Thanks nc! I've been really curious about this one. My biggest disappointment is that it sidestepped the whole red/blue issue, which I've heard critics grumble about. But it's good to know it's a good production otherwise.

To me, a story about war that avoids discussing the political causes is kinda like, hmm... well... a movie about the atomic bomb that avoids discussing the resulting death & devastation? but what do I know about blockbuster movies 😅

Just last night I read an interesting review and would love to know your take on it. It's a mostly negative review that criticizes the movie for Americanizing war, as American movies have always done. Being American I never really thought about this until recently. For example Vietnam War movies never show it from Vietnamese society's point of view; it's always some personal drama from a distinctly American perspective.

The review confused me a bit since this is an American war being portrayed here. But I guess the point is it dramatizes the battlefield drama without showing the bigger picture, i.e. the red/blue divisions of society that led up to it?

Here's the article: What 'Civil War' reveals about this troubling Hollywood tradition

At any rate it's good to know it's a well made production that made the most of a modest budget. I won't go out of my way to see it, but if I pass by a theater on a rainy day I might duck in out of the rain.

rooprect--

Thanks for the kind words. Many people have criticized the lack of political exposition in this movie. The problem is-- and what I think Garland was trying to avoid --is that by demonizing one side-- whether that be Blue or Red --such an approach would have caused the other side of the audience to disregard the film's message:

Which is, basically, war is hell. And that America would be much diminished for enduring another internal cataclysm. Spoilers will follow in this discussion.

For example, there is a potentially humiliating scene where our journalist protagonists are provided food and shelter in a large open-air refugee camp staffed by, apparently, an outside aid organization. Usually we only see this in other, "Third World" countries. And U.S. money is now almost worthless; but if you've got Canadian cash, you've got some pull. U.S. sovereignty has definitely taken a hit in this movie.

Thank you for providing the link to Mr. Berlatsky's article. However, I don't entirely understand his reasoning. The whole point of this film is that things we only see reported happening in other countries, we see happening HERE, affecting us as Americans. And we are far from the only nation that makes films focusing on our own experiences in a foreign war. I'm pretty sure there are French films out there exploring the experience of French soldiers in Vietnam from 1945 - 1954. And as far as U.S. films dealing with that same subject, most of them are anti-war. And as far as only the American perspective being portrayed, I think Mr. Berlatsky forgets about the strong pro-Ho Chi Minh protests on American college campuses during the Vietnam War. And the horrifying footage of the suffering of the Vietnamese populace sent back to the U.S. by American media, which played a large role in getting the U.S. out of Vietnam. And, the countries affected by European and U.S. intervention can and do make their own films, from their own perspectives, about such foreign involvement. In just one example-- and I don't have the title to hand --India did make a drama film about the two-day war it fought against Portugal to retake Goa in 1961.

As far as the backstory of the conflict in Civil War, I do have a theory. The major faction fighting the U.S. forces of Offerman's regime is the Western Alliance, working its way across the U.S. to D.C.. This group is no ragtag mob-- it is fully organized, uniformed, and trained, equipped with heavy weaponry from tanks to helicopters to fighter jets. Some of the insignia are from actual present-day U.S. military formations. Thus, to my mind, they are the bulk of the U.S. military that has rebelled against the President, since he has arranged himself an illegal third term, disbanded the FBI, and rules as an authoritarian. His own forces are seldom shown, but we can assume that these are the other part of the pre-war U.S. military, in a state of psychological torment because they took an oath to follow the orders of the President. Here is the text, rooprect, of the actual oath that new recruits to the U.S. military take upon enlistment:

"I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

So you see, Mr. Garland can make a story without it having to be Red vs. Blue, but instead involving a conflicted military and populace, splintered.

There are also, in this movie, various other small groups, poorly-equipped ad hoc militias operating only for opportunity. Which I could totally see happening in such chaos.

@northcoast said:

rooprect--

Thanks for the kind words. Many people have criticized the lack of political exposition in this movie. The problem is-- and what I think Garland was trying to avoid --is that by demonizing one side-- whether that be Blue or Red --such an approach would have caused the other side of the audience to disregard the film's message:

Which is, basically, war is hell. And that America would be much diminished for enduring another internal cataclysm. Spoilers will follow in this discussion.

