Alex Garland's Civil War

[Drizzle]

I was always going to see this for Plemons alone but with such praise I guess I'll be opting for IMAX.

 

[Kane52630]

Pack it up folks, this movie is done.

 

[Sithborg]

I do find it fascinating that the initial premise isn't really that big of a focus of the movie. Making all that handwringing early on over the content of the movie super hilarious.

 

[Sawyer]

I’m looking forward to this, but…



Ehhhhhhh…

When the one Republican most reasonable/willing to work across the aisle is a ****ing Cheney, there’s no both-sidesing that. One side has become incredibly radicalized and the other side catches nothing but hell for merely pointing that fact out.

 

[Sithborg]

I’m looking forward to this, but…



Ehhhhhhh…

When the one Republican most reasonable/willing to work across the aisle is a ****ing Cheney, there’s no both-sidesing that. One side has become incredibly radicalized and the other side catches nothing but hell for merely pointing that fact out.

Honestly, from a white guy from TERF island, not exactly shocking.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

That statement feels a little facile and beneath a man as obviously intelligent as Garland.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Just say you didn't have the b@lls to simply state that chistofascism is bad.

Which it absolutely is...objectively.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

A better statement would be just to say that both left and right political leaders can disappoint their supporters and oppress if you look at the history of well, everywhere. Both can act immoral, not that they are somehow 'above' being morally quantified. He seems to have a problem with that quantification which seems to me to be a position of the privileged to not to concern themselves with such things.

 

[Sithborg]

That statement feels a little facile and beneath a man as obviously intelligent as Garland.

Even intelligent people can be blinded by privilege. Here is a bit fuller of a quote.

Left and right are ideological arguments about how to run a state. That’s all they are. They are not a right or wrong, or good and bad. It’s which do you think has greater efficacy? That’s it. You try one, and if that doesn’t work out, you vote it out, and you try again a different way. That’s a process. But we’ve made it into ‘good and bad.’ We made it into a moral issue, and it’s ****ing idiotic, and incredibly dangerous … I personally [blame] some of this on social media. There is a an interaction that exists human-to-human that floats away when it reaches a public forum.

Which, again, is rich from TERF Island. Just looking at the UK, lets see... The clear attempt to eliminate gender affirming care for those that need it, as well as making trans people's lives harder to live their life, yeah, that's just effiacy. Nothing there at all that should apply a moral judgement. Oh, and lets not get into their refugee plans. Their courts literally stopped them from just scooping up refugee applicants and shipping them to Rwanda, no due process needed. That is just disagreement best left to policy wonks, no moral judgement needed. And best not discuss what the real pyschos in UK's right want to do.

His thinking is all nice and good. If you ignore that one side seems to have a real disregard towards civil and human rights. HIs privilege makes it easy for him to ignore that government policy is not neutral in may facets of life. Especially for those who are targeted by the government.

And being intelligent did not stop Rowling from hitting the eventual end point of the TERF rabbithole, outright nazism.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

A better statement would be just to say that both left and right political leaders can disappoint their supporters and oppress if you look at the history of well, everywhere. Both can act immoral, not that they are somehow 'above' being morally quantified. He seems to have a problem with that quantification which seems to me to be a position of the privileged to not to concern themselves with such things.

Both sidesism may make everyone feel good but the truth is one side planning Christofascism with Project 2025, "joking" that Trump will be a dictator for one day, calling for an end to democracy/the constitution and banning books/history and the other side just wants sanity/reason.

Let's not feed into the false narrative that if a civil war breaks out that both sides are equally at fault and both sides would be reasonable if they won.

 

[Deck Rickard]

Yeah, as soon as I heard that California and Texas are allies in the film, I worried that it would be a middle-of-the-road, both-sides-are-the-problem, be-politically-vague kind of film. And maybe if we weren’t literally facing the end of democracy in this country and having ONE side constantly threatening a new civil war, I could find this sort of thing interesting or entertaining. But as it is, I feel like it just adds to the problem.

