when the director doesn't give a f**k about your politics
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 кві 2024
- 🕹Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC or Mobile: 💥 con.onelink.me/kZW6/FISP001 Receive 13,000 gold and 1 month of a Premium Subscription for free for the next 30 days!
🎬 In this FilmSpeak video essay, we discuss Civil War Journalists are FAILING America. We also discuss why A24 Civil War is a masterpiece and what happens when the director doesn't give a f**k about your politics.
🔔 SUBSCRIBE: ua-cam.com/users/filmspeak?sub_con...
Why is Civil War so controversial? A24's Civil War was always gonna be a contentious film. I mean, it’s quite literally a movie about America’s political divisions exploding into full-blown armed conflict, releasing at a time when America is perhaps more divided than it’s been since the actual Civil War…during an election year, no less. And not just any election, the first presidential election since the one that ended in an attempted coup. But putting ALL of that aside, it just felt like people were rooting for this movie to fail. If, like me, you were unfortunate enough to stumble into the discourse surrounding Civil War movie in the months leading up to its release, you know exactly what I mean. Based on little more than a trailer, a few promotional images, and some choice quotes from writer-director Alex Garland, large swaths of the internet quickly decided this movie was going to be an embarrassing joke.
Hell, I was even guilty of this to an extent, too. While I think Alex Garland is a talented writer, I’ve always been a bit mixed on his work as a director. Ex Machina is undoubtedly a masterpiece, but 2022’s Men left a really bad taste in my mouth. And while I realize I’m very much in the minority on this, Annihilation’s relentlessly bleak tone has just never worked for me. So I was more than willing to buy into the narrative that was forming around this film.
But the thing is, contrary to what the online consensus had decided Alex Garland was trying and failing to do with this film, Civil War isn’t actually trying to depict the most realistic way a second Civil War might play out. Rather, it’s a thought-provoking meditation on the broader mechanics of division - on the way the often arbitrary distinctions we make between ourselves and others allow us to abstract their humanity to such an extreme degree that violence becomes not only inevitable, but easy. And far from sitting on the fence, Garland lays this culture of dehumanization at the feet of the news media, whose dogged pursuit of objectivity, while admirable, is framed as being instrumental in facilitating this process of abstraction.
Rather than the toothless mess of banal political equivocation that people suggested it would be based on little more than a trailer and some promotional material, Civil War is as incisive and biting as any political thriller released this century. This is why Civil War is not just the best Alex Garland movie, but Civil War is one of the best A24 movies.
Griffin (@griffschiller) gives you his Civil War movie review and explains why Civil War is perfect, why Civil War is a Misunderstood Masterpiece, why Civil War is the most important film of the year, the hidden brilliance of Civil War A24 in this A24 Civil War video essay. Enjoy this Civil War Explained and Civil War ending explained video!
#civilwar #a24 #videoessay #analysis #endingexplained #explained #explainervideo #movies #podcast #alexgarland #civilwarmovie
Edited by @CadesCinema
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @filmspeak
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
🎞 About Civil War 🎞
In a dystopian future America, a team of military-embedded journalists races against time to reach Washington, D.C., before rebel factions descend upon the White House. Civil War is written and directed by Alex Garland and stars Kirsten Dunst, Wagner Moura, Cailee Spaeny, Stephen McKinley Henderson, Sonoya Mizuno, Nick Offerman, and Jesse Plemons.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▶️ Other Amazing Videos ◀️
🔀 Click here for more masterpiece cinema! • Masterpiece Cinema
📺 Click here for a surprise video essay! • Why Killers of the Flo...
▶️ About FilmSpeak ◀️
Welcome to FilmSpeak hosted by Griffin Schiller, where the conversation continues after the credits. If you'd like to become a part of that conversation, consider subscribing for more thoughtful and exclusive insight, analysis, and interviews behind YOUR favorite movies!
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Follow FilmSpeak on Social Media
► Visit FilmSpeak's Homepage: filmspeak.net/
► Twitter: / _filmspeak
► Instagram: / griffschiller
► Facebook: / filmspeakofficial
► TikTok: / filmspeak - Розваги
What did YOU think of Civil War? Comment below!💥 Thanks again to Conflict of Nations. 🕹Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC or Mobile: 💥 con.onelink.me/kZW6/FISP001 Receive 13,000 gold and 1 month of a Premium Subscription for free for the next 30 days!
1) I bought a ticket and saw the movie, I went in with no expectations, except to hear what the movie has to say.
2) The movie didn’t say anything. Even with the implication that the guy with the red sunglasses was some kind of a racist but according to the movie he wasn’t a racist, he was a regionalist. Sure he killed two people from Hong Kong but not because they were Asian because they weren’t American and he killed the wrong kind of American not according to race but according to region.
3) The president in this movie was a tyrant, in the early part of the movie, they mention in passing, “I bet the President is sorry that he dissolved the FBI.”
I’m sorry but tyrants would strengthen agencies like the FBI, not dissolve it.
Yes, the President got a third term but the movie never says why?? Is it because the war has been going on for so long the President suspended elections until the war is over?? That would be perfectly constitutional and not the act of a tyrant but the problem is, the movie never says either way.
