Why ‘Civil War’ Has Created Divisions Among Viewers

Alex Garland’s latest film, ‘Civil War’, delves into political themes in a way that may surprise many viewers. The film envisions a near-future America torn apart by political factions engaged in a mysterious conflict. Unlike traditional war films, ‘Civil War’ does not provide a clear background on the conflict or the specific goals of each side, leaving many viewers frustrated. Instead, Garland opts for an approach that emphasizes the emotional impact of the war rather than its origins.

The movie follows a group of journalists—played by Kirsten Dunst, Wagner Moura, Cailee Spaeny, and Stephen McKinley Henderson—on their journey to Washington D.C. to interview the President before his death. Throughout their trip, they encounter various characters embodying the fractured state of the nation. Garland’s choice to focus on the journalists’ experiences rather than the political details of the war creates a sense of ambiguity that mirrors the chaotic and divided world depicted in the film.

Image Courtesy: CBR

Garland’s decision to avoid detailed exposition contrasts with typical war narratives, which usually include background information to help viewers understand the conflict. In ‘Civil War’, the lack of clear context forces viewers to interpret the political situation themselves, which has contributed to polarized reactions. 

The film draws loose parallels to modern American politics, but Garland insists that the fictional President (played by Nick Offerman) is not a direct representation of any real-life figures.

Image Courtesy: CBR

The film’s ending, featuring the assassination of the President and the victory of the Western Forces, further fuels the sense of disorientation. By focusing on the impact of the war rather than its causes, ‘Civil War’ presents a challenging and thought-provoking portrayal of political conflict, offering a unique perspective on the role of war journalists and the effects of violence.

–Farheen Ali