When people hear the premise of Civil War– an imagining of what a modern day civil war in the United States would look like– many jump to the conclusion that it must be an extension of the current political divisions– a violent clash between left and right wing America. But while there are echoes of the contemporary forces fighting for control of the United States, they really aren’t the focus of the warning that is Civil War.
At its core, Civil War is a modern reimagining of Heart of Darkness (or perhaps its American successor, Apocalypse Now). The story follows a group of journalists on their way to Washington D.C, intent on reaching the city to interview the president before the fighting catches up with them. Each is intent to stare into the void, though (mostly) for different reasons.
It would be reductive to say that the film has a single subject– be it America, civil war in the abstract, or the role of the journalist in times of turmoil. But it is certainly the latter that it expresses the clearest opinions on. The film poses agonizing questions around the possibility of altruism under the inescapable shadow of self-serving essentialism. Journalists are both the best and the worst of us, though it is hard to say whether they are impotent observers or masters of our collective destiny.
For those who still hold on to some faith in humanity, the film tantalizingly offers moments where the goodness of the human heart can be seen, but Garland offers us no real comfort in that regard. Salvation may be an act of will, rather than fate. But hope simply being present is far different from saying we are saved.
Should I see it?
The film gives you plenty to think about, but little to root for. If you yourself are prepared to stare into the void and have the energy to pull yourself back from the brink afterwards, then this really is essential viewing.
Comments