4) You made up your own conspiracy theory on why this movie sucks. It sucks not because of an organized conspiracy. It sucks because it sucks.
The Passion of the Christ one of the highest grossing rated R movies of all time, why? Is it because it danced around the issue of what Jesus suffered, was it because it censored itself like all of rhetorical Jesus movies that came before and after it??
No, it actually showed the brutality of what Jesus went through, it made clear in no uncertain terms of the suffering of Jesus. I saw it in the movie theaters, I cried watching that movie and so did everyone else in the theater watching that movie.
You want to talk about a hated movie before it released, Passion of the Christ was sued by Jewish groups, calling the movie anti-Semitic before it was even released, some churches denouncing the movie because of the so called unnecessary violence.
Yet, because it was a wonderful movie it was a huge hit and most people who saw it in the theaters cried because it was that powerful.
In short don’t blame the customers if the product sucks, just blame the product
He wasn't going to be in the movie. The original actor who was hired quit before shooting the movie. Kristen Dunts who is his wife, she suggested him to the director.
I saw it with the only intention of seeing what Hollywood's take on a modern day Civil War would look like. I was not disappointed, but I wouldn't go to the cinema for another watch. I think those who were disappointed were, because they were looking for details to spell it out for them. I believe it looked pretty close to what we'll see, when the proverbial shit hits the fan. I only pray we can avoid the whole scenario, because it's not going to be pretty. Best scene in my mind was Jesse Plemons's scene. In a real world scenario I think that's how it'll go.
You thought it was Trump? I thought it was Biden, bc even the VP was a woman who looked like Kamala.
I understand that people will find the scenario of liberal California, and conservative Texas teaming up sounds silly. But did we all forget the fact that the communists and the nationalists in the Chinese civil war, teamed up. To defeat the Japanese, in the Sino-Japanese war?
Silly? Yes! Impossible? No!
Also rural california is pretty red, only LA, sacramento, san diego, the bay area and orange county are democrat-leaning and they happen to have more inhabitants than the rest of the state combined
@@riccardomallardo7779Texas is also slowly getting Blue, albeit rural texas is still super red
True, but the Nationalists and Communists still clashed with each other from time to time. And as soon as the Japanese were defeated, they went right back to smoking each other full-time. Maybe something similar happened after the ending of the movie.
@@Redneck2393 in the film, one of the characters suggested that the Western Front will begin infighting the moment they kill the President, so I think you're thinking along the right lines here.
They are part of the same establishment. A false dichotomy. People forget that conservatives didn't want Trump in office in 2016. He kinda imposed himself on them through his popluarity.
One scene that I think pushes the "journalistic disconnect" the best is the first firefight of the trip, neither side is explicitly labeled, and either side could be who the characters are following
Oh yeah, 100%
I think American journalists being able to go into combat scenarios with any side that is fighting in an American civil war is unrealistic. There weren't Union journalists in the Confederate lines or even in the areas controlled by the Confederacy because they would have been arrested and probably executed as spies.
If you're talking about the guys in Hawaiian shirts, they're probably meant to be stereotypical conservative "Boogaloo Boys" since the shirts were one of their trademarks. Just a guess.
No , Hawaiian shirt guys pro gun youtubers. All famous ones. As well as boogallo folks.
Jesse Plemons disgusted me here as he did in Breaking Bad. The actor must be known for playing characters like that.
He's such an excellent character actor. Always a highlight when he shows up.
He plays nice characters too like in The Power of the Dog and in Fargo
He was also pretty good in Judas and the Black Messiah
@@studio96films65 Another cruel character, too.
Meth Damon is goated
Imagine being a combat leader in a war and losing your humanity, I did it and it destroyed me. Fortunately I had leaders who saw what was happening and pulled me off the line and I was able to get help, but for a very long time I looked at the Iraqi people as vermin. I grew up a straight edge kid who was part of the punk movement calling for unity among all people and fighting prejudice, and here I was thinking a people were less than human because of war.
Losing your humanity is a terribly crippling issue that can make you doubt your own desire to live.
In War there is only the Hunter and the Hunted until the End...
Death matters not, when God is Life and Death...
War is pure Evil, where Death rules because Death is God, and God does not Judge, but Rules the Battlefield...
People wanted so badly for this movie to be only about politics. They wanted so badly for this movie to suck. I absolutely love this movie for not doing that. Having this movie about journalism set in what is essentially an americans backyard really makes this film hit. It takes the horrors of these conflicts, and instead of having it halfway across the world, its placed right in front of us.
Do you genuinely think that war is not inherently political? Apoliticism doesn't exist in art, and especially not a film about a new American civil war, and the fact you think it does is SHOCKING
Not at all what dude was saying. How did you miss the point of the movie the video and the comment in one fell swoop
It gave enough F's about politics to misrepresent absolutely everyone.
Couldn’t agree more
Its more subtley political. I think it mainly highlights that it doesn't matter what reasons there are, people are killing each other. It could be stupid reasons it could be rightious reasons but it does not change that fact.
Anyone who remembers 2009s Modern Warfare 2 campaign and the "of their own accord" mission went to this movie to watch Washington DC be a warzone
Haha yeah...that was definitely on my mind in the 3rd act 😅
Clicked because cool title, then saw FUCKING WAGNER MOURA AS ONE OF THE MAIN CHARACTERS, gotta watch this
He's so good!
