"Civil War" Stares Into The Abyss

It made me realize: it won’t be civil war that destroys us, civil war is merely the logical end result of us destroying ourselves.

Source

WARNING: Contains mild spoilers.

I had the opportunity to view the new A24 production Civil War at an early access screening on Monday night. Civil War is arguably the most anticipated film of 2024 to date, to say nothing of its release in an election year. There was no way I wasn’t seeing this movie, given its relevance to my commentary and I sure as hell wasn’t going to pass up an opportunity to see it before most of the country did.

So let’s get to it - was Civil War worth the hype? Not only is the answer “yes,” the movie is probably not what a lot of folks are expecting. And that’s exactly why you need to see the movie.

Not Our Present, Not Our Future

Let’s discuss the timeline in which Civil War is set. Director Alex Garland, whose body of work include 28 Days Later and Ex Machina, took pains to severely limit any real-world parallels and it shows. Civil War takes place in a world that’s yet familiar, yet unrecognizable at the same time. The deeper we get into the story, the further removed we get from our world, yet it still seems like it could be happening here. The effective blurring of fiction and reality makes it easy to go for the ride without thinking too deep about it, forcing viewers instead to focus on the here and now. If you’re expecting a rich, detailed backstory, you’re definitely not getting it by watching the film.

It isn’t clear how long the Second American Civil War has been going on for, though it’s suggested it’s been going for some years. The unnamed President of the United States (Nick Offerman) is serving a third term and it’s implied he played a critical role in the war’s outbreak, as one might expect. He seems to be effectively ruling as a dictator by this point, which again, is par for the course. Even Abraham Lincoln ruled with dictatorial powers during the Civil War of 1861 to 1865 and Franklin D. Roosevelt was accused of much the same during his four terms in office. Beyond that, there isn’t much talk about how or why the war began, nor even what the motivations of any of the belligerents are. By the time the movie begins, it’s all about survival.

The country is split into warring factions, divided along state and regional lines, as conventional wisdom would suggest. There are the Loyalist States, which is the “legacy” United States, led by the president in Washington, D.C. They are opposed by the secessionist Western Forces and Florida Alliance. There exists a fourth faction, the New People’s Army. However, they receive no mention in the movie. It’s interesting for viewers to consider behind which line in the dirt they’d end up if the events of Civil War happened in real life.

The Western Forces are the primary opposition force. Comprised of the two biggest states in the former union, they are within striking distance of Washington when the movie begins. This alliance between California and Texas drew a lot of attention during the run-up to the film’s release, with everyone asking how the bluest of Blue states could ever join forces with the reddest of Red states. I’m afraid Civil War doesn’t answer the question, though it’s suggested the alliance was entirely a matter of convenience, a recognition that whatever differences the two states had, it was outweighed by the greater problem that existed in Washington. Overall, the alignments don’t make much sense - Georgia is on one side, the Carolinas on another - but they’re not supposed to.

By creating a state of affairs that seems implausible from our perspective here in 2024, Alex Garland snuffs out whatever real-world political allusions may arise from Civil War. Much of the commentary on its upcoming release predicted the film would prove divisive, but I didn’t feel like it was divisive at all. In fact, I found it apolitical. There’s just very little in the way of political commentary, period. Not a single mention of Democrats or Republicans, not even the reflexive reference to Hitler or the Nazis.

The president, who many considered an allusion to Donald Trump, gets very little screen time, so not only do we not get to know him very well, we don’t even get a chance to hate him, despite being the closest thing to a primary antagonist in the story. When compared with historical figures by one of the characters, he’s compared to Muammar Gaddafi, Benito Mussolini, and Nicolae Ceaușescu, a mix of left- and right-wing dictators. The political leadership of the other factions get no mention at all. It’s just not important to the story.

There’s a reference to an “ANTIFA massacre” which presumably occurred early in the civil war or just prior to its outbreak. But its wording leaves it ambiguous as to whether it was ANTIFA who was massacred or if it was ANTIFA that did the massacring. I’m sure the filmmakers know the answer, but at least in terms of presentation, it’s yet another subtle way in which the film avoids engaging in political partisanship. Personally, I found the ANTIFA reference laughable, since President Joe Biden claims its just an “idea” (so is America, also according to him). The fact that it made it into the film shows that it’s very much a real, relevant force, the only question being whether they’re the good guys or the bad guys.

