‘Civil War’ Review: Alex Garland Presents a Rorschach Test to a Divided America | SXSW 2024
It’s going to be extremely difficult to find a critical consensus on Alex Garland’s newest film Civil War, a film whose message turned out to be nowhere near as blunt as its title or marketing suggests it will be. Depending on the moviegoer, the takeaways are going to be all over the place. Perhaps the best question to ask is “What did you see in Civil War?” Some will see a damning reflection of where America is currently at in the present day and see the film as a cautionary tale, while others will see the exact same reflection of the state of the country but arrive at the conclusion that it’s already so obvious at how America is divided, so what else is new? Then there are those who will believe that Garland is too soft on the political messaging.
What we see and what we conclude with is up to us. At least that is what Kirsten Dunst’s veteran war photographer Lee believes in, as she covers the ongoing conflict between the US government and the seceding factions consisting of “the Florida Alliance” and “the Western Forces of Texas and California.” With her longtime colleagues Joel (Wagner Moura, Elysium) and Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson, Dune/Lady Bird), she treks across the country, straight into the frontlines of Washington D.C. to meet and interview the authoritarian President of the United States (a brief but menacing Nick Offerman) before he is finally overthrown. Reluctantly, Lee also takes in a young photographer named Jesse (Cailee Spaeny, Priscilla), an aspiring photojournalist who doesn’t hesitate to say that both her heroes are named Lee (an on the nose reference to Lee Miller, the most famous female war photographer ever).
Garland keeps these journalists front and center throughout Civil War. Nearly every atrocity we witness is seen alongside the group, and though the characters obviously have much to say about what is happening, they simply take the photo and keep moving. For Lee, it is obvious that she has already become numb to the violence. As someone who has covered war crimes abroad, in the hopes of preventing them from happening at home, Lee is one photo away from the thousand-yard stare. Dunst gives a staggