CIVIL WAR: What is the Point of War Photography and This Movie?

SPOILER ALERT if you haven’t seen the movie yet

At one point in this year’s hit movie CIVIL WAR, Kirsten Dunst confesses that her original ambitions to deter war by portraying the horrors of war through photography have failed. Wars continued regardless of her and others’ efforts. The dialog got me thinking… what is the point of war photography anymore? We’ve seen it all in picture or video form: soldiers and citizens shot up, blown up, burned, mutilated, tortured. It hasn’t deterred the human race to repeat all these violent acts so why continue to photograph them? Is it really just an indulgent action at this point or could you even say that it’s become a form of disturbing entertainment?

That scene might be the only insightful moment in CIVIL WAR, this year’s most overrated movie. Critics fell all over themselves for Alex Garland’s latest and it did quite well at the box office based on hype and word of mouth but I found it to be a pointless exercise.

First, the film focuses only on the media experience. Sidelining the American people who would actually be most effected by a real civil war, Garland follows the perspective of the journalist elite. Ordinary people are barely shown and we have no idea how the war has effected their lives. The only other group depicted with any substantial screen time in this story are the combatants (who are often psychotic). It’s ironic that audiences flocked to see a movie about our country being torn apart when it’s narrative has nothing to do with what would happen to them if it ever was!

Second, contrary to the critical consensus and tweets, the film is not politically balanced. Sure, it is on the surface. It doesn’t clearly pick a side but it does. Start with the casting of Nick Offerman as the President. A comic actor cast as the leader of the U.S. with an opening monologue that establishes he’s a blow hard and you don’t think that’s a comment on #45? And back to the story’s lack of relevance and resonance to the American people, the whole plot revolves around interviewing and then murdering said President. You think anyone would really care all that much about who was sitting in the White House if our country was being torn apart by factions left and right? No, and Garland gives the President no power or significance, making the forward drive of the narrative a foolish one.

Back to how politically balanced CIVIL WAR supposedly is… you think the red sunglasses on Jesse Plemons are an accidental choice? On these movies, every color is a choice and they chose red for a reason. That scene, one of the most talked about, makes me scratch my head. What exactly is so horrifying or chilling or incredible about Plemons’ performance? I found his acting to be one note and the mass grave sequence did not effect me. Turn this off and go watch THE KILLING FIELDS.

Alex Garland is a talented filmmaker who has made a completely misguided movie for all the reasons I’ve mentioned and more. Don’t get me started on Wagner Moura’s stupidly-written character or the ridiculous conclusion, which I predicted in the first fifteen minutes. But my main issue with CIVIL WAR is that it has no real purpose other than to capitalize on our current, volatile situation.

Touted as a must-see thought-provoking movie in our divided times (what a great marketing ploy!), CIVIL WAR actually says nothing substantial about what a new internal conflict in America would look like for us, the audience. It only shows us what a few journalists, some psychotic people, and crappy politicians might experience. It does nothing to scare us away from another war between the states, which appears to be our fate. And therefore, it’s much like the war photographs Kirsten Dunst and her colleagues risk their lives to take: a pointless, exploitative (and entertaining) work of art.

This will eventually be published on my website, runningwildfilms.com, and my Travis Mills Facebook page. For the next week, it is exclusively available here