Driving into Civil War
No A24 movie has ever had the budget of Civil War, the new dystopian war picture directed by Alex Garland (Ex Machina, Annihilation, and Men) and starring Kirsten Dunst (Mary Jane Watson), Wagner Moura (Pablo Escobar), and Cailee Spaeny (Amara Namani). It is billed as a big movie, and in most of the ways a movie could be, it is. Whether it’s the soundtrack that doesn’t miss a beat, the sound design by Glenn Freemantle that gets close to being dangerously loud, or the cinematography by Rob Hardy that makes you feel like you’re on the journey to D.C.; it all screams blockbuster.
And while 90 million in worldwide gross for the first two weeks of release doesn’t seem that special, this is an “Avatar” of A24 movies. It is only the fifth movie in the studio’s history — along with Everything Everywhere All At Once, Talk To Me, Hereditary, and Lady Bird — to pass the 75 million dollar mark globally, and will likely move into second place all-time after this weekend. So from the business side, this movie did what it was supposed to do. But when has money mattered to A24? On Metacritic, critics have it at a 75 overall, while users come in a little lower at a 63. So going off the assumption that a 50 constitutes an average movie, people think this is a good movie. Though, when do numbers and ratings really tell the whole story?
Anecdotally, I’ve heard people comment walking out of the theater that “there was no plot,” “the movie did not have a viewpoint or say anything,” and “I wish it was more political.” If I am being honest, I had some of those same thoughts running through my head, especially after my first watch. Nevertheless, some great movies, especially the most eccentric or unexpected, necessitate a second watch to fully interpret, and not in whatever way the promotion, title, or media may suggest. Civil War may be the poster child for this phenomenon because it really is not what you would expect it to be, in the best way. The movie is not interested in the why or how of it all, which may seem odd or empty, but it allows for the war itself to be in full focus. Maybe it would have been cool to know the backstory of the Western Forces or of Nick Offerman’s three-term president that is hugely resemblant to a current political figure… But this would have made it easier, and perhaps necessary, for the audiences to fall into whatever political camp they came to the theater identifying with. Without this, we really can only empathize with the Americans who are victims of the civil war, which, if any version of this dystopian future came to pass, would not be just “blue” Americans or “red” Americans, but all of us. War is hell, and a little more fun with a kickass soundtrack, but what Civil War shows Americans and any countries’ people, is that we are all not that different, but it is easy, and maybe even a little satisfying, to pretend to be.
Even more than a civil war, the movie is interested in journalism and who is it really for: the people or for the glorification of those who supply it. I don’t know the answer, or if there is one, and I am not sure the movie does. But either way, it’ll do.
theater it!*
*After every movie review, I’ll give a recommendation on whether, in my unqualified opinion, it would be best to see the movie in the theater (theater it!), on streaming (stream it!), or maybe not at all (skip it!). Following, or not following, my stupid advice is up to you.
