Reflections
on “Civil War”
Written
and directed by Alex Garland
Starring
Kirsten Dunst, Cailee Spaeny, Wagner Moura
and
Stephen McKinley Henderson
Intense, unidirectional,
visceral and graphically violent, “Civil War” presents us with a warning of potential
consequences of political, social and moral division, taken to extreme yet
ominously plausible.
In the context of the
film, we learn that the President of the USA is dictatorial and has acted
outwith the terms of the Constitution in that, among other things, he is
serving a third term, has disbanded the FBI and has fired upon his own citizens
to bring them under control. We hear the President claim democratic authority
under the Constitution and the broader legal system yet he appears to be
undermining and spurning restrictions and regulations set out in the same
Constitution he has sworn to uphold.
It is implied the
President has abandoned rule by law and principle in favour of personal
entitlement, judgement and preference. He applies personal perception and
acumen rather than apply a considered overview in which varying points of view
are respected.
As a result of this
attitude at the top of government, numerous blinkered, narrow-minded and
self-serving individuals are willing to act on their own beliefs and
convictions and they rationalise positions and manipulate situations and
language to justify dubious, amoral and criminal behaviour.
The President and his
supporters are opposed by the Western Forces, a coalition whose intention it is
to remove the President from power. Opposition appears to be based on
democratic order and principles but in the face of amoral, brutal and
remorseless attacks and attitudes, they must engage the enemy using similar
tactics.
Eventually, divisions
have become so deep and entrenched, and experience and pain so overwhelming,
that each side has lost sight of argument and reason and resorts to action
without recourse to discussion. It becomes a matter of shoot first and ask
questions later as all participants seek to survive and impose their view.
There are shocking, awful
and disquieting scenes in which victims are tortured, beaten and murdered,
often without hesitation or consideration on the part of the aggressor. This,
we may assume, is the consequence of the abandonment of objective justice and
laws, replaced by partisan beliefs and skewed views, including personal acts of
revenge and retribution, now apparently validated by manipulation and simple
dismissal of principle and values at the top of government.
This may also suggest
that “civilisation” may be little more than a high-minded façade behind which
lie profound selfishness and self-indulgence that require little encouragement
to come to the fore.
We witness unbridled and
brutal destruction and devastation and thus become aware of the fragility of
the order, culture and even the very buildings that we take to be established
and eternal, yet here we see and understand how easily and quickly these pillars
of progress and society can be undermined and destroyed without due care and
attention to their maintenance.
The events of the film
are seen through the eyes of and conveyed by a party of journalists. Presumably
journalists have been chosen as our eyes and ears because, at their best,
journalists seek and promote the apportioning of responsibility and
accountability based on truth, fact and balanced investigation.
Lee, Joel, Jessie and
Sammy represent varying ages, experience and reactions to what they witness but
all are committed to the cause of truth and accountability as they set out to
interview the President before he is besieged by the Western Forces who are
making rapid progress and are closing in on Washington.
All are determined and
hardened to some extent, though Lee appears disillusioned and even slightly
detached, that is until they become personally involved in events and go
through horror and distress first hand, as opposed to maintaining a
professional distance.
They lose friends and
witness brutal and terrifyingly casual executions of colleagues, and in a sense
we in the audience share their horror and loss as we have developed a rapport with
and an understanding of these characters and, though we have already witnessed
dreadful events and cruelty, the victims in these events were unknown to us
while now we share the loss of friends and colleagues and the pain that
inflicts.
Lee is particularly
traumatised and her detachment crumbles as she is forced to live the pain and
loss she has for so long merely reported, but previously she was able to hide
behind a façade of professionalism and professional application.
Indeed, there may even be doubt as to her desire to go on in this messed-up cauldron of misery as she saves young Jessie but fails to apply the very advice she gave to her protégée regarding keeping low when under fire.
Perhaps she had lost hope
in humanity.
Curiously, despite all
the gruesome and heartless violence, the film ends on a note of political hope
in spite of the dystopian atmosphere and the crushing indictment of man’s
inhumanity to man, a trait which may lie beneath our fine aspirations to
principle, values and humanity.
Fast-paced with
exceptional performances and gripping direction, “Civil War” is something of a
concept film which drives hard and fast toward its destination and leaves its
audience virtually beaten into submission. Perhaps the producers hoped this
tactic would prove all the more effective in persuading its audience of the
dangers and consequences of the path of division and conflict we appear to be
following at present.
Of course, the ultimate
irony is that this film is likely to appeal only to those already convinced by the
observations and viewpoint behind its premise. Sadly, while art may capture
truth, reality frequently resists learning from it.
My thanks for taking the
time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.
Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)
