I can't help but feel that Garland has started to lose his appeal. He's made a few great films over the years but the more he makes, the more it feels as if he can't seem to adapt to the craziness of the modern film industry. Annihilation was alright, Ex Machina had a few good ideas, but these are two recent films of his that just felt as if something was missing from them. I couldn't help but find that once the initial spark of the main ideas behind them were already over, they're actually quite shallow films. The kinds that would be better as short films rather than deserving of something large budget. Garland's style of the years definitely speaks of a more lower budget era, one that wasn't with such heavy budgets and crazy marketing, and the marketing side is definitely something I can't help but mention here. Civil War's marketing, led by A24, relied heavily on false advertising of the film. This was done with the use of AI generated posters that were used as promotional material for Civil War, even though the posters both made no real sense with no connection to the film, but also didn't even feature events or locations used in it. A24 being the false prophets of indie cinema they are, remained quiet over the discovery that AI was used for these posters, and nothing came as a result of them.
This left a foul taste in my mouth when I heard of Civil War. Not only did it sound like a soulless attempt to profit from the insanity that is the fragility of American politics in the present, but also insulting the world of filmmaking by using AI to promote it. I avoided this film like mad, and even now I ensured that watching it did not require paying to view it. I have lost interest entirely in A24 as a result of this, and I suspect this will be the last film of theirs I watch for a long time, assuming something changes for the better. I want to make it clear that AI posters, or AI used in films of any sort is something I despise and will reject. And as companies begin to remove the human aspect of art, it brings up the question of what their products are really worth. Slowly opening up justification for the concept of piracy. Should one consider purchasing a film that had little human engagement? When there's no production cost beyond slapping in a few keywords into a website that then generates some low quality product that the consumer is then expected to pay for? Even in some cases the same prices as before? All of this has led to me already hating Civil War before going into it. But the question of why I would watch it comes to mind, no? I am curious to see as to how far Garland has fallen. To see if the negatives I had seen on the Internet about the film are true.
And unfortunately, this also gives me doubts over the supposed upcoming 28 Days Later sequel. Let me guess: AI generated zombies are coming.
The problem here is that Civil War is actually made rather well. It holds a narrative that explores the lives of photojournalists during the modern chaos of a civil war taking place in the (former) United States of America. In such troubled times, much like our present which it certainly takes a lot of influence from while exaggerating things, Civil War looks at journalists as a group of people that are heavily despised. To be a journalist is to not only throw yourself into danger while trying to capture the reality of a situation, but also to put yourself in danger from the people that believe you are part of a greater conspiracy that tells lies and has an agenda. The free press is no longer considered free to many. I think this perspective really made the story interesting, particularly given we see these perspectives of photographers while are roaming through the torn states and capturing the events, while trying their best to survive. Our protagonist is primarily a rather famous war photographer, that accidentally manages to find a much younger photographer that is inspired by her, wanting to break into the industry.
This newcomer hasn't seen much of anything, and sort of becomes part of her group as she learns the reality of war. Not really understanding the while situation but trying to, while holding a camera within her grasp. What I didn't like was that our more famous protagonist (played by Kirsten Dunst with great performance) was a bit stereotypical with the war side of things. A character that is all toughened up and desensitised to the whole thing, almost a bit cruel in how she treats others. She's someone that doesn't really enjoy what she does, and it's told to us as the audience that she does this job purely to tell others to not. I felt like this was a bit of a cop-out to create a stereotypical character that serves as a blatant contrast to the more naive newcomer. Perhaps most won't consider this a problem as it's your typical narrative setup, but I just couldn't help but find it a bit too cliche. Especially with how things started. The Civil War side of things isn't really told to us either, it is something that has already started and been taking place for a while, with even some hints that things are slowly coming to a conclusion. Our characters supposedly have the intent of travelling through the states to get to DC, to interview the president.
In terms of cinematography, the film is actually shot very well. Garland has a love for the very cinematic wide angle perspective, mixed with a very shallow depth-of-field that adds to the depth of the scenes, our subjects stand out a lot as a result, and this is a style I quite enjoy, even if it has sort of gained a lot more popularity these days. In parts it looks as if the shots are done with high grain, vintage looking lenses. Perhaps some modern anamorphic lenses. Garland did a lot of this with Annihilation, where in many moments it almost looks as if the lenses have been smeared in a type of grease. Only where the subject is there is some general sharpness. Light bloom almost makes this look a bit more vintage and amamorphic. I found when there were times of action or flashbacks, the use of these effects worked quite well, particularly alongside the use of slow motion. Something that did feel a little different though was the changes from these lenses to aerial shots, where things looked sharper and more digital, removing some of that cinematic look. Moments of travel were accompanied with the photographic side of the journalism, the closing of a shutter, mixed wit the black and white film photographs of the moments through the eyes of the photographer.
I think these gave us more depth in the views of the photographers, pulling us out of the more cinematic moments and showing us a different perspective from them directly. This worked especially with that aforementioned black and white. Sometimes the music works well in creating this ambience between places, a gentle set of tones that didn't really hint at music or rhythm but had a slight sadness to them. A lot of this is disappointing because Garland certainly still has a lot of ideas that are creative and engaging, but A24 sold him out for a quick attempt at manufacturing advertising through anger, while also promoting the use of AI. I mentioned in the introduction that Garland doesn't quite suit the modern film industry, and that's sort of why. His approach doesn't fit. He's too much of a traditional filmmaker and Hollywood can't adapt to that. Perhaps that's why some of his films feel as if something is missing, perhaps there were supposed to be more to these ideas that the studios just wouldn't accept. And Civil War sometimes feels like that. Garland wanting to push the action and the chaos, but being incapable of really doing so with the need for more narrative and simplicity.
Civil War has a runtime that's about two hours in length, and I think it was a decent runtime that did manage to bundle together the horrors of a modern civil war, but also the exploration side as people travel throughout the remains of the United States. Areas left abandoned, left to rot. But also the areas that hold some aspects of civilisation. It gave these moments a lot of tension because we never really know what's to come. How do people react to such events? Different opinions, but also the lack of knowing what is to come as they advance through different areas. There are no real rules anymore, not really a set of police or law enforcement that really have a grasp on things.
Ultimately I think Civil War isn't a bad film, it holds a lot of good elements. But A24 really screwed this one up. and if Garland had any part in it, that's even more disappointing. And it is sad to say that I still think it's best to avoid giving this film any money, as the best course of action is to make it clear that such practices just aren't acceptable, even if it means good films suffer.
Wonderful work