That scene with Jesse was powerful his acting just wow
Thanks for this. As a Northern Irish person i kept having flashbacks to The Troubles from watching this. This captured the feeling of being caught up in incidents of paramilitary violence in my hometown, better than any other film I've seen. The moment when Kirsten Dunst cowered in the battlefield, it felt like I was looking at my mum's face the times back when I was a child and we got caught up in some outbreak of violence out on the street.
People here have been commenting for a few years now that the rhetoric coming from around the world, especially america feels so eerily similar to the emotions and attitudes that led to our own decades-long civil conflict here. The term "the whole world is turning into Northern Ireland" has popped up a number of times for me in conversation.
That's made it particularly frustrating to hear the backlash coming from people in your country, because it's an intentionally crafted warning to not follow our example and to not have to see your own families and neighbours endure the unique evil of modern industrial conflict in your own backyard the way we've seen our own go through this.
Thankyou for making this and contributing positively to the discourse about this film. I hope analyses like this will shift the perspectives on what Alex Garland was doing here.
Garland's father worked at newspapers during the Troubles, so I'm sure that fed a lot of what he put on screen. And I hope to god the rest of us learn from what you went through.
@@CortexNewsService this is a really good point! I knew his dad was a newspaper man, but it never occurred to me that he would have been covering those events. Wow. Much appreciated. Thanks for sharing
imo way too many people who try to defend this film lionize it for what it isn't. It's not an epic antiwar film that shows the dangers of political polarization from the "objective" lense of journalism, its a roadtrip movie where the conflict is merely a backdrop.
I'm sorry but simply showing extreme violence and mass graves in the absence of any social context doesn't make some sweeping social critique about why civil conflict is bad. Social context doesn't even need to be explicitly taking a side but simply showcasing the human toll of the war on everyday life.
The main cast barely interact with refugees and their stories, which makes the choice of centring the film on a team of journalists so underutilised. All of the movie's battle scenes are shitty or weird asf sans the Battle of DC, hardly a "realistic" portrayal of conventional warfare. Ethnoracial violence is given a passing mention, etc.
The thing that pisses me off the most is how empty and self-aggrandising the main driver of the plot is; the team is doing all this dangerous shit because they want to get "le beeg scope^tm" of interviewing the moribund dictator president first before anyone else.
We were promised an American rival to "Come and See" but instead we got pretentious journalistic self-masturbation.
@@AweSean-wv3xo Can you show us on the doll where the journalist touched you?
@@hhhieronymusbotch gigabruhh
I feel bad for Alex Garland's movie being wrongly and badly portrayed by the marketing's tonally-distant trailers and AI-generated posters.
War never changes
John fallout? Is that you?
I went into this film completely without any context other than my friend said "it's about a hypothetical modern civil war". The film ended up being completely different from my expectations, in the best way possible. I really love that we don't get context or in depth analysis of the political situation, because it means every ounce of the film can contribute to its own message, and also focuses the audience's attention exactly where the filmmakers intended, on the human element (or rather, intentional lack thereof in many cases).
One thing that especially stood out to me was the sound and music design. The sheer punch of the gunshots (that sounded like real gunshots and not just standard movie effects) and explosions really sold the impact of the war to me. Also the music was phenomenal, especially the dissonance in scenes such as the first combat scene where the soldiers with the journalists took prisoners and gunned them down with a machine gun, all while the sound effects were suppressed and happy and carefree music played in the background. Or the complete lack of music in the Jesse Plemons scene, which added to the suspense and unpredictability of the scene by completely grounding the audience in the moment, and avoiding giving any tonal cues at all.
Absolutely masterful film, and a wonderful essay about it that really helped me condense some of my own thoughts as well.
I watched this in theatres twice. Im an American college student and I loved it!
Same here!
I believe the message of this movie is a civil war might sound grand to the extremist out there, but there will be nothing left, no schools, no jobs, no economy, no wealth, no sports, no homes, our way of life will be gone, and that the lines will become so blurred that we start to lose what's right and what's wrong. Losing our humanity, losing everything. When the media refuses to call out what's wrong and what's right, that humanity, that sympathy and empathy, gets lost.
Tell that to the people who enable the growing wealth divide.
Tell that to the people who aren't brainwashed by the radicals and actually can see our president is a elderly pedo who doesn't know what day it is. The ones that actually can see our country falling apart because of the divide Biden puts between everyone 😅 their dirty politics have to stop some how.
I feel like this wasn’t trying to take sides and was aiming to show the brutality of what could be, I think it was genius to not make sides distinguishable from the other as there is no reason for it. It’s war, and we’re just the bystanders, and all we see is death for an unknown reason.
People forget this movies focused primarily on the journalism aspect of the film. Everyone’s so ready to focus on the bullshit politics associated with it. Rather than the actually premise of the film. Lazy
I think most people are more pissed off that it takes place in the US. We know about our problems, we know about the social and political issues rn. So why make a movie about "journalism" set in the US? They could have made it anywhere else, hell they could have made it about a small scale insurrection (maybe maybe) in a small state.
But using the whole US? They wanted to use it to get peoples attention.