There are, unsurprisingly, people who think the film’s apolitical tack makes it “hollow.” In a way, they’re correct. It does place constraints on the kinds of stories which can be told, but everything in life is a trade-off. You can either tell an overtly political story, creative a divisive work of art, then sit back and watch audiences squabble over it. Or, you can instead put politics entirely out of view, force audiences to set aside their differences, and instead see where those differences lead us. Anyone arguing Civil War should’ve told a political tale is missing the point.

Besides, we’ve seen what happens when entertainment franchises become overtly politicized. The Purge franchise, which I initially enjoyed, became increasingly politicized in a leftward direction over the years. It became not only harder to watch as a result, the quality of subsequent installments dropped. Perhaps these are two separate issues, but overtly political movies simply don’t do well. No matter one’s convictions, nobody appreciates being told what to think.

Civil War is more reminiscent of past works depicting a Second American Civil War, most notably the short-lived cult classic CBS television series Jericho, which ran from 2006 to 2008. Like Civil War, Jericho’s “universe” is both familiar and unrecognizable at once, along with being apolitical, even less political than the former. It’s much easier to enjoy something without feeling like you’re being lectured to or forced to choose sides. If anything, the moral of the story is to consider what happens when we’re all forced to pick sides at gunpoint.

Every war is political. But by being apolitical and forcing us to leave our own politics at the door, Civil War instead makes us focus on just how terrible it’d be if we ever got there. At some point, the politics of it all just don’t matter. As a minor character bluntly explains, “They are trying to kill us. We are trying to kill them.”

That’s war. It’s that simple.

America At “The End”

What I found most striking was the depiction of American daily life in a land beset by war. There are constant reminders of the elephant in the room, yet a sense of normalcy reigns. Civil War is a study in contrasts - as previously noted, the film’s world is both recognizable and unrecognizable at the same time - and there’s a contrast in how Americans manage the terrible predicament they find themselves in. The streets are empty, buildings and homes burnt out, economic activity seems to have mostly ground to a halt, critical services unavailable, the roads are filled with wrecked vehicles, snipers are posted on the rooftops in almost every city and town, smoke can be seen billowing in the distance, and gunfire can be heard in the distance almost everywhere you go. There’s no question: America is at war with itself and there’s no escaping it.

Or is that really the case? Against this backdrop, you see a group of bicyclists riding the same empty streets of a major city patrolled by military vehicles. Reporters and journalists hang out at a bar, sharing stories and good times with one another, as if the Second American Civil War is just another assignment in their careers. Some of the characters have family members living in other areas of the country, far enough removed that they can pretend a full-scale civil war isn’t happening in their homeland. At one point, the characters pass through a small city seemingly unaffected by the conflict, with a young clerk in a local shop confessing that they go out of their way to stay out of it.

Beyond these few hiding spots, you find the war or the war finds you. In addition to the organized military forces of the belligerent factions, there are local militias everywhere. Some are willing to do business, others not so much. Some have taken up arms to protect their homes and communities, others have taken up arms to get in on the bloody action. War crimes are flagrantly committed, within the full view of cameras. Even the organized military forces do things that’d be considered highly problematic, to say the least, in normal times. It seems that at this point in the Second American Civil War, the rules of war have been thrown out the window.

I found it all a startlingly realistic depiction of what civil war at any level of intensity would look like in the U.S. The country is the size of a continent; large enough that there would exist refuges to get away from the violence. There would be “hot zones” where violence would be intensely concentrated, a frontline where the big fight is happening, with low-level violence occurring elsewhere, even in places far removed from the battlefield, some places seeing no violence at all. All wars are really many smaller conflicts contained within a larger one and the next American Civil War is likely to be no different.

There are other subtle clues as to what the U.S. has become by this point in the next civil war. There’s mention of hyperinflation - something which often occurs during major wars - with $300 not being enough to purchase fuel. Not surprisingly, the war has created a Without-Rule-of-Law, or WROL, environment in much of the country, especially in rural areas. Many people are on their own, relying on humanitarian aid much the way the Third World relies on the same from the developed world today. As noted before, much of the population centers depicted have been abandoned, the implication being that everyone either left or, worse, were killed. It appears that many of these places have been abandoned long ago, with decay clearly setting in and graffiti everywhere.

