick Offerman, in his few scenes, plays him more like Nixon) versus various breakaway states.
To somebody not in the stew of current 'Murkian Polyticks, a secession of California and Texas would make sense—they're the two states with the biggest populations and they're generally considered the most prosperous. Garland's certainly heard about Greg Abbott and Ken Paxton, but since he's setting his movie in the (near) future he clearly feels Texas will be kicking the Right Wing bums out sooner rather than later and will become the Purple State everybody keeps saying Texas really is, no matter HOW many Nazis they put into power! I think we all know that's too optimistic, but...he's more likely to understand why London and Manchester would never ally than Texas and California....
The things that bothered me about the movie are kind of dumb things, really—like, why is Jessie (Cailee Spaeny's newbie photographer) shooting with FILM in a war zone? Dunst's Lee, an older photographer, sensibly shoots digital—why is the kid using an older format that she can run out of far more easily, especially given that by the end we see her shooting everything that moves!
The end also bothers me a bit because it's...just what my friend and I expected the end to be, and we'd hoped that Garland would subvert our expectations rather than play right into them.... 🤨
well, this is what I said in my review!
I...seem to remember your review being more negative and wanting it to go head-on into Trumpism....
I'm going to re-read it now.
EDIT: Okay, I've re-read it and, while there's more nuance in there than I'd originally thought, I still think you're beating up on the movie for not being what you wanted it to be.
It does lead me to ask—what would be the CIVIL WAR movie that would satisfy you completely? Would it take a side and stick with it, even when that side commits atrocities (like the pimply murdering thug played by Dunst's husband, Jesse Plemmons)? Would it be a more to the moment accurate rendition of what that war would be in the U.S., right down to Alec Baldwin trotting out his Trump impersonation? Or am I missing the point entirely in that, while you don't entirely know what you want CIVIL WAR to be, what Alex Garland did wasn't it...?
I guess at the end of the day, I don't really disagree with you. I just liked it better than you did. 🤷♂️
I mean, I think it's not really about US division, but is instead a reverse colonial exercise in centering Americans as the victims of their own colonial bullshit.
I don't generally think of movies in terms of "what would I want this to be." I mean, sometimes, but more often I think it's fine to just say (a) what this tries to do is stupid and bad, (b) this fails at what it tries to do, or (c) both. (or of course, (d), this movie is good!)
Why did subscriptions nosedive together?
Oh, it’s because April 2023 was when notes opened; substack’s algorithm boosted my posts into everyone’s feed for unknown reasons, and a lot of people signed up for a year. Year’s over, and a bunch of ppl aren’t renewing (though some are.)
Basically I got weirdly lucky and the luck reached its natural end.