You are the first critic who understood the film. I don't agree with all point's. But nobody else understood the political points in the movie.
It wasn't even about the divided politics
It was worse
It was about a journalist
Tbh I want a movie explaining how it started, who is this president? What did he do? Who are the WF? Why did Texas and California formed an alliance? I need more context and more world building, I understand that the director wanted to keep things neutral and to keep away from picking a side and wanted the viewer to focus on the journalist characters, but to me I feel like it would’ve been much much better to have discussed these things and have the viewers talk and discuss the movie with friends etc, make people interact with the movie, have people talk about it, but maybe since politics nowadays is such a sensitive topic maybe he wanted to keep away from having viewers have heated debates and discussions
I’m a fan of world building so idk, I liked the movie but I need more context and understand this world rather than just jump in and not knowing which sides the characters are like for example, the first firefight that we see the civilians fighting the military, who is who? Which side they’re fighting for? Are the civilians their own militia or are they siding with the government of WF? Hopefully we get more movies that expand on this world cuz there’s more to explore here
Western Front???
To quote Harrison Ford: “It’s not that kind of movie, kid”
Theres no need to, the problability of making it worse is high
You don't need a movie for that, just look at American history, current events and it's foreign policy. The movie hinted largely towards foreign attacks, and given that the US has been at war for 93% of its existence, war knocking on our door would be an inevitable outcome in order for the rest of the world to be free from us. I know Americans seem to cling to the american exceptionalism myth, but the US is the bad guy no matter who is president. The two party system is a show for the locals which don't fundamentally change anything.
Aaaaaand, you missed the entire point. It doesn't matter how it started. What matters is that it's here. It's about the consequences of when we see nothing but the other side as abject evil, and dehumanization. It just doesn't matter what side you're on, war is bad either way. Because people die. Innocent people die. And that's bad.
Not everything has to be so deep.
Spectacular analysis, using journalism was a great way to tell this story. It gets better on rewatch too
Absolutely amazing movie but I don't think it's cuz of Alex Garland not giving a fuck about the politics. Moreso that he cares about the human perspective in all this mayhem. It's apolitical filmmaking.
I definitely get into that here. It's a deeply political movie, that's just not interested in PARTISAN politics for the reasons you stated.
@@FilmSpeak Yeah true. I kinda glanced over that.
The movie's about a president successfully using force to stay in power and a bunch o' rednecks taking up arms against the gubmint. What modern-day political issues could the director POSSIBLY be trying to comment on? I get this may not be the film's main focus, but the near-ubiquitous read on the internet that the film "doesn't take sides," is "apolitical," and so on seems weird to me -- it's a clear allegory for VERY specific issues that are going on in our present-day world. The fact that it's a bit fuzzy on the details doesn't obscure that fact -- the sitting president having stayed in office past the end of his term didn't *have* to be part of the backstory they DID give us, after all. They didn't have to tell us anything beyond, "The prez is in hiding and the Western forces want to assassinate him."
I feel like this is a result of mainstream critics trying WAY too hard to take the wind out the sails of the Nerdrotic set who are inevitably going to complain that the film is "political." This is a fairly rare case of a film that really IS political in the precise way those dudes like to complain about -- the fact that the villains don't wear MAGA hats doesn't make it NOT political.
No it's just a vibes movie with little to say outside of War=Bad and Civil wars=VERY BAD. Pointless.
I understand that a liberal California and a conservative Texas teaming up sounds silly. But did people forget that the communists and the nationalists in China teamed up to defeat the Japanese in the Sino-Japanese war? So silly? yes. Impossible? No.
For real I am asian so I don't care about American politics. However this movie not just not choose any side but not have any of story.
I mean I feel like log-in into some war game but get forced to not into the main story until that game ending. All it gave me are just mini games or mini event.
Thank you. People are praising this movie, and it was really horribly written. So the war is secondary, and it's mainly about the journalist, but their characters are so poorly written that you don't give 2 💩s about them.
Also, it wasn't a good way to handling dehumanization, good god, look at the dialogue. Just watch how a film like V for Vendetta, or Shindler's List handle it.
Thank you for this. I watched the movie recently and thought it was excellent yet deeply uncomfortable with a clear and unsubtle message, and when I went online afterwards to see what others were thinking, all I found were people completely missing every single point, intentionally or not.
It felt like I was taking crazy pills.
i just kinda feel robbed bc the trailers kinda lied abt what we were gonna be given in the film. i wasn’t expecting a road trip. i was expecting a modern day war film
The marketing was definitely misleading, but for me the actual film was far better than what the trailers promised.
Exactly! Marketing Trickery!
@@FilmSpeak "Yeah the trailer was misleading and this isn't going to be what it said it is or what you want, but it's good!" meh take.
@@Vespyr_ How's that a meh take? A trailer to a film and the actual film are two completely different things, which are also almost always made by completely different people. Yes the marketing was bad, how does that objectively bear on the quality of the *actual movie*? What if I didn't watch any trailers at all, how's the quality affected then?
@@sopsiarskye1577not watching trailers means you have no expectations, so if you like or dislike a movie is your problem in the end. If you did and the movie is not what the trailer says, that teeters on false advertisement.