Watching it, I was struck by how much of America in the real world already looks like the America of Civil War. Much of the film is set in the Rust Belt; if you visit the region today, it’s plainly obvious it’s seen better days. It made me realize: it won’t be civil war that destroys us, civil war is merely the logical end result of us destroying ourselves. The America in the world of Civil War is one which collapsed long before the movie begins, maybe even before the war began. As I’ve argued before, a lot of bad things need to happen before the really bad stuff starts to happen. It’s the truth, but you’d be surprised at how upset it makes some people when you say so.

It points to the film’s greatest virtue: Civil War isn’t “doomer-porn.” Anyone who’s expecting it to be is likely to be disappointed. There are some genuinely shocking moments, one of which is the increasingly infamous “What kind of American are you?” moment. We see what happens in a world where the lives of your once-fellow countrymen have become cheap. Still, the movie isn’t a non-stop deluge of gory, graphic violence, either. Same as war in real life, the Second American Civil War is quite boring, defined more by the changes to our daily routines than by the violence itself. Most of the truly horrific violence is implied, rather than depicted, and barely mentioned, giving audiences the sense that whatever is happening out there, it’s all now just a part of the landscape.

Whatever the case may be, the Second American Civil War as depicted in Civil War, despite its brutality, won’t satisfy the fever dreams of many within the prepper-survivalist community, who insist it’ll be just as brutal as the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s or the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s. Make no mistake - there would be unspeakable brutality, but the kind of brutality you see in one place doesn’t necessarily carry over to another place. I think Civil War does a fairly good job of providing a glimpse of what brutality in a modern American context would look like.

Hopefully, we’ll never find out if they were right.

The Art Of Bearing Witness

The film’s central characters are journalists hoping to make it to Washington, D.C. to interview the president. Everyone who’s followed me for a while know how I feel about journalists in general and I absolutely don’t share director Alex Garland’s assertion that journalists are as important as doctors. In the case of Civil War, however, having journalists as the central characters is the only way to present the story in an apolitical light, even though we all know, in real life, journalists are hardly apolitical.

Kirsten Dunst, once described as the hardest-working actress in Hollywood, portrays experienced photojournalist Lee Smith, who has documented all sort of horrific moments in war zones around the world, with her career now culminating in a war on her home and native land. Much the story centers on Smith and her colleagues’ struggle to stay professional, focused on the task of documenting history, even as they must bear witness to the end of their world as they’ve known it. She is accompanied by journalist Joel, played by Wagner Moura (watch his breakout performance in the 2008 Brazilian film Elite Squad), aspiring young photojournalist Jessie, portrayed by rising star on the verge of superstardom Cailee Spaeny, and aging, lifelong journalist plus voice of reason Sammy, performed by Stephen McKinley Henderson.

All the characters in the film were believable, nobody a cheap caricature, stereotype, or Mary Sue. At no point do any of the journalists turn into total bad-asses; like most of us, they’re portrayed as vulnerable, both physically and emotionally, even naive on a certain level. In yet another instance of contrasts, one of the characters goes from being unable to process a traumatic incident right back to lamenting that they may be unable to interview the president after all. Another character spends much of the film capable of handling the stresses of covering war, only to become overwhelmed by it all in the pivotal moment. All the characters are obsessed, in one way or another, with getting the perfect shot, the story, in any way imaginable, even if it kills them. We see how desensitizing it can become - there’s nothing but death all around them, yet they’re almost oblivious to it all, even when one of their own becomes a casualty. And yet, they’re the only way the rest of us will ever see what’s really going on.

If Alex Garland wanted to restore faith in journalism, it was a good attempt on his part. We obviously all know the truth, but Civil War at least reminds us why journalists can be useful when they do their job with integrity and professionalism. With journalists, instead of soldiers, militiamen, politicians, or war refugees as the film’s central characters, it allows us to be more neutral observers, witnessing the madness of it all, instead of worrying about who’s right and who’s wrong.

