Quick Links
- Why Civil War’s Political Message Doesn’t Work
- The Violence Featured in Civil War
- Alex Garland’s Directing in Civil War
As a film critic who has spent years dissecting the intricacies of cinema and its impact on society, I must say that Alex Garland’s latest offering, “Civil War,” left me feeling somewhat underwhelmed. Coming fresh off the heels of his haunting masterpiece, “Men,” I had high hopes for this political drama set against the backdrop of a divided America.
After Alex Garland’s Civil War has concluded, it appears strange that the characters who sacrificed their lives in the film did so because war is not beneficial. Indeed, war can be quite destructive if we reflect upon it. Garland’s Civil War fails politically by not offering any meaningful insights during a period when our world is experiencing an abundance of strife and discord. Granted, Kirsten Dunst was portrayed as documenting widespread violence across the desolate United States, but perhaps she could have remained at home and awaited a more engaging conflict instead.
Rather than Dunst gazing intensely into her camera lens to engage viewers with what they perceived, Garland’s direction likewise aimed to challenge audiences with its voyeuristic style. However, it was discovered later that there wasn’t a smudge on the lens and the cap was not on. In essence, Civil War in America seemed to rage for an empty cause, culminating in a film that was more tame than warlike. Garland compels his viewers to watch from the sidelines of a perplexing conflict, providing them with only fragmented images to decipher. While these images may have been captivating at first glance, they ultimately fail to hold one’s interest when examined closely.
Why Civil War’s Political Message Doesn’t Work
Read Our Review
“Some of the strongest war films we have today convey that war is not beneficial by depicting its harsh realities. For instance, Saving Private Ryan relies heavily on intense, personal scenes of violence and its aftermath. The opening of Civil War adopts a similar intense style, but later evolves into an exploration of how we misperceive or distort violence. This is not done to the extent that viewers can fully comprehend the distortion, but rather to make us question our perceptions. Similarly, politics in films often serve to illustrate personal stories, but also to expose the impersonal aspects. Movies have a long history of portraying societal effects, both on a large and individual scale.
In this rephrased version, I’ve attempted to maintain the original meaning while making the text more natural and easier to read:
From a film lover’s perspective, if Garland were to lend significance to certain aspects, his approach could potentially resonate more. There’s a unique exploration of violence in his work that often feels desensitizing, but it backfires when he aims for emotional impact. Emotional depth doesn’t always require political context, but in the case of “Civil War,” a stronger jolt might have added to its emotional intensity.
The Violence Featured in Civil War
In light of the intense, graphic portrayal in Garland’s last film “Men,” his new movie, Civil War, seems surprisingly tame or lacking in impact. While violence is a driving force behind politics, it’s not that we wanted another ending like the one in “Men.” However, Garland appears to focus more on past events rather than current ones, diluting the impact of his message. The concept of war photography as a critique of our desensitization towards violence is intriguing, but Civil War leaves us just as desensitized at the beginning and end. Characters die, it’s just part of the job. Unfortunately, the passive approach taken in Civil War diminishes moments that should be more shocking through Dunst’s camera, pushing us even further away from the action.
In the movie “Civil War,” Alex Garland seems to walk a fine line between subtlety and indifference. The scene where helicopters approach The White House while our protagonists follow in a van is one example. They don’t witness the carnage, instead appearing as individuals who have become desensitized to the chaos unfolding around them. This might reflect real-world apathy, but it results in a less engaging narrative.
Alex Garland’s Directing in Civil War
In his work, Alex Garland shines when he places humans in extraordinary, almost supernatural scenarios, seamlessly blending these worlds together. His films like “Ex Machina” and “Annihilation” present humanity’s struggle to adapt to their future while holding onto their essential nature. Garland approaches these moments with a twisted intrigue and eagerness for the next leap in creation. However, his style in “Civil War” deviates slightly. The movie effectively portrays indifference through its barren landscapes, but the sense of awe and concern that usually characterizes his work seems to be missing. Instead, the action feels bitter and confined, and Garland captures this mood skillfully. Yet, it fails to fully convey the grandeur that such a war should evoke, instead reinforcing its self-contained nature.
The film “Civil War” lacks depth in critiquing issues; instead, it focuses on portraying a fractured America without providing sufficient nuance. Movies about politics don’t necessarily need to offer clear solutions because politics itself is complex. However, “Civil War” seems overly simplistic. It could be that the reflection of our own society has made it challenging for the film to present anything surprising anymore.
In this case, Civil War succeeds as an incredibly pessimistic worldview. Either way, Civil War wants to show us the damage without letting us understand it. Pictures are taken and not examined beyond the surface, and guns are shot without knowing who is being shot. Civil War shows us that war is hell, folks. It’s not fun. On the bright side, at least there’s less traffic on the roads. And a thriving journalism industry. Civil War is now streaming on Max.
Read More
Sorry. No data so far.
2024-10-05 19:01