After all. Buying tickets without advertisement (spoiler free reviews, trailers, posters) is still a choice
THANK YOU! You grasped & understood the film on the same level as myself, it's just sorrowful that out of the dozens of takes from those that I follow, merely one saw what I did in the end. This film has haunted me since seeing it two weeks ago, I shudder to imagine what such an event on our soil would & could look like. Breaks my heart to know that on some facets, we're closer than we think.
“Attempted coup”
Hmm. Ok
He made a smart Move by staying neutral.. now it’s timeless because it’s not biased propaganda
I love that you used clips from The Greatest Beer Run Ever in this. My mind was constantly going back to that movie while I was in the theatre. I’m sure it was mostly because of the hotel scenes, but they share a lot of theming.
I'm so happy to have found this review. The on line discussion has been exhausting because I felt like everyone was intentionally being obtuse. Like they were throwing fits it wasn't the movie they imagined instead of meeting it on its own terms. I'm gonna link my husband to this video so he can see we aren't the only people in the world who saw what we did.
Shit.. You got me
I was super ready to go the "ode to war reporting" direction. I still do not agree that Lee was the icon of objectivity. She is clearly emotionally affected throughout the entire film even if she preaches otherwise. Her entire pushing back on Jesse coming is emotional. Her entire mentoring of Jesse is emotional. She is fighting the affect on her emotion to be objective
But I will honestly say that I missed the photos taken of Lee's death. In the moment, I interpreted it merely as drama, and ironically waited for Jesse to turn around while walking away to take the photos. I knew that was the moment of the callback to the earlier question of photographing Lee's death. Lee deletes the photos of Sammy, signifying her answer to the question for us
Prior to this video, I would have said that the message was a warning to this age of voters who do not revere journalism like previous generations. I still think Alex Garland reveres war journalists as heroes (he has said as much). But as I was watching the final sequence, and it was clear that Jesse or Lee was going to die, to me it was an extremely strong message of how much we take journalism for granted
I honestly felt fine about the shooting of the president. I saw it as wish fulfillment. Pretty much the same as killing Osama Bin Laden
But one thing that I think everyone can agree on: Jesse Plemons is a juggernaut
"I saw shooting the president as wish fulfillment"
You are the exact kind of person who is going to ensure that this warning goes unheeded, the terrifying reality is that you probably consider yourself fairly neutral, too
I like the idea there's actually subfactions such as the Boogaloo bois lookin dudes a chapter of a bigger state cause they gave strong Florida Alliance vibes
Excellent analysis, I’ve been thinking on this film for almost a week now after seeing it in theaters last week. Your work is appreciated by this movie fan!
Ah man thank you so much. That means a lot!
I think Garland mistitled the movie. Calling it “Civil War” polarized preconceptions even before people had a chance to see the picture. He should have called it something like “PRESS” or something journalism related. Then the twist would have been the surprise that the event being covered was a civil war in the US.
Yeah but then foreign audiences wouldn't want to see it.
Let everyone know it's about war in America and all of a sudden it becomes interesting, ironically due to the way the media portrayed our country from 2016-2020.
Total cash grab by the marketing team. It worked.
I don’t mind that the movie is not about the politics of civil war, but more the effects of it on ground level. The firefights. The chaos. It was fun
My dad was an army ranger who was in firefights all the time so when he leaned over to me saying he was surprised how realistic the gunfights in this movie were made me feel really good about the movie
loved the movie! Especially that sniper showdown in the mini chrismas town.
Such a great sequence!
Love it!
I never thought that the idea of California and Texas joining forces was unrealistic. Throughout the movie we learn that this is the President third term and that journalists are killed on sight in Washington D.C., which indicates that the Government became authoritarian, whether that be left or right, we can see how the constitutional rights were taken away from people. Therefore, it makes sense that two places where personal freedoms are defended would form an alliance to over thrown such Authoritarian regime and give the power back to the people to vote. Regardless, this movie isn't about the dynamics of a theorized American Civil war, but rather about the role of journalism during a moral crisis of one's nation.
Im probably going to go see it on Thursday.
It's a great film! I hope you enjoy it!
Brilliant analysis. I concur entirely and am bemused at how so many of us are missing the point.
It was terrifying, I love it!
I just wanted the movie to show a real war possibility based on what we have going on today . It would’ve had a stronger impact if it showed the same senseless violence and horrors of war at home but just said red and blue . Would’ve gotten people thinking more . Everyone i talked to after they watched it said it felt like an alternate universe and had no grounding in America today. I think if he addressed the issues we’re facing now which are actually bringing us to a point of no return and used the movie to say hold on guys is this what you want then it would have been a master piece
I have no idea what the lil feller is doin' here, but. . . M8 GREYHOUND MY BELOVED!!! 16:52
Excellent Movie Review ! Since viewing the movie a week ago, ive watched and listened to many, and your take on it is closer to mine, than ANY of the others I've witnessed. Thanks again, I appreciate it 👍👍
When did this release in theaters?
The bear scene? Really? That was child's play compared to the snake intestines scene. Like not even close
Went to watch this movie with my younger brother and a friend. It ended up hitting deep, especially as someone who wears the uniform. It confronts some pretty dark realities from the observatory but non participant lens of the press. This movie was excellently done.
