I had high expectations for Alex Garland's Civil War and I am pleased to say that my expectations were exceeded. The marketing made the film look like it was a summer action blockbuster but anyone familiar with A24 or Alex Garland's previous work would quite rightly be suspicious. That's not to say Civil War does not stand up as an action film, quite the opposite, it has some of the most intense and visceral action sequences I have seen on film.
The focus is on three generations of war journalists taking a road trip from New York to Washington DC, during a 2nd American civil war. Rebel coalitions are closing in on the capital and the journalists want to get there first, to interview the president, before the war is over.
In the 2024 US political climate, it is easy to see why audiences might have certain preconceptions about Civil War and the kind of message it might be pedalling. I expect seeing the words 'Civil War' alongside a picture of the statue of liberty would be enough for some people to make snap judgements about it. Perhaps hoping that the film will offer a suitable political lecture, with clear good-guys and bad-guys. But that is not what Civil War is.
Alex Garland is thoroughly deliberate in creating a world of chaos and ambiguity, shown without bias, through the lens of impartial correspondents. The characters see it as their job to be totally neutral in their presentation of the war, and so too does Garland in his presentation of the film.
The audience is dropped into the latter stages of the war, there is almost no exposition but for me, everything you need to know can be picked up through context. The specific details of how America got to this point are left very much to the audience's imagination. But far from being a lazy omission on Garland's part, or a desire to be avoid controversy, it is entirely necessary for the film to succeed in the way it was intended.
Civil War has as much to say about journalists and journalism as it does about war. The backbone of the character-story is the inter-generational mentoring between the journalists, each with their own experiences and approaches. The value of the kind of journalism on display is again very much for the audience to decide.
Technically Civil War is a triumph; spectacular sets and visual effects and an immersive sounds design, particularly during moments of action. The film also looks beautiful; it's rich and strikingly colourful with stunning cinematography. There is a repeated theme of lingering shots, capturing moments evoking the look of still-photography.
The main cast are all excellent, Cailee Spaeny as the rooky photographer, Wagner Moura as a seasoned thrill-seeking reporter and Stephen KcKinley Henderson as the wise veteran journalist. But it was Kirsten Dunst that stood out as a real career-highlight performance, completely believable as a jaded professional, going through the motions; from the word go she nails it.
The score is subtle and haunting from Garland's frequent composer collaborators Geoff Barrow and Ben Salisbury. There are no bombastic, heart-swelling, orchestral epics, it is much more on the unsettling, mood-building side. The soundtrack is however much less subtle, with needle-drops coming in loud and during unexpected and jarring moments. For me, this was jarring in a positive way, but I know it has divided opinion. The choice of music is wide-ranging Americana including the likes of De La Soul and Suicide. I felt there was an intention to create a kind of Vietnam-style war soundtrack; not ripping off the era but creating a bespoke sound for Garland's alternative Civil War reality.
Overall, I think the film is a masterpiece of exceptional choices and details. What Garland chose to leave out was almost as powerful as what he chose to show, and while that might not appeal to everyone, it worked for me on every level.
2 out of 5 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tell Your Friends