A joint review of the movie Civil War

While initially intriguing, the film’s minimalist approach fails to deliver on its promise

By Luc Archambault and Andrew Burlone

May 14, 2024

In these uncertain times, the notion that a single individual, driven by delusions of grandeur and a disregard for democratic norms, could ignite a catastrophic chain of events leading to civil war is both alarming and sobering. It serves as a stark reminder of the fragility of political systems and the importance of vigilance in safeguarding the integrity of electoral processes.

A stark reminder of the fragility of political systems and the importance of vigilance in safeguarding the integrity of electoral processes.

For those who closely monitor the turbulent political climate of the United States, the prospect of a descent into a dystopian electoral process abducted by a deranged individual is a genuine and intensifying concern. The unsettling possibility of a nation torn apart by internal strife has captured the attention of observers both within and beyond America’s borders.

Written and directed by Alex Garland the movie Civil War was shot in Atlanta, Georgia in 2022, with a budget of $50 million, and premiered at the South by Southwest Film Festival on March 14th, 2024. The production value is evident on screen, making distinguishing between CGI and live-action sequences challenging. Filmed entirely with handheld cameras, it offers a gritty, immersive experience that brings the viewer into proximity with the protagonists.

The raw, visceral imagery evokes comparisons to films like Elem Klimov‘s Come and See (1985) and Steven Spielberg‘s Saving Private Ryan (1998), but with one glaring omission – a multilayered, rich script. In this case, all peripheral elements have been stripped away. There are no historical, political, or military explanations provided. Instead, we follow four protagonists, journalists seeking to interview the U.S. President, as they drive from New York to Washington D.C. through various factions and militias. Upon arrival at the White House, which is under attack from a rebel army, they witness a Ceaușescu-style assassination.

‘The production value is evident on screen, making distinguishing between CGI and live-action sequences challenging.’

While initially intriguing, the film’s minimalist approach fails to deliver on its promise. By stripping away historical context and political nuance, it risks oversimplifying complex issues and reducing them to mere spectacle. The lack of exposition and character development leaves the viewer unsatisfied, craving a deeper exploration of the themes and their real-world implications.

Does this minimalist approach represent the future of filmmaking? By reducing the premise and historical context to the bare essentials and adopting a first-person shooter video game perspective, the film immerses the viewer in the chaos and uncertainty of a nation on the brink of civil war. This stylistic choice forces the audience to fill in the gaps, engaging them more actively in the narrative and inviting them to ponder the underlying themes and implications.

‘By stripping away historical context and political nuance, it risks oversimplifying complex issues and reducing them to mere spectacle.’

This emerging trend in filmmaking represents a cinematographic travesty, a lowering of expectations and a departure from coherent philosophical visions. In an era where discourse is often reduced to simplistic binary choices, black-and-white oversimplifications, and absolute moral dualism, critical reasoning is debased.

This particular film had all the ingredients for success: a talented cast featuring Kristen Dunst, Wagner Moura and Stephen McKinley Henderson, an impressive budget, and major visual effects. Despite these advantages, the film ultimately falls short due to its limited scope. Instead of becoming a timely allegory that offers insightful commentary on our troubled times, a masterpiece of ironic political savvy, it devolves into just another mindless, forgettable distraction.

Wagner Moura and Kristen Dunst

While some may argue that the lack of exposition and context is a weakness, it can also be seen as a strength, allowing the viewer to draw their own conclusions and reflect on the parallels to real-world events. The film’s raw, uncompromising style challenges traditional storytelling conventions and invites a more visceral, emotional response from the audience. Ultimately, whether this approach represents the future of filmmaking is up for debate, but it undoubtedly marks a bold and innovative departure from the norm, one that is likely to spark discussion and debate among film enthusiasts and critics alike.

‘The film’s raw, uncompromising style challenges traditional storytelling conventions and invites a more visceral response from the audience.’

In an era where audiences are increasingly sophisticated and demand more from their entertainment, films that prioritize style over substance risk becoming irrelevant. The true mark of a great film lies in its ability to engage the intellect as well as the senses, to challenge preconceptions and spark meaningful dialogue. By falling short in this regard, the film misses an opportunity to make a lasting impact and contribute to the ongoing discourse surrounding the issues it seeks to address.

Images: courtesy of A24

Other recent articles

Andrew Burlone, co-founder of WestmountMag.ca, began his professional journey at NOUS magazine, then transitioned as creative director of Visionnaires Branding Design. He is a passionate enthusiast of film, photography, art and literature.