Though we know very little about how and why America is in a state of civil war in the movie, I still found the scenario implausible. The war onscreen also didn’t take the form that I think our next civil war would take. I’ve explained all this in depth previously, so I won’t go too deep into the topic, even as I remain committed to the belief the U.S. is at high risk of civil war in the next five to ten years. The scenario presented in Civil War is a high-intensity conventional war, but I believe the actual civil war to come will be widespread low-intensity conflict, defined mostly by higher levels of crime, social unrest, and terrorism.

Implausible as it may be, Civil War still manages to present its scenario realistically. It’s not “Mad Max” and, despite the devastation, lacks the prototypical post-apocalyptic feel of most Second American Civil War speculative fiction due to its depiction of life still managing to go on, with something of a First World veneer to much of it. The battle scenes are intense and loud. We’re talking Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan levels of sensory overload, though with comparatively less gore. It’s the fact this level of violence is occurring on our home soil, that Americans are killing Americans with impunity, which is supposed to shock us all. Impressive and realistic as the battle sequences were, it was really something seeing that level of devastation occurring on our soil, in our national capital.

I watched Civil War in a packed theater and most everyone watched in hushed tones. You could feel the tension in the air during the battle sequences. We were bearing witness to our own self-destruction. You didn’t know if you were supposed to be rooting for the Western Forces, whom the journalists were embedded with, as they advanced on Washington, and maybe that’s the point. Like the journalists themselves, you were there to bear witness and make up your mind later. The in-the-action insertion of snapshots taken by photojournalists Lee and Jessie capturing the moments which eventually form our collective memory of history gave the visual experience a raw feel, as though it was all happening live, right here, right now.

When it’s all said and done, we are left with more questions than answers. What comes next? What form will the new country - or countries - take? Is the war over? Or is it just the end of one chapter of the conflict and the beginning of another? And again, how did it all start? Maybe these questions will be answered in future installments, though I personally prefer they not turn it into a Purge-like franchise. The film works perfectly on its own, because the message was always meant to be “This isn’t where we want to end up.”

It’s A Long Way Down

Civil War is supposed to be Alex Garland’s last directorial effort and I don’t think he could’ve picked a better way to exit stage left. He knew he needed to handle the topic in a delicate, responsible manner and I think he more than fulfilled that commitment. At a time when America is so clearly headed in the wrong direction, he eschews the morality tale, opting instead to implore us all to consider: see where this leads? In the end, it almost doesn’t even matter who was right or wrong. It’s all about who’s standing in the end. And it may not be you. It may not be any of us.

I don’t see how anyone can find this a divisive message. For some, the lack of divisiveness, the fact it didn’t take a cheap swing at the Right, is a strike against the film. If so, then it’s clearly not for them. For the rest of us, Civil War could serve, ironically, as a unifying project. The story takes far enough in the future, in a world that’s just unfamiliar enough, that it allows us to take our personal politics out of the picture. If there’s anything that could lower the temperature in what’s certain to be a scorching election year, it’s a movie about the Second American Civil War. Kirsten Dunst herself isn’t concerned with the film manifesting in real-world violence, as some have warned. I share her optimism, as the movie doesn’t glorify violence, nor is the violence onscreen depicted at a particularly personal level. Besides, it’s not like The Purge films led to an increase in real-world violence.

In the end, it’s just a movie. It may not change anything in the real world in the end. We may very well find ourselves in a civil war one day. But I also think we’d be damned if we didn’t try to steer ourselves away from the cliff. Civil War was a grand effort at that and it deserves our viewership and praise. I hope everyone will go see it and if you do, see it in IMAX. It’s a cinematic masterpiece, the art form at its finest.

What Kind Of American Are You?

Do you plan on viewing Civil War? Why or why not? If you do see it, what’s your reaction? Do you think the movie will calm tensions, or exacerbate them? What other works of fiction speculating about a Second American Civil War do you recommend? And, in the interest of levity, what kind of American are you? If the scenario posited in Civil War came to pass, would you end up in the Loyalist States, the Western Forces, the Florida Alliance, or the mysterious New People’s Army?

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts in the comments section below.

Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.

If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!