New “Civil War” movie plays it too safe

Danny Murnin is a junior studying journalism and assistant opinion editor for The New Political. 

Please note that these views and opinions do not reflect those of The New Political.

Without a question, the United States is a very divided country at the moment. In particular, debates over the extent of racism, the validity of the 2020 election results and the implementation of restrictive COVID-19 mandates opened deep divides among Americans on many levels.

But just how divided are we? Whenever something happens that once again illustrates the divisiveness in the U.S., it has become fairly common for many Americans, both in and out of the political arena, to theorize that America is headed toward another civil war. In a sign of the times, a prominent movie has been released about just that.

This comes in the form of Civil War, an ambitious movie released on April 12 by independent studio A24 that stars Kirsten Dunst as a renowned war photographer. When the movie’s first trailer was released in December, it caused quite a stir. The decision to release a movie about a brutal civil war in America mere months ahead of what is expected to be our most nasty and unpleasant presidential election yet was deemed in poor taste by some. 

Still, audiences were eager to see how the movie would approach a second civil war on the big screen. What caused it? How many sides would there be and how did they form? Who is fighting on each side and why? With the U.S. possessing such a powerful military, how could the rebelling faction(s) possibly have a chance at winning? 

In any film about a civil war, those are all logical questions that you would expect to be answered during the first act. Civil War, however, doesn’t answer any of them. Instead of even making an attempt at helping the audience understand why any of the events in the movie are happening, the only background we get are a few light passing references made that raise more questions than answers.

Nineteen states have seceded, led by the “Western Forces”, which consists of Texas and California. I’m not kidding. Texas and California, two states that couldn’t be more different, are leading a secessionist movement together. There are also references to a “Florida Alliance” of several southern states. It is unclear what other states seceded. We aren’t given the story in the movie behind why Texas and California forged an alliance. Even though it is fictional, if you are going to make a movie about a modern-day civil war in the U.S., there has to be some relatable elements to it. 

Alex Garland, the film’s writer and director, clearly disagrees, however. It is pretty obvious that Garland went to great lengths when developing the film to rid the script of any obvious links to modern American politics. If the Texas and California alliance didn’t make this apparent enough, the film’s portrayal of the President of the United States should seal the deal. The President, portrayed by Nick Offerman, is unnamed in the movie, and he gets far less screen time than what you would expect from watching the trailers. All we are told about the President is that he is apparently in his third term and has shut down the FBI. We don’t know what political party he belongs to or the reasoning behind his fascist tendencies. We aren’t even told how he got to the point of serving a third term and squashing the FBI; the United States Constitution has strong safeguards in place against the former, and the latter just isn’t something the president can unilaterally do. 

So, if anyone is out there wondering if this movie is politics-heavy, the answer is a resounding no. I honestly get uncomfortable giving negative reviews of movies. Even when I see a film I am more ambivalent about, I will typically give the movie a good rating based on the things I liked rather than a bad rating based on the things I didn’t like. It takes a lot for me to say the bad matches up with the good. In this case, that is my opinion, unfortunately. Even if the movie is intentionally and inherently non-political, the amount of plot holes and questions that are raised through relevant creative decisions become just impossible to ignore. It isn't necessarily a bad movie, as there are several great spots, but there are some puzzling creative choices that prevent Civil War from reaching its ceiling.

Garland instead opts to tell the story of Civil War by depicting the harrowing road trip to Washington, D.C. that four journalists embark on amidst the conflict. This is where Civil War is at its best. The movie gives you a lot to think about in terms of moral lessons and dilemmas, and there are lessons and dilemmas that we should think a lot about. Both the forces loyal to the government as well as the rebels are shown carrying out various war crimes that just don’t feel like they could ever happen in America. The horrors that the quartet encounter on the road aren’t easily forgotten, and that is obviously the intent. Garland wants the audience to ask themselves if politics is so important to them that a destructive civil war in America where mass atrocities regularly happen is an acceptable trade-off for political victory. 

The four journalists who are followed during the movie make for excellent main characters to follow. As members of the media they are supposed to remain objective and free of bias even as targets in a war zone, and it is fascinating to see how that objectivity and lack of emotion changes as they realize on their trip to D.C. just how torn apart America really is. The balancing act between human beings and journalists can often be tricky for many in the profession, and as a journalist myself, I welcome a prominent film like Civil War that centers good journalism and its importance, but also the challenges of doing it in a war zone. It is of course very dangerous, and reporters are often the only reliable reporter of information out of war zones. It is just a shame that other elements of the movie weren’t as successful at depicting another civil war in the U.S..