For example, there is a potentially humiliating scene where our journalist protagonists are provided food and shelter in a large open-air refugee camp staffed by, apparently, an outside aid organization. Usually we only see this in other, "Third World" countries. And U.S. money is now almost worthless; but if you've got Canadian cash, you've got some pull. U.S. sovereignty has definitely taken a hit in this movie.

Thank you for providing the link to Mr. Berlatsky's article. However, I don't entirely understand his reasoning. The whole point of this film is that things we only see reported happening in other countries, we see happening HERE, affecting us as Americans. And we are far from the only nation that makes films focusing on our own experiences in a foreign war. I'm pretty sure there are French films out there exploring the experience of French soldiers in Vietnam from 1945 - 1954. And as far as U.S. films dealing with that same subject, most of them are anti-war. And as far as only the American perspective being portrayed, I think Mr. Berlatsky forgets about the strong pro-Ho Chi Minh protests on American college campuses during the Vietnam War. And the horrifying footage of the suffering of the Vietnamese populace sent back to the U.S. by American media, which played a large role in getting the U.S. out of Vietnam. And, the countries affected by European and U.S. intervention can and do make their own films, from their own perspectives, about such foreign involvement. In just one example-- and I don't have the title to hand --India did make a drama film about the two-day war it fought against Portugal to retake Goa in 1961.

As far as the backstory of the conflict in Civil War, I do have a theory. The major faction fighting the U.S. forces of Offerman's regime is the Western Alliance, working its way across the U.S. to D.C.. This group is no ragtag mob-- it is fully organized, uniformed, and trained, equipped with heavy weaponry from tanks to helicopters to fighter jets. Some of the insignia are from actual present-day U.S. military formations. Thus, to my mind, they are the bulk of the U.S. military that has rebelled against the President, since he has arranged himself an illegal third term, disbanded the FBI, and rules as an authoritarian. His own forces are seldom shown, but we can assume that these are the other part of the pre-war U.S. military, in a state of psychological torment because they took an oath to follow the orders of the President. Here is the text, rooprect, of the actual oath that new recruits to the U.S. military take upon enlistment:

"I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

There are two different oaths taken, one by the new recruits and one by the officers.

Oath of Enlistment

I, ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Oath of Office (Comissioned Officers)

I ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

I don't know what the implications are in military and civilian law. Perhaps a rewatch of "JAG (1995-2005)" will help.

Officers do not swear obedience to the president or higher ranking officers. This means that officials cannot manipulate officers in order to gain control over the military and become dictators. In other words, this ensures that no single branch or person gains too much power (abuses its power), and becomes corrupted. By swearing allegiance to a set of ideals and laws, the US military is not bound by the orders of a single person, but are dedicated to the defense of the people and their way of life.

So, an officer can disobey an order, if he/she deems it unlawful. Furthermore, Article 90 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) states that service members are only obligated to obey lawful orders. In other words, Article 90 of the UCMJ allows for legal disobedience of unlawful orders for both enlisted and officers.

After the war is over, this can all be argued in the military court by JAG. Unless there is a dictatorship and the nine judges of the Supreme Court are on the side of the new leader. The Constitution and UCMJ will then be amended in favour of TPTB.

@northcoast said:

rooprect--

Thanks for the kind words. Many people have criticized the lack of political exposition in this movie. The problem is-- and what I think Garland was trying to avoid --is that by demonizing one side-- whether that be Blue or Red --such an approach would have caused the other side of the audience to disregard the film's message:

Which is, basically, war is hell. And that America would be much diminished for enduring another internal cataclysm.

Ah I get it. That is indeed a good approach then, to conspicuously avoid politics. This was indeed the approach of Apocalypse Now which avoids all politics and context, simply using the Vietnam War as a vehicle to tell about the brutality of war and the dangers of absolute power (Brando's character Kurtz). I think Apocalypse Now actually failed at that message because it ended up glorifying and martyring Kurtz, making him seem cool in his draconian attitudes. But from what I've read, in this film the tyrant president is not a sympathetic hero in any way. According to the Berlatsky article he's a clear Trumpian character.

