What CIVIL WAR Is Really About

112,215
0
2024-04-12に共有
Alex Garland’s Civil War has been a controversial movie since its announcement and even more so after its first trailer. Now that it’s actually here, what can we make of it? In this video, I explain what I see as Garland’s intended meaning and what I personally took away from it. Give it a listen then let me know your own thoughts and interpretation in the comments!

0:00 A True Anti-War Film
8:56 Humanizing the Press

28 Days Later and Saw inspired Piano Background music by THRLL -    • Saw | 28 Days Later | Piano Backgroun...  

#civilwar

コメント (21)
  • @houston-coley
    I don't think the ending implies that Lee has decided that journalism is important or "worth dying for." In the end, she sacrifices her life—not for a photo, but for a person. She finally intervenes, instead of taking a photo of Jessie being shot and killed. That's her arc.
  • @DADGAD_Rick
    I think the most telling moment in the movie is actually during the end credits in which a slowly developing picture of smiling Western Forces troops are standing over the dead body of the now deceased former president, like you might find big game hunters showing how proud they are of having "bagged a big one". Rather than showing either remorse for the state of affairs that led to this outcome, I think it is more telling as to how civil wars don't lead toa a new "resurgent democracy" and "rule of law". Instead, acts of violence in the name of democracy taken during the Civil War just lead to yet **more** violence in the name of democracy and the rule of law. It is for this reason that Civil War demonstrates that these particular kinds of internecine conflict within a fracturing state, are NOT unifying actions that support the political state, but destructive ones, leading to further yet fracturing of the states remaining after the conflict has culminated. This is what I find most frightening about Alex Garland's movie.
  • @telltellyn
    It's crazy seeing how many people are complaining the film never explains the origins of the war or go into the "lore". That's just not what the film is about at all. People complaining the film isn't a completely different thing, like going into Saving Private Ryan and complaining that it didn't cover the lore of Hitler's rise.
  • This movie hit hard. I was a US Army Combat Engineer, but I always had my camera with me, other than basic and AIT, it was always by my side just like my M16. I've always wanted to be a photographer, although I never intended to be a combat photographer, because I had my camera with me, I was. I don't exactly know how to react, or how to express what I'm feeling after watching this movie. I guess... Actually, I don't know. I've been sitting here fore about ten minutes trying to put into words the thoughts and feelings I have, and yet, I can't.
  • Something I realised about the film is right up until they reach the Western Forces base, you never find out which soldiers/militiamen are on which side. The only time you know which side is which is when the Western Forces attack DC.
  • This movie may be attempting to humanize press for those that hate them, but I think the end of this film is an absolute critique on wartime journalism. And not a favorable one. It also feels like a statement on us, the viewer and humanity. In a similar, but much more subtle way than something like ‘Funny Games’.
  • @skyeplus
    A lot of people are missing the point of the movie. You can only buy half a tank and a few cans for 300 CAD.
  • The film is doing several things. Its bringing discussion on a serious topic. Its making people think. (Something that extremist on both sides don't want) Its exposing citizens of the possibility It also makes you think about those that is hoping such a war happens.
  • The film is incredible, and not enough people have praised its cinematography. It looks gorgeous. The scenery while they’re driving after the “what kind of American are you” moment is one of my favorites of the year.
  • @joe5909
    The FBI was never intended to be a "check" on presidential power. It's mission is to investigate crimes over interstate lines and federal criminal statutes. Congress and the Supreme Court are checks on presidential power. The President is the Executive Branch whose duties are to enforce the laws of the United States and Constitution. The FBI is part of the executive branch under the direction of the President. It would make no sense for a tyrannical leader to disband basically the federal law enforcement authority if he were going to tyrannical despot killing citizens, that would be the job of tyrannical leader's police. If there is tyrannical leader, who was able to circumvent the 22nd amendment, then it would have been the failure of the Congress who allowed it to happen. Where does Congress get it's power? Through the electorate in each state and state elections are democratic and the only occurrence of majority rule voting. So if a majority of people voted for their representation that failed to put checks on the Executive branches' power, you get a what you voted for people. Governments based on majority rules will often lead to oppression of the minority, that's the rational of why our founding fathers divised the electoral college and three braches of government and bicameral representation. Ask yourself why the Western Alliance would resort to summary execution instead of bringing the president in this movie to stand trial and answer for his crimes before the citizenry if thier rational were bringing back constitutional integrity and rule of law? Maybe this civil war was agitated by outside influences? Realistically, why not push a country to destroy itself from within, then risk an invasion from outside? Then again, it's only a movie.
  • I’ve just came back from Ukraine in Mykolaiv as I was photographing animals there and I can honestly say that watching this movie, it really resonated with me Telling it from the perspective of the photographers and basically watching what I was doing in Ukraine (exaggerated in the movie) I was simply very emotional watching it I thought it was an amazing movie and I’m very very happy it didn’t mention the war and why it started I don’t need to find out why hitler started WW2 every time I watch a WW2 movie The fact so many people are getting upset at why the reasons wasn’t mentioned, this is not really a real conversation that happens in war zones over and over again or views that people are all bad or all good, there is no heroes, there is simply people trying to survive, living day to day, be it fighting in the army or just going to work and drinking coffee War isn’t a movie, war isn’t about twitter arguing, so for people to have complaints about the movie for not mentioning politics etc, is just boring! I’ve been to a war zone, and I can honestly say Civil war is an extremely HONEST depiction of war!
  • @mr.estrada
    Todd Aluqist definitely served in the military which is why after his service had no hesitation to shoot drew sharp in order to protect heisenberg business
  • @marco477utep
    Regardless if the movie did or did not focus in the current political polarization the bottom line is that a US civil war would be disastrous.
  • @Pituqat
    Just saw it. A brutal, viceral film. It won't break box office records or win an Oscar, what it will go down as an important, seminal cinematic work. It will win critical acclaim and maybe a cult following. That said, the Battle for DC should have been more total, more of an epic historical event akin to the fall of Berlin. Where was the siege? The struggle for the sky? The aerial bombing of the capitol? The cruise missiles? The drones? The use of chemical weapons? Why was the power still on? The movie should have ended in a bunker or on the tarmac of Andrews AFB.
  • @sullyway51
    The journalist today are nothing near the likes of Pyle or Cronkite. Pyle was in the heart of the fighting in the Pacific war against Japan and was killed doing his job. Cronkite was in the European theatre starting out flying with the bomber crews filming other bombers being shot down around him during the bombing raids over Europe. He went on after D-day to being with the troops on the ground. He also was in Korea during that war and also did live broadcasts from Vietnam.
  • @mck24601
    For those who claim that "words are violence", I wonder if the conflation of the two means that the person who claims it is more likely to go from word to violence when words don't convince someone. I thought it was a very good show
  • @MrIke86
    It’s great to see at least one person online who still has proper media literacy. Great job on the video.
  • Is it happening??? Are smart, mature, relevant movies for intelligent, thinking audiences coming back??? Fingers crossed we're at a threshold.