It's also a theme about how our psychology in coping with the world around us works in cycles. You go in idealistic, get grinded down to a "realistic" perspective (many as a form of coping). But as you get older and experience even MORE you realize that being passive is against your nature, and you return to a spot between idealism and realism.
I took photojournalism (back when we shot film or digital) and the instructor told a story about them covering a homeless family for an article she was going to write up. She indeed taught us how to be impartial etc. and that it was important. HOWEVER, she also noted that it is absolutely OKAY to get involved - you just have to pull yourself out of the story and either have someone else finish it or cancel it altogether.
In the article about the homeless family it was a single mother with 3 kids and she was homeless. It got to the point where she couldn't arrange transportation for one of her children and it was nearing sundown. This was just the lynchpin btw, the overall story is sad and frustrating. So at this point she had enough, and simply offered the woman "Let's head back to my car and I will buy you guys dinner".
From a photojournalistic perspective, that's actually a huge decision (at least when we had some standards before or you were taught that way). You have to understand that from her perspective, she could not share the PAIN and SUFFERING that homeless in GENERAL brings to people if she were to here and there, make things easy for this woman and her children. It's not like this went on for years, it was a few months. But you CAN be a caring journalist while also being dedicated to your work because you care about the message and (hopefully) the CHANGE that your message will bring.
So for the journalist who cares about the issue of homelessness, they have to observe and document every facet to show people just how BAD it is. If they pitch in for dinner here and there, or sprinkle in a few rides, it may reduce the overall impact of the story. Now, unless you want the journalist to fabricate parts of the story, then you HAVE to let them practice impartiality. You don't get both. In the end, she passed the story to someone else at the local newspaper and her material was combined into the final photojournalistic piece. Which yes, it DID make an impact. And yes, the homeless family WAS rescued from the streets.
This is also a lesson for life in general. If you have a long term goal to end suffering, you have to endure the short-term. If your long term goal to end suffering requires not addressing (or even contributing) to short-term suffering along the way, you'd best stay focused and learn some impartiality yourself to reach that ultimate goal that completely overturns in weight, all of the short-term suffering along the way.
That may seem too complicated or impossible for some of you, but you have to understand human nature while being driven by a strong basic core, has an endless number of subsets that paint the entire experience much more in the "Morally Grey". It is in fact where most of human experience lies. Don't be the idealistic child in this movie, but don't be the impartial character either. Again, it's somewhere in the middle you find balance (and nobody's going to tell you where YOUR balance lies - that's for you to decide).
One of the fews good points in the movie: Wagner Moura
No Todd Alquist references? I'm dissapoint! From looks of it Jesse Plemons plays same the same character as in Breaking Bad.
"Just so you know, this isn't personal." -Todd
The journalist aspect of it was actually my biggest issue.
Having Jesse use a film camera to document a fast moving war zone in 2024 just makes zero sense.
I understand that’s what she had, and inherited, but how many rolls of film did she go through in the movie? Film is freaking expensive and in a divided war time US, how easily accessible is it?
Even using an older DSLR is a better option in this scenario than a film camera.
And I’m no war photographer, but on the final assault, I have a hard time imagining the soldiers would be hand holding the photographers all the way until they reach the president.
That’d be like Seal Team Six guiding photographers and journalists along as they raid Osama Bin Laden.
Yea that’s maybe my only gripe with the film that they seemed somewhat cool tempered with a photographer following them around . Should’ve been less easy going and pushed them out the way every second and you even see it in found footage films with regular people not wanting to be filmed so they get aggressive with the camera man .
I remember that my parents went to see this movie while my brother and I went to see Monkey Man (another film that wasn't as good as people hoped it would be), and I remember my parents talking to me about it after they've seen it. According to them, they felt that the movie played with the concept of a modern civil war...safe actually. By that I mean that according to them, the movie put more focus on the story of the photojournalist and their family and the struggle to stay alive while photographing a war...yet the movie never goes into detail on the war itself. They felt that there was no real explanation on how or why there was this division, or even what the actual differences were between both sides of the war. According to them, because they don't know which side was fighting for what, it was hard for them to get invested in the messaging or even the danger of the war itself...in particular it made the many battles that the heroes fall into not really mean much other than yet another dangerous scenario for them to get out of.
I personally have yet to see this movie, but I want to ask if my folks have a point or not? Do you guys think this is an example of a political movie playing it too safe?
No they dont. The whole point is that we have no context for the war so were forced to see the digusting violence without getting wrapped up in narratives that try to justify one side
@@coocoo3336 That’s a fair point, focusing on the overall disgusting nature of war regardless of the context. That being said, I personally think you can still provide context for what’s happening in the war without having to force the audience to pick a side. Children of Men for example had an overarching conflict between rebels fighting against a super oppressive British government, but portrayed both sides as terrible options regardless for their own reasons that our protagonists had to be on their own and avoid both factions.
I think you can still get away with that in Civil War, presenting both sides with their own justifiable morals but still be terrible enough to put the protagonists in immediate danger.
@@ajerqureshi6411 you can but it's less effective. You can get wrapped up in who you think has the moral cause. The film just wouldn't have worked if it did something like that. And honestly I liked that the film didn't give us all the answers. Me and my friends were coming up with our own fan theories about how the war started.