 

[OtherwiseKnownAs]

I’m looking forward to this, but…



Ehhhhhhh…

When the one Republican most reasonable/willing to work across the aisle is a ****ing Cheney, there’s no both-sidesing that. One side has become incredibly radicalized and the other side catches nothing but hell for merely pointing that fact out.

Yep, this is coming straight from the Sorkin School of lib centrism and journalists being the brave truth-tellers who never steer us wrong. (Except for nearly every major conflict the US has been in)

 

[Sithborg]

Yeah, as soon as I heard that California and Texas are allies in the film, I worried that it would be a middle-of-the-road, both-sides-are-the-problem, be-politically-vague kind of film. And maybe if we weren’t literally facing the end of democracy in this country and having ONE side constantly threatening a new civil war, I could find this sort of thing interesting or entertaining. But as it is, I feel like it just adds to the problem.

From what I've read, I would not necessarily call it some politically vague movie. It just uses a set up that would naturally interest people, but never explores that set up to focus on something entirely else. It proposes an incendiary scenario just to get people's butts into seats. I mean, I think we should have expected this was not a serious exploration of the divisions in America when the trailer said Texas and California teamed.

As I said, what the movie actually is makes all the handwringing over the concerns over the movie hilarious. It is not quite the movie you think they are selling, which is fine.

 

[Snow Queen]

I’m looking forward to this, but…



Ehhhhhhh…

When the one Republican most reasonable/willing to work across the aisle is a ****ing Cheney, there’s no both-sidesing that. One side has become incredibly radicalized and the other side catches nothing but hell for merely pointing that fact out.

I've long said that Annihilation is the kind of good movie that gets you a "do whatever you want" pass in my book. I'm resciding that pass, Alex, give it back.

 

[Punisher_MAX]

The "both sides" aspect of is a downer, and I'll still watch it, but it would've been gutsy to actually point out the real problems we are facing with one side of the aisle.

 

[Dr.]

The "both sides" aspect of is a downer, and I'll still watch it, but it would've been gutsy to actually point out the real problems we are facing with one side of the aisle.

The Hollywood Reporter article describes a three (!)-term president who recently disbanded the FBI. And in a direct quote, Garland says: “There is a fascist president who smashed the Constitution and attacked citizens.” Three guesses who this fictional POTUS is based on. (Hint: it’s not Biden, Obama, Bush Jr., Clinton, Bush Sr. or Reagan.) So at least in this respect, Garland’s political POV would seem to be pretty unambiguous.

However, THR also mentions that other elements (e.g., the divisions and alliances among the states) are left deliberately vague. Whether this works as a narrative/rhetorical move remains to be seen. But that evaluation must derive from the film, itself — not Garland’s extemporaneous commentary.

Sometimes directors talk too much.

 

[Sithborg]

I mean, you guys want him to focus on things that he clearly did not intend to be the focus of the movie. Now, the marketing could be blamed for you to be expecting a movie that Garland didn't make, sure.

 

[blueharvest]

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I mean, you guys want him to focus on things that he clearly did not intend to be the focus of the movie. Now, the marketing could be blamed for you to be expecting a movie that Garland didn't make, sure.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect this movie to address the elephant in the room.

And what people are fighting for is fairly important considering there are people currently ready to stage an actual civil war in the real world.

People need to be asking themselves, if I support a fascist dictatorship, am I really one of the good guys/patriots.

We're past the stage where both sidesism is needed to keep people pacified. People need oppose the rise of American fascism.

Making this movie nearly as fictitious and irrelevant as the Purge series would be a missed opportunity.

 

[blueharvest]

 

[Kane52630]

 

[blueharvest]

 

[Drizzle]

Early April Fool's joke?

 

[Luigi]

At least it was a great run.

 

[Kane52630]

Alex Garland on April 2nd: