Alex Garland, the British author-turned-director famous for his work on Ex Machina and Annihilation, talked about his latest film, Civil War, reflecting on the difficulty of predicting the audience’s response. Garland admits that, in contrast to other productions where he might have inklings or aspirations as to the reception, this time he genuinely didn’t know what to expect.
The initial responses have been overwhelmingly positive. An overwhelming wave of excitement was felt at the movie’s premiere at the South by Southwest festival in Austin, Texas, while early reviews have been filled with high praise. Yet, an undercurrent of apprehension pervades around this dystopian adventure film.
In this year of presidential elections, Garland’s daring venture into the divisive politics that threaten to tear the United States apart has raised eyebrows and garnered attention. According to the most pessimistic predictions, such divisions could push the country towards its biggest crisis since the actual Civil War.
While keeping the origins of the story’s conflict somewhat unclear, the narrative reveals an apparent authoritarian regime in power, under a president serving a rare “third term”. The loyalist army controls much of the east and midwest, facing opposition from “western forces” seeking secession. The storyline focuses on a team of tenacious journalists played by Kirsten Dunst, Cailee Spaeny, Wagner Moura, and Stephen McKinley Henderson.
The question that lingers concerning the film is whether it speculates on a possible future if Donald Trump’s re-election were to have dire consequences. This interpretation is expectedly dismissed by Garland as overly simplistic, but he doesn’t fully reject it. With a touch of humour, Garland acknowledges the complexity of the film’s themes, hinting at a focus on the nature of journalism, impartiality in reporting, and how media biases affect reporters and public trust in their narratives.
“We’re creating a film focused on journalists – and we’re developing the project much like a journalist would. It aims to present realities while eliminating personal biases. I was raised in the company of journalists; my father was a cartoonist. They held steadfast beliefs, yet demonstrated a level of impartiality when it came to their profession.”
Alex Garland provides this insight, speaking in a composed, reflective manner. Once he starts to delve into a topic, he can go on at length. In fact, his father is Nicholas Garland, a seasoned political cartoonist. Garland’s early life was spent at a school in Hampstead, in North London. Subsequently, he pursued an art-history degree at the University of Manchester. His first novel, The Beach, brought him immediate recognition.
Indeed, being surrounded by accomplished journalists – his father worked for the Daily Telegraph, Private Eye, and the Spectator – has influenced Garland’s work on Civil War. Understandable. But the discussion isn’t over yet. He concedes that the film is somewhat related to the present-day societal divides.
Garland explains, “Our inability to listen to each other during discussions is not the issue. The problem arises from the strange transformation of discourse. I aimed to create storytelling that encourages discourse. I refuse to suppress that opportunity for conversation. Moreover, I’m against directly targeting individuals, as I believe this is a broader issue.
“In England, we’re grappling with a significant issue: polarised, sectarian and divisive politics, which inherently harbours extremist ideologies. During my life, extremism has emerged closer to home than I expected for someone born in 1970.”
What draws our attention is the ambiguity Garland permits in Civil War. The path leading up to the depicted dispute could have originated at numerous points.
“The film portrays a president who has served three terms and has dismantled an institution that could pose a threat to him,” he acknowledges. Trump’s aversion towards the FBI, which has been referenced in the president’s decision to dissolve the agency, confirms this.
“He’s harming his own citizens. Ambiguity definitely surrounds this action. Although, you might realise that if you analyse it. However, calling such action – this fascist behaviour – ambiguous wouldn’t be accurate,” Garland adds.
Unquestionably, the film’s portrayal of its president as a malign influence is evident. An intense scene reveals his rural and prejudiced supporters. Yet, the director, Garland, manipulates our usual assumptions of how such a conflict unfolds. The secessionist forces in the western part of the country comprise a coalition between Texas and California. Even though these two states – home to a combined 70 million people – are incredibly diverse, they are frequently stereotyped as, liberal and conservative bastions respectively, for ease of political reductionism. Was Garland intentionally creating uncertainty?
“Yes, it was an intentional choice,” Garland responds. “It prevents the audience from hastily deciding what the primary issues are. The situation is more complex. Anyone familiar with the ideological stances of these two powerful states may find themselves questioning. However, I should avoid delving too deep otherwise I risk unveiling too much about the film. But the fundamental question it presents is whether two politically divided states perceive a fascist president as a bigger threat than their ideological differences.” The film doesn’t explicitly state this, it merely suggests it, fostering a dialogue.
