Civil War, a film set in the near future, was met with mixed reactions from moviegoers despite its political dystopian storyline. Far from being an exploration of independent cinema, the film was seen by many not out of cinematic curiosity, but due to its potential political commentary. However, some audience members felt let down, criticising the film for its lack of commentary on America’s political unrest and Trumpism.
The premise of Civil War centres around a group of journalists navigating through a war-torn region from New York to Washington DC, with the aim of interviewing a soon-to-be-deposed authoritarian leader. The backdrop features a civil war, with an improbable alliance of secessionist states, California and Texas, battling the government. There are also insinuations of splinter militias controlling different sectors of the country.
Alex Garland, the director, offers no explanations as to the progression of events, the political standpoint of the battling factions, or the potential protagonists. New York Times writer, Ross Douthat, along with many critics, took issue with this ambiguity, suggesting that it made the strife appear as a natural calamity or supernatural disaster, rather than an extension of political negotiation by arguably terrible yet rationale tactics.
Unmoved by the criticism, Garland maintained that his central idea was to portray journalists as the heroes, essential citizens in any free nation, who don’t intervene but simply observe. Despite this, the real intrigue of the film for many audiences, who ranged from liberal to conservative cinema patrons, was beyond Garland’s stated intentions, making it a box office success. Its appeal was more connected with its implied political discourse rather than its stated thematic concerns.
The original text insinuates that despite his own disconnect, this ultimately weakens his argument. For instance, in one scene, one of our protagonists, Joel, safeguards a defenceless president on the verge of being executed by armed warriors. Joel intervenes, pleading with them to halt their actions as he needs a statement from the president. The president entreats for his life to be spared – a wish that Joel affirms in a barely audible line that appears to encapsulate the director’s actual stance on journalism. After this interaction, the soldiers proceed with their mission.
The question arises then: are we expected to appreciate the notion that a journalist’s vital responsibility, according to Garland, is essentially to watch and document, regardless of how dire the situation may be? Or are we supposed to recoil at Joel’s cynicism?
The truth is, the film’s subtext is far more appealing, immediately catching the interest of patrons from both left- and right-wing affiliations, even if it ultimately falls short of expectations. This is the first occasion in many generations where both camps see a genuine potential for a heavily polarised, well-armed America to plunge into chaos. Numerous warning signs — a bitter political disparity at the top level, a blatant attack on Congress launched on January 6th, 2021, spurred on by a president who disregards the basic principle of law, and the activation of armed groups to ‘protect’ Texas’s borders – are evident. Not to mention the omnipresent lethal, uncensored, false narratives on social media platforms contributing to social fracture. These circumstances have left many fearful.
A survey conducted in 2022 reveals that 43 percent of Americans perceive the likelihood of a civil war occurring within the ensuing decade. Moreover, recent polling data from a civil rights entity indicate that over half of probable voters are convinced that the nation is on the brink of another civil war. The civil war of the 19th century resulted in the death of roughly 2 percent of the country’s populace and its remainder continues to make its presence felt in the country’s political discourse.
Political scientist Barbara Walter posits that such conflict is in the realm of possibility and is not simply a metaphor. She maintains that the country is headed towards a period of political instability and violence stretching over the coming decades.
Survey results reveal a concerning trend: nearly half, 49%, of the adult participants anticipate violent repercussions from the defeated party in impending elections. Barbara Walter, a political science scholar from the University of California and written of the hotly-discussed “How Civil Wars Start”, posits that the likelihood of a civil unrest is more than just a figurative expression. She expects that, over the coming ten to twenty years, the nation will face political turbulence and potential outbreaks of violence, potentially involving political or judicial assassinations and the emergence of militant factions.
But is this prediction overly dramatic? Stephen Marche, who penned “The Next Civil War”, brings up an early 20th century quote from Henry Adams, the grandchild of John Quincy Adams: “No man in America anticipated, desired or was prepared for the Civil War.” Marche believes the biggest political threat America faces is not extreme ideologies, but inertia. He argues that America is in dire need of a wake-up call.
And it might be that “Civil War”, regardless of its director’s original intentions, serves as this alarm bell.