Civil War-An Allegorical Portrait of Photojournalism

Civil War focuses on the war referenced in its title and more on the characters at the film's center. The film throws the viewer into the lives of its central photojournalist characters. The film spends quite a lot of time fleshing out these characters, exploring who they are and why they do what they do. The bond that forms between these characters created an emotional core that made so much of this film so captivating to me.

Alex Garland has been adamant that one of his primary goals with this film has been to create a "love letter to journalism." While I never got that feeling throughout the movie, I found what I did get out of it much more fascinating. The film takes a deep, scathing dive into the nature of photojournalism. The film explores why the people at the story's center put themselves in danger to document the action around them. It could be because they genuinely think what they're capturing is essential, want an adrenaline rush, or for far more exploitative reasons. You watch as these characters experience all kinds of brutal devastation, which they capture with a camera, and when they aren't, they act defenseless. It makes for a film that acts as a harrowing portrait of photojournalism that, while not coming fully from a place of love like Garland intended, ends up as a portrayal much more scathing and, thus, all the more thought-provoking.

While the film's characters and portrayal of photojournalism kept me captivated, Alex Garland's direction kept me transfixed thoroughly with the film. Garland's direction emphasizes a closeup-heavy style that makes for some highly intense sequences. The uses of close-ups throughout the film also make so much of the film's brutal imagery all the more visceral. When things expand in scope in the third act, Garland keeps the viewer locked into the action, with minimal wide shots and mostly tracking shots and close-ups that put the viewer in the front seat to the violent, visceral action.

The story and characters are incredibly captivating, and the action is highly visceral and intense, making the film an invigorating experience. But I feel the film falls apart in the world-building. Aside from the President's speech at the beginning and some light exposition throughout, the film doesn't explain much about why this world is the way it is or why its version of America is at war. Garland's intentions for this minimalist approach to world-building were most likely to avoid any political stance. Like the photojournalist characters at its center, the film wants to be as apolitical as possible. I do slightly admire this approach, as it allows the film to be more up for interpretation, allowing viewers to view this world through their own personal worldview. On the other hand, taking this approach to its story and world-building prevents the film from having that full bite you feel an allegorical movie like this needs. I also felt some repetition in the film's road trip structure, with samey-looking shots of the car of the main characters driving from place to place, seeing the destruction in the background.

But, even without that full bite and a repetitious structure, there's still a pretty thought-provoking and intense film here. It's a film that takes a vague representation of current modern-day America and uses it to explore the facets of war photojournalism and all the shocking brutality that comes with it. Its characters I found incredibly compelling, and their relationships and interactions with each other added an emotional core that emotionally connected me to the film much more than I expected.

Now Showing in theaters in the U.S.