But all this would be moot if the film’s prowess as a fast-paced action drama were absent. Its civil war narrative is bound to resonate with people across the political spectrum, including the apolitical. It’s not just about the battle scenes, it also comes across as an exhilarating journaling story, comparable to the likes of Under Fire by Roger Spottiswoode and Salvador by Oliver Stone. There’s ample imbibing and narcotic usage. While the journalists make a few controversial decisions, they are perceived as old school heroes. Juggling cameras just as the fighters handle submachine guns, they’re at the heart of it.
“He acknowledges what I’m implying and agrees with it,” he discloses. He had a personal connection with journalism from a young age, growing up in the 1970s, as his godfather and his brother’s godfather both worked as foreign correspondents. His father admired these men, who often returned from assignments in far-off countries like Vietnam and Cambodia, recounting tales of their adventures. As a small child, he found these individuals quite charming, intelligent, and somewhat esteemed.
When asked if he’s romanticising, he doesn’t outright deny it. He seems stunned that journalists have become the target of scorn in the current climate. He vehemently opposes this disdain, drawing a parallel with detesting doctors or other essential professionals. He admires the BBC for attempting to maintain impartiality and is infuriated by the widespread hostility they receive, evidenced by the increasing threats of violence.
He observes that the general consensus amongst some social media users is that politicians and journalists are considered detestable. Garland adamantly highlights that not all politicians should be viewed negatively, drawing particular attention to the fact that the outspoken ones, such as Boris Johnson, drown out the reasonable voices.
Following university, Garland briefly delved into illustrating comic books. However, the famed reputation of his father within a similar sphere overpowered him. So, he transitioned to writing novels. His breakout work, ‘The Beach’, became a sensation. Published in 1996, the novel, which follows a young wanderer joining a group of expats in a secluded Thai district, resonated with the mid-Gen X hedonists, leading to 25 reprints in its first year of publication. This popular novel went on to become a significant Hollywood flick featuring Leonardo DiCaprio, under the direction of Danny Boyle.
Garland confessed that during his early 20s, he yearned to become a foreign correspondent. His dreams, however, faded when he discovered his inability to write non-fiction, despite it being his primary reading choice. Encouragement poured in when he found himself accomplishing one fiction sentence after another, ultimately knocking out a novel. Paradoxically, he hadn’t dreamed of becoming a novelist in his adolescent years. The fruition of his career as a novelist was an unexpected result of an unsuccessful plan. The unexpected success took him by surprise as he was not mentally prepared for it, including the reality of being a novelist, which led him to doubt his desire to continue when he attempted to create a second novel.
Even after publishing two novels, The Tesseract and The Coma, that met with a fair share of success, it’s evident his enthusiasm had somewhat waned. He returned the advance he’d received for upcoming books and refused to create more, choosing instead to write 28 Days Later, a zombie-themed film. Director Boyle enhanced this 2002 production, bringing a novel vitality to the zombie genre and propelling Cillian Murphy into the spotlight.
Garland praised the collaborative spirit of filmmaking and preferred being part of a group. His philosophical science fiction film, Ex Machina, debuted in 2015, showcasing intricate special effects that unexpectedly secured an Oscar. Despite being a newcomer, he managed to pull off a film with such complexity. He attributes this, in part, to learning from osmosis.
Garland stated that while filmmakers like Wes Anderson exert artistic and absolute control over their movies’ every aspect, that isn’t how his films are made. He uses a team comprising a range of professionals, such as VFX supervisors, directors of photography, and sound designers. He also admitted to having witnessed chaotic film sets kept in check by the crew’s experience. This, he said, is why the traditional ‘A film by’ credit still causes him some discomfort.
“Cillian Murphy: ‘Relocating from London was our top move’
Garland’s work possesses a unique cinematic tone. His following movies Annihilation, Men and currently, Civil War, all share an unusual peculiarity. However, it’s understandable why he recoils at the acknowledgement.
‘Saying ‘created by’ is much simpler than recognising a diverse group of individuals, simply because it doesn’t suit the poster.’
Civil War is now widely available for viewing.