Civil War | A24 | Alex Garland action thriller | 04/12/2024

[ListenHunnyUrOver]

Sorry, but I do think Garland is too apolitical in his framing. We’re just not at a moment in time when we can present a scenario like this without some actual political or societal commentary. 

[MysteryMovieMogul]

4 hours ago, ListenHunnyUrOver said:

Sorry, but I do think Garland is too apolitical in his framing. We’re just not at a moment in time when we can present a scenario like this without some actual political or societal commentary. 

The idea of a civil war without any sort of economic, racial, or gender-based divide is, quite simply, unbelievable as a real scenario.

[Porthos]

What if the why of the civil war wasn't actually important to the story Garland wants to tell?

 

Is that really so hard to get past?

[WorkingonaName]

2 hours ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

The idea of a civil war without any sort of economic, racial, or gender-based divide is, quite simply, unbelievable as a real scenario.

How the hell would a gender-based civil war work. 

[grey ghost]

12 hours ago, Becker said:

Stocking up on self defense equipment is not necessarily a bad thing. Especially in a time of increasing inflation, crime, poverty, and wealth inequality. 

 

Crime and poverty are dropping though.

[Torontofan]

6 hours ago, WorkingonaName said:

How the hell would a gender-based civil war work. 

 

(how to respond to this without warning points)

Edited April 6 by Torontofan

[Torontofan]

3 hours ago, grey ghost said:

 

Crime and poverty are dropping though.

I dont trust govt stats personally.

 

They say the same in canada but i seen many more homeless people then ever in my lifetime in my hood and food banks are triple the traffic as before covid. 

[Eric the Ape]

Moderation

 

I said not the politics thread. Stay on topic, or you will be thread banned.

[ListenHunnyUrOver]

16 hours ago, Porthos said:

What if the why of the civil war wasn't actually important to the story Garland wants to tell?

 

Is that really so hard to get past?

Then couldn’t he have told an ecological story or some other non-political disaster type of movie? It seems odd to call a movie CIVIL WAR, and then dodge the politics of the situation. 

[Porthos]

2 hours ago, ListenHunnyUrOver said:

Then couldn’t he have told an ecological story or some other non-political disaster type of movie? It seems odd to call a movie CIVIL WAR, and then dodge the politics of the situation. 

 

Because it's still about war? Just more at the 3 foot level than the 30,000 foot one?

 

...

 

Be interested in hearing what @BoxOfficeZ has to say about all of this kerfuffle considering he's actually seen it.  Without getting into spoilers how important is the background of the conflict to the story being told?  How much sense does it make within the context of the film?  That sort of thing.

 

Just speaking for myself and what I've gleaned from conversations/observations, I strongly suspect though that the reason this is about war is that war is something rather foreign to Americans... on American soil.  Disasters, man made or ecological, are a well trod path for storytellers within America.  War on American soil?  Especially because of internal conflicts?  Not nearly as much. 

 

War within American soil that had an internal cause sets up all sorts of dramatic avenues and things that can be examined that something like neither Independence Day (foreign invaders, if alien) nor The Day After Tomorrow (ecological disaster) can really portray even if it doesn't necessarily cover the actual politics of how it came to be.  

 

The brother against brother story is literally a tale as old as time, and one that has all sorts of stories that can be told.  Some care about why kinfolk hate each other.  Others, not so much.  

 

Hell, maybe Garland intentionally chose an unusual choice of combatants because he wanted to focus on a different story than one that the current rural/urban divide within the US wouldn't lend itself easily too.  It could be that he's not so much afraid of alienating people in as much as he's not interested in telling that particular story and is telling a different one about The Horrors of War.

 

...

 

Or not.  Could be giving Alex Garland way too much credit.  As said, be interested in hearing what BOZ has to say in regards to this angle of the story.

[WebSurfer]

[WittyUsername]

This thread is a Civil War unto itself. 

[TMP]

Nvm

Edited April 7 by TMP

[crazydom]

On 4/6/2024 at 12:00 AM, Porthos said:

What if the why of the civil war wasn't actually important to the story Garland wants to tell?

 

Is that really so hard to get past?

It's hard to get past because the entire movie is false advertising. The name, the marketing, the ads all tell a story that the actual movie is clearly not about. It's about photojournalism in war zones, far more than it about an actual civil war in America and how that would play out and transpire. Maybe that wasn't Garland's actual intention, and why he's so reserved in interviews on discussing anything, and was pushed by A24.

 

I'm very interested to see the CinemaScore for this, because I think they are selling mainstream audiences a bill of goods that the movie clearly does not intend to deliver on.

[AniNate]

Thursday ticket secured, definitely want to be on the leading edge of actually intelligent discourse about this

[MysteryMovieMogul]

1 hour ago, crazydom said:

It's hard to get past because the entire movie is false advertising. The name, the marketing, the ads all tell a story that the actual movie is clearly not about. It's about photojournalism in war zones, far more than it about an actual civil war in America and how that would play out and transpire. Maybe that wasn't Garland's actual intention, and why he's so reserved in interviews on discussing anything, and was pushed by A24.

 

I'm very interested to see the CinemaScore for this, because I think they are selling mainstream audiences a bill of goods that the movie clearly does not intend to deliver on.

Just this morning...

 

 

[Macleod]

4 hours ago, AniNate said:

Thursday ticket secured, definitely want to be on the leading edge of actually intelligent discourse about this

 

Good luck...  😁

[crazydom]

4 hours ago, AniNate said:

Thursday ticket secured, definitely want to be on the leading edge of actually intelligent discourse about this

your various posts in here have made it clear you’ve made up your mind on this and love “both sides centrism” so nobody will be shocked when you love it

[Porthos]

4 hours ago, crazydom said:

It's hard to get past because the entire movie is false advertising. The name, the marketing, the ads all tell a story that the actual movie is clearly not about. It's about photojournalism in war zones, far more than it about an actual civil war in America and how that would play out and transpire. Maybe that wasn't Garland's actual intention, and why he's so reserved in interviews on discussing anything, and was pushed by A24.

 

I'm very interested to see the CinemaScore for this, because I think they are selling mainstream audiences a bill of goods that the movie clearly does not intend to deliver on.

 

Already addressed this in my prior posts but to expand on them it seems to me having a civil war be the catalyst for the tale is the important part here, not the why of the civil war in the first place.

 

It seems to me that this whole argument over this topic, implicit or other wise, is that Garland has nothing to say about contemporary politics, with some going as far as to say as he is someone who is afraid of offending anyone because of it.

 

I'm saying, why not actually see if the movie makes commentary about it before judging it.  This includes the ever dreaded subtextual argument.

 

And even if the movie isn't making an overt or implicit argument about Contemporary Culture Wars, which I do think has a pretty decent chance of being true, do think that maybe we should actually wait and see if the movie has anything else to say before judging it.

 

That's really been the thrust of most of my arguments here. 

[titanic2187]