Back to Berlatsky, I tend to agree with you that his reasoning was confusing and lopsided. The more I think about it, yes every filmmaker tells war from the perspective of the film's home country. It might even be presumptuous to try to tell it otherwise. But I do agree with him that in many cases the bigger picture gets trampled underfoot. I've seen a dozen films about Vietnam and still have no clue what the war was about.

On the subject of an American civil war (fictional or the real one), I think it's such a charged topic for Americans that you can't blame us for being disappointed that the politics aren't considered. I think each side is adamant that it was a righteous war with their respective side being "right". So it's almost like making a movie about fighting over abortion without declaring whose side you're on. It can be done, but most likely you'll piss off both sides for failing to weigh in.

Perhaps that's where Americans need to get their heads outta their polarized butts, and it takes a non American voice to deliver that message. Ang Lee tried this, more or less, in Ride with the Devil where he showed the Civil War without villainizing either side (or rather villainizing both sides equally). But to me it felt like a copout to avoid the elephant in the room (slavery). I watched the scenes of the Union's brutality thinking "yeah whatever, we were still right overall." Which is probably how most Americans view it, both North & South.

In any case your review really helped me understand what Garland is trying to say, and I do respect him as a screenwriter, so I'm definitely interested in seeing this one day.

I was among those who were vocal about my apprehensions regarding avoiding red/blue.

Sure, I can appreciate the effort to not take a side, villainize a side, and alienate half the potential audience; indeed, if neither side has been dismissed, they might be more inclined to watch the movie and have the chance to learn something, heed the warnings, and reflect, before USA does in fact roll down this road.

Yet, I'm kinda miffed that it's so difficult to call out right vs. wrong in today's landscape. I mean, we never needed a movie depicting Stalin as a family man or Hitler as a vegan friend to animals. It used to be there was no ambiguity about right or wrong, and calling out the wrong was neither difficult nor "political". But when we turn the light inward, all of a sudden, we've got to accommodate "good people on both sides...both sides..." or lionize Confederate soldiers for "fighting for heritage not hate."

All that said, these thoughtful reviews and the thoughtful manner in which the movie attempts to craft a scenario that could lead to a 2nd American Civil War do compel me to want to see it.

Watching this film causes laughter, irritation and disgust. Maybe I liked such movies before, but not now. It's so far from the real horrors of real war that you can't even imagine! The real war is now taking place in Ukraine. Here, the Russians are committing truly terrible atrocities that the imagination of the best cinematographer cannot create. Genocide of Ukrainians is taking place here. Ukrainians are the only nation on the planet that was able to resist the Russian Empire and that could defeat this Evil Empire once and for all with a sufficient number of weapons and financial support. But the USA and the entire collective West betrayed Ukraine, betrayed democracy and the world order. They thereby signed a sentence for themselves. They lost the war to the Russian Empire without even entering the war. This means the collapse of the entire civilized democratic world. The next empire to fall will be the USA, but not the wild Russian Empire, descendants of the Androphages and the Asian Golden Horde. This film is precisely about the future fall of the democratic world, which has already today lost its understanding of true civilizational values, "swimmed in fat", relaxed in a warm bath and lost its bearings... The retribution for this will be cruel. Moreover, this will not even require the armed forces of the united totalitarian world (Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, ISIS, etc.). Russia generously financed populists and right-wing radicals in all countries of the European Union, the USA (as well as in other parts of the world) in order to successfully destroy these countries from the inside. This film is not about journalists. This film is a warning that the time has come for Americans and Europeans to learn Russian (and later, likewise, Chinese or Arabic) and prepare for the domination of the so-called "Russian world". Because (you don't know it yet) Russia forbids the native language of all the peoples it conquers. At the same time, Russia (Moscovia or Moscow State until 1721) considers all countries where there is a population that speaks Russian to be a zone of its interests. That is, if the indigenous population of some countries wants to gain (return) independence from Russia in the future, Russia will use its Armed Forces "to protect the Russian-speaking population" in those countries. Such a closed circle. Get ready, gentlemen, Americans, Germans, French, English, Japanese, Koreans, Poles, Spaniards, Italians, Portuguese, Finns, Swedes, Danes, Belgians... Everyone get ready.

agree