I enjoyed this film for the perspective. This could’ve easily been a soldiers perspective film like most war movies. But we are put in the photographers perspective giving it an authentic and realist feeling missing in todays movies.
For a hot moment, I thought Civil War was a sequel to Leave The World Behind.
Also, on a side note watch LTWB, it’s so strange but so captivating.
From what I hear of other complaints is that the trailer was misleading and are somewhat mad or frustrated, and that they were expecting something else.
That and Truck-kun is MVP 😂
Yeah the trailers did seem to be playing it up as more of a traditional war flick by mostly showing the action/battle scenes.
That sponsor choice is wild 😂
I can see Texas and California get together, but the obvious enemy is Florida. 😂😅😂😮
Great review man i excited for this movie and I can’t wait to see it with my brother
I hope you guys enjoy it!
@@FilmSpeak thanks
I thought it was a great film and my son and I both really enjoyed it. Your point about the President being 'Trump-ish' echoes my feelings, and I came to a similar conclusion. The use of the Texas/California coalition made me think Garland was using it to show viewers that the situation was that bad that two such different states joined forces. That whatever your political leanings, you could end up on the wrong side of history. But wtf do I know.
So the unrealistic setting is based on apathy instead of ignorance? And that removes the unrealistic setting as criticism?
damn man you might be the only person who 'got' this movie
Saw this last night. Highly recommended. Brutal and violent. But an important watch. A sober warning of why not to have war.
You have nailed the context of this film. The overarching message is brilliantly portrayed. I was also dismayed that the rebel forces not only took justice into their own hands but actually placed a bounty on the president's head. Vigilantism is not justice. Are the Western Forces replacing one form of tyranny with another?
The Jesse Plemons character illustrates what many who dont take a side might do. For them it is an opportunity to express their own extremism under the cover of the greater conflict. In the aftermath of whichever side prevails it is those on the extreme that will continue the conflict on their more personal terms.
Wow, he actually said attempted coup. Put down the glue buddy.
Attempted coup? You're not even 30 seconds in, and you showed your politics.
Killer critique!!
My biggest problem with the movie is that Texas and California is working together that just seem to far fetched unless the people of California on the country side of the state started to do something to over throw there politicians
I had a similar, but different take on it. Similar in that we agree what it is not about, but different in what it is about. And that's likely a reflection of what we bring into it. (a sign of good art)
I felt that it was foremost a m movie about being a war journalist and the ways people look at war when it is not "their war."
Secondly it was about war, showing its horrors and consequence in a setting that is harder for an American audience to distance themselves from, and asking, "Are you so sure this is what you want?"
Thirdly t was about photography and the love of that art. (which is part of being a photo journalist)
Bui that said, I think your take is certainly a valid one, and may well have been among the intents of the filmmaker.
I think people desperately want anything with political undertones to confirm their personal agenda, and if it doesn’t immediately do so they label it as trash in fear of it challenging their beliefs.
Couldn't agree more.
Best analysis I've seen of this film honest
Thank you so much 🙏🏻
When I first saw the Civil War ads, it made me sick to my stomach because I see it as a very real possibility and I was worried it was going to be a disaster movie type thing. I definitely want to see it now that Im seeing these reviews, because it sounds like it also takes it seriously.
Can someone explain how Jesse and the Asian reporter end up meeting with the deranged militant? Where they curious or where they captured?
I would assume they were captured by how the SUV looked when they stumbled upon it.
The last Purge movie more politics than Civil War.
i mean... the movie was good... just kinda disappointed that there wasn't more fighting and a movie about a journalist. Then again... my favorite show, Generation Kill, is about a journalist on a road trip with a bunch of Marines
You sold this movie to me way better than its advertising has. I think I'm going to give it a try, due to your thought provoking take. Thank you!
Ah amazing! Thank YOU for hearing me and giving the film a chance. I hope you walk away enjoying it like I have. If not, I think it'll at least be a thought provoking experience.
And then you remember that this is just aovie.
I had to watch spoiler filled "reviews" before realizing I actually really wanted to see this movie. I should have known better than to read fake bot opinions and believe them enough to want to ruin the entire movie for myself. Still going to see it though. From what I've seen so far, it looks like a fantastic film.
Excellent breakdown of the film. Watched it over the weekend and am still reeling. Maybe the best film on journalism IMO
Glad you felt the same! It honestly might be the most nuanced take on journalism I've seen.
Nick Offerman was so underused in this movie that I hope Alex Garland is arrested. Like, all that build up and…?
I was kinda disappointed by this movie, not gonna lie. There seemed to be a general lack of world building. It just doesn’t feel like there’s a civil war going on during it. Apart from action scenes, this could be any situation. A virus, a natural disaster, it could Godzilla for all I know. Similarly, who is the President? Who are the western forces? What do they respectively want? You could argue this isn’t the point, but the movie’s called “Civil War”. I would like some details about the civil war. I want some kind of political manifesto, but the refusal to have any discussion really lost me.
California and Texas being together is not weird at all considering that both states are very much on the same side of the political spectrum, just californias more centre-right than right
Alex Garland co wrote the amazing Judge Dredd though! One of my favorite films.
