Civil War, the latest work from director Alex Garland, draws viewers into a tense narrative surrounding journalists caught in a new brand of combat between states in a dystopian America. While the film captivates with powerful performances from Kirsten Dunst, Cailee Spaeny, and Wagner Moura, it leaves audiences craving a deeper exploration of the events that ignited this second Civil War.
Set against the backdrop of Washington D.C., the film culminates with the dramatic death of Nick Offerman’s tyrannical president, whose audacious claim of a third term is portrayed as a pivotal trigger for the conflict. Still, the film stops short of fully unpacking the sequence of events or societal conditions leading to such a drastic situation. While Garland opts to characterize the experience of the journalists rather than the war itself, this approach may deprive the story of crucial context.
Throughout its runtime, Civil War teases viewers with hints about its origins, yet it never delves into the specifics of how the nation reached this breaking point. Fans are left asking numerous “whys” during key moments, and a second viewing only highlights how the lack of backstory can overshadow important themes and character developments. The unanticipated alliance of California and Texas feels implausible given their considerable political differences, and Garland’s choice of these states appears to be a move to sidestep direct political commentary.
Additionally, the absence of historical context hampers the development of central figures. While Dunst’s character, Lee Smith, has an established background as a war photographer, there is little insight into the motivations of Spaeny’s Jessie or Moura’s Joel, leaving audiences wondering how they align with the conflict at hand. By incorporating the war’s origins, the film could have enriched character arcs and provided a more compelling narrative.
In defending his decision not to provide this backstory, Alex Garland has communicated that his intention with Civil War is to highlight the journalists’ perspectives—neutral observers chronicling the chaos around them. As he sees it, the ramifications of deep societal divides are what the narrative seeks to address. Yet, the rationale for sidelining the war’s roots feels unfulfilling. For many viewers, understanding the factors that led to this seemingly plausible conflict is a natural instinct, and Garland’s reluctance to delve into these details can come across as obstinate.
Civil War stands as a significant cinematic endeavor from A24, with a reported budget of $50 million and strong box office returns of $122.5 million, coupled with a respectable 81% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Despite Garland’s commendable desire for neutrality, the glaring omission of foundational context related to the war can leave a frustrating void for those intrigued by the film’s premise.
As audiences await its release on April 26, 2024, they’re left contemplating a crucial question: how did it all begin? The filmmakers’ approach to this compelling dilemma remains a point of contention, even as the film showcases riveting performances set against a dystopian backdrop.