What kind of tickles me is that any new poltical thriller tv series or movie that posits that matters of state in the US are conducted by serious and knowledgable people is now virtually unwatchable for me. It's virtually impossible to suspend the disbelief required to enjoy something that is so far removed from the reality of today's politicians.
(The recent cringe inducing Deniro series comes to mind)
Yeah it has ruined the old zombie movies where the government ends up the bad guy but a competent bad guy that makes unilateral decisions like quarantining a city or bombing a civilian center to contain infection. I am pretty sure they are gonna all be either 1) running around panicking with the rest of us 2) infighting and useless 3) denying the truth before their eyes if such a catastrophic crisis ever were to happen.
As I recall the battle lines were a bit awkwardly drawn for that one. The realism would increase if Cali and Texas were governed by the same party for some time in real life (as I recall they were allies in that movie).
I would like to see someone take up the idea of Canamerimex Union in a movie for kicks -- that is, the idea of Canada, California and Mexico forming a union on the west coast (and maybe continuing down the east coast, with Canada bridging both coasts)
> As I recall the battle lines were a bit awkwardly drawn for that one. The realism would increase if Cali and Texas were governed by the same party for some time in real life (as I recall they were allies in that movie).
I actually liked that little detail and don't think it's too farfetched. In real life those two states are currently on opposite sides of the political spectrum, but (iirc) we don't actually know why the civil war started in the movie and it seemed careful to avoid any kind of left vs right ideology. California and Texas both have a rich history of calls for secession from the union, and both have heavyweight economies that could allow them to stand as their own countries. I think if a civil war did break out where both states disagreed with the Federal government, they'd be more likely than you think to form an alliance.
If they had developed that whole backstory of an alliance (how loose is it, how close or apart are they politically despite the military alliance etc) it would have been a different, and in my opinion, much more interesting movie. It just felt it was leaning too much on the visceral war aspect of it, and that didn't contain enough originality to carry my interest frankly. Others have mentioned the style, I just found the style uninspired "Vietnam War nostalgia" including aping the glorification of photojournalists and the overemphasis on non-social media "respectable journalism" from older reputable Vietnam movies.
The war in the movie starts because authoritarian elected Potus Nick Offerman creates an economic division between the states which causes the states to group up geographically and ally on their divisions. California and Texas today wouldn’t pair but given enough pressure they might to ensure they remain an economic power house.
We're getting deep into the hypotheticals now, but that disaster would probably also wipe out what makes California such a formidable economic powerhouse -- maybe that would be one reason California would want to ally with Texas. The disaster might also kneecap the state's ability to field an effective military via the National Guard.
But like I said, what was interesting to me about the movie was the fact that the two states were allies against the Federal government, without any mention of the modern day left vs right culture war. It's interesting to think about how such an alliance could come to be when we remove the things we suppose might spark a civil war today.
They currently vote different, but there are a few things they have in common.
They're both ridiculously disenfranchised in the Senate.
They've both got significant antivax elements.
They've both got a very large Hispanic population and a portion of the Mexico border.
They're both large states with large economies and large governments; Whereas the Connecticut governor leading the Connecticut national guard is numerically incompetent at protesting the actions of the federal government, or has to overcome a bunch of coordination problems with other governors, they aren't and don't. Whereas Trump was free to seize the COVID pandemic supplies that Maryland bought and paid for, and redistribute them as political favors to red states, it would have been more difficult to do to a state with six times the population and a power center far from Washington. Any effort to oppressively regulate interstate trade is diminished somewhere you're dealing with large amounts of intrastate trade; Conversely, any impediments on trade with and travel to Mexico are going to be substantial issues in both Texas and California.
I found that movie to be disgusting as it takes real footage of war horrors such as 20 days in Mariupol, suicide bombers, etc. and sanitizes that for American audiences. Using this visual style of movies like 20 days in Mariupol indicates the filmmakers watched those movies and thought that could make them buck. Then it gives you some bullshit feel good call of duty action at the end to go kill the president which is tonally different both in visual style and in the context of the narrative. And it replaces the horrors of war such as bombing maternity hospitals and watching pregnant women be dragged from the wreckage with stereotypical racist Americans. And it justifies all this because it tells the tale of some war time reporters and asks the question what if they are just adrenaline junkies which is why they do their jobs? Thereby undercutting the real value and heroism of those who report on these conflicts who are captured, tortured, and murdered (e.g., Viktoriia Roshchyna). It does nothing to connect the audience with anything that is actually happening in the world and even serves to insulate Americans from the horrors of Ukraine and elsewhere while attacking journalists. I thought that movie was disgusting.
Do you have a different example other than 20 Days in Mariupol? Because the filmmakers definitely didn't watch that and think it could "make them buck". Principal photography for Civil War took place the year before 20 Days in Mariupol premiered.
...huh? Civil War is about a group of reporters in the final days of a future civil war in America where a rather Trumpian president is about to be overthrown by rebels. It's not "replacing" anything in Ukraine because it's an entirely different story than Ukraine.
I am talking about the visual language of the movie and how it takes the style of documentary films like 20 days in Mariupol (a movie about the beginning of the war in Ukraine). not the narrative.
I don't think the approach was stolen. It is fine for artists to take styles and ideas from other works and put them in their own. My point is that I found the film to be generally an affront to the suffering of people in actual, ongoing wars. It trivialized those experiences using them as a costume so american audiences could giggle in delight at the cinema without having to worry about the trappings of an actual war. And it did so all to tell a narrative that was somewhat against war-time journalism, painting their efforts as self absorbed and self serving. Like look at the way they film the death of the Kirsten Dunst, in this hero pose with camera in hand searching for the perfect picture. Contrast that to the actual life and death of someone like Viktoriia Rushchyna who was tortured and had organs removed or Shireen Abu Akleh who was allegedly shot in the head by a sniper while wearing a press vest. I simply found the film disgusting and if people disagree with me that is fine.
Of course any film about war (or perhaps any topic) could be controversial to someone. The WW2 epics starring John Wayne or Sergei Eisenstein's Alexandr Nevsky are both examples where the directors twisted every detail and used every opportunity to present a political message that the viewer may or may not agree with. My view on this is that the director of Civil War, Alex Garland, makes statements with the film that I disagree with. He seems to not see the humanity in people, at least, in my opinion. The movie never doubles down on anything, there is no deeper examination of the characters in the film, they just are until they aren't anymore. This is similar to his 2018 film Annihilation, which is essentially a retelling of J.G. Ballard's The Crystal World, and all of those characters in some way lack a humanity (although I think this works much better in this film as you discover that each character goes into the zone to find something about themselves that is missing and what defines them as human to themselves). And similar to The Beach, the novel he wrote that was turned into the movie The Beach, starring Leonardo Dicaprio about vapid westerners partying in thailand, or 28 days later, the zombie movie he wrote directed by Danny Boyle. Garland seems to see life as cheap and meaningless across the books and movies he has created. He cares more about the visual trappings of the setting he creates than the humans who live there. In the case of Civil War, I find it offensive as it uses the visual style of documentary films about ongoing wars as a costume and set dressing for his movie. And this movie comes from a culture (American) that started a war in Iraq and has done basically no introspection as to how those decisions completely changed their society into what it is today. This also influences the Civil War film. The president is blamed exclusively for all bad things across america. The entire movie is about how everything is the president's fault but lets interview him to see why.
<< My point is that I found the film to be generally an affront to the suffering of people in actual, ongoing wars.
In a sense, you do have a point. I do happen to agree that it is rather hard to match the sheer.. what is a good word here.. brute reality of war. It is genuinely hard to do even with the best efforts, because, and this is kinda the point that I am slowly leading towards: that the reality has to meet the expectations of the audience.
And this is where I think you seem to fail at something you chastise the director/producer/maker(whole crew?), who made that movie. You seem to think that all wars all the same at all times; that the esperanto of violence would immediately cause a rather quick, normative default 'war' state that anyone could recognize. But you would be wrong... I don't want to bore you with the details, but just to give an idea consider the thought that it was not that long ago that soldiers wore rather colorful uniforms ( for a reason ) and it is only more recent wars that made them try to blend into environment. And this is but one, small, but visible difference, which will define how a war "looks" like.
<< It trivialized those experiences using them as a costume so american audiences could giggle in delight at the cinema without having to worry about the trappings of an actual war
Does it? I watched the movie, because I heard so many differing opinions that it got me curious. I try to abstain from most movies lately. Frankly, were it not for my wife, we wouldn't stream, but it is what it is.
But more to the point, which scene seemed trivial to you? Maybe my experience is different, because I watched it home?
On the other hand, I think, again, you misunderstand something. Just by default, most of us do make odd sounds, when were are nervous or uncomfortable ( yes, even laugh ). I do not want to assume too much, but I think even if you saw someone laugh, you might be misinterpreting something. My point is that, even if what you observed ( assuming it was observed ) is true, it is.. not the movie's fault. People's come in all shapes and sizes. I know I laughed hard that one time I thought I was close to dying.
<< And it did so all to tell a narrative that was somewhat against war-time journalism, painting their efforts as self absorbed and self serving.
I mean.. I did not get that impression, but I think that one could be safely left to interpretation.
<< I simply found the film disgusting and if people disagree with me that is fine.
I am not sure what to disagree with. That war is bad? That the movie does not capture its true horrors? That people suffer? You might be losing your point a little.
<< Of course any film about war (or perhaps any topic) could be controversial to someone.
I didn't see it as controversial. It was mildly interesting, but that was it. I personally think too many read too much into it, while Bill Hicks probably would have called it for what it is.
<< The WW2 epics starring John Wayne or Sergei Eisenstein's Alexandr Nevsky are both examples where the directors twisted every detail and used every opportunity to present a political message that the viewer may or may not agree with.
Ok. Now I know you are older than me. And to that I can only say: welcome to the cinema. It is not just WW2 movies. Everything now has a message. Sometimes, it is ridiculously overt, sometimes not.
<< My view on this is that the director of Civil War, Alex Garland, makes statements with the film that I disagree with.
Hwell, you probably should not have watched the movie or listened to him or both.
<< The movie never doubles down on anything, there is no deeper examination of the characters in the film, they just are until they aren't anymore.
Well that.. is an interesting criticism. I was going to respond reflexively, but I am going to ask you a real question that ties back to your original complaint how movies don't show the true horrors of war.
Would you agree, especially based on the lack of deeper examination phrase you used, that, the fact that all those deaths don't matter is in a sense a lot more terrifying than whatever deeper meaning you would want to add to those deaths. Meaningful death could mean immortality, but just not being there anymore is just that..
<< The president is blamed exclusively for all bad things across america. The entire movie is about how everything is the president's fault but lets interview him to see why.
Again, I think you misunderstand the audience of that movie, because that part is a very clear reflection of the real life in US.
I was going to continue, but I think it is clear that we disagree to a fair degree. Please let me know what you think. It may end up being an interesting conversation.
For the record, I was fortunate enough to not have experienced actual war, but some of family members did so I got to hear some of the stories. I am not even talking about a trained soldier doing a tour in a foreign land ( though that experience clearly gives you a close insight into what is happening in that time ). I am talking about the civilians just trying to survive.
There is a significant difference though which even Veep didn't predict - the people in Veep were still riding in the well-oiled deep-state car, while those clowns today is actively destroying that car.
Wrt. clowns - note that the most important Hegseth's staffer is his wife who was his producer back at Fox and basically does the same for him at the Pentagon.
On the other hand, the UK Spitting Image puppet series of sketches The President's Brain is Missing holds up remarkably well, due to being about Reagan.
People who talked about how 24 and Jack Bauer showed that torture was good actually included a goddamned supreme court justice and I think the SecDef? The Bush Jr admin was openly fans of the show.
Oh, and the cast were invited to have a panel at a conference for the fucking Heritage Foundation!
There should be a whole PhD dissertation in how 24 took over American culture and was used to justify heinous acts with some trite “the ends justify the means” hero porn on prime time.
Yes, it was sickening to watch a lot of people - even self-proclaimed libertarians – flip on torture during that period. There was a stark reversal from the 90s where the War Crimes Act was unanimously passed because back then anti-torture laws were thought of as affecting enemies like the Viet Cong, which lasted less than a decade.
(The recent cringe inducing Deniro series comes to mind)