Great summation and analysis. to bad the movie was negatively focused on i hadn't heard about it until recently this movie is the real sound of freedom not a marketing scheme
Marvel Fans: I Thought This Is Marvel Civil War, Bro😭😭😭
Civil War Fans: 🗿🗿🗿
Seems like a cop-out to make a movie with this premise and not delve ONE BIT into the problems that created such a scenario. It might as well take place in an alternate universe.
Interesting. Never heard of this film.
That shows that he is not yet Understanding. Not fully Matured into a Real Human Hero.
I don't really think people are "missing the mark" in wanting more political context. This is a legitimate comment since the film is, after all, about a civil war in the US. If the film wants to focus on wartime journalism and at the same time avoid offending anyone, it could have chosen a different location - like some real or mythical country in the Middle East or Europe, or Middle Earth.
Bruh EXACTLY.
If it wasn't trying to talk about politics, why choose the US? If it is trying to talk about politics, why not be realistic?
I'm fairly sure the director chose the US *because* of the fact we have social, economic, and political issues rn.
People see movie saying where their country has a civil war, during a time people are legit scared a civil war might start, people go see, money gets made.
My only issue is it felt it didn’t explain enough how it got that bad
I was just mad that it was a road trip movie through the civil war rather than showing more of the fighting, what truly led to the civil war, where the other major world powers were doing during the world hegemons implosion. I’m a politics and history guy so I wanted the hard facts and timelines about this 2nd American civil war not a journalist movie going “oH WaR IS BAD” no shit man I’ve known that since I was old enough to play call of duty.
Show more war crimes, more battles, a somewhat realistic reaction around the world of America tore itself apart.
It was a very meh movie to me
No offense as a Texan, I could see us never have an alliance with them. I'm just going to be honest with you.
*It was mid, it’s not that it didn’t give a fuxk. It had no fucks to give.*
This movie is freakin awsome. its not about the politics of Red and Blue. Its more about 2 totally diferent states with different approach on their politics uniting against a Fascist president.
Finally someone who gets it!
Dump:
I tried to make that on january 7'th.
I just realised that one of the main characters is fuckjng Pablo Escobar!!
21:30 welcome to humanity.
I can really agree with your reading of the film and what it was supposed to say. I just feel like the lack of specifics made the overall ideas of abstraction more abstract (lol) and less personaI. The ending scene of the president being killed really shook you because you had mapped trump onto the figure, but audiences members who don’t make the connection would not have the same experience. I think this could’ve easily been fixed by making Jessie start off as someone with political beliefs. these beliefs could’ve been about fictional events so the audience wouldn’t have been able to map their beliefs onto her. For example she could’ve supported the president in the film and really admired him and hated the western forces. Thus once she becomes “objective” and desensitized to the violence her being excited to photograph the dead body of this man she formally admired would’ve fully driven home the message in a way that is impossible to miss. This change would’ve allowed the audience to realize that this is a deeply political movie but in a way that isn’t about contemporary politics.
Thanks for making this video because it really made me think more throughly and critically about this movie :)
Well ... heck !! No need to see the film now !! Spoilers galore by @ealguy1102 !!
I don't get the idea that this movie is "not about contemporary politics" -- it's about a president who attempts to stay in office by subverting the Democratic process, leading to widespread (in this case violent) division... how much more topical can you get?
@@TonyB2279 sorry I meant the partisan kind of politics. Although now that you’ve mentioned it I feel that the movie would’ve served its message better by making the president less trumpian.
I’m so tired of people shitting on it because it doesn’t tell you to be left or right. The best part of the film is that you essentially are the photographer with them, you are the neutral party. I loved it.
Edit to add that the film explicitly tells you on multiple occasions that picking a side is useless in terms of being a neutral party as a journalist, and for the fact of if someone is shooting at you the side is already taken. There’s no time to ask the other person their viewpoints and why they’re doing what they’re doing, if they’re shooting at you, you shoot back.
Another edit to add that y’all are really pressed and it’s funny. I think it’s a good film, not perfect by any means. I even found myself questioning after first viewing on why we couldn’t hear more on why things fell apart. But then I realized that would open the window for people like you down in the comment section to immediately lob it into anti right or anti left woke propaganda. I like it for what it is, war is hell, nobody wins. Does it really matter why we got here when all we can see is red, blood, hate, violence? I would also ask yourself why you want so badly for it to be an either or issue, what are you afraid of it saying about you? Would you become the man who strings up his old classmates in the car wash? Would you become the photographer who get beaten and killed for trying to photograph reality? And yes they do say that it was dangerous for them as journalists to get close to the capital because they’re being hunted and killed. Maybe we should all have a little more critical thinking beyond the parties we follow because apparently y’all think that equates to morality. When in reality that kind of mindset is EXACTLY what this film was cautioning against. Extremism in any form is dangerous and inherently harmful.
I liked your comment don't get me wrong but thought it was funny that... who the fuck you talking to lol, I thought there would be 70 replies to the comment as I was reading it
@@diegomclane6027omg same, dude wrote an essay with no one in his comments.
People don't like it because it's a poorly written movie with forgettable characters and a too far abstract plot.
It happened in Columbia between the conservative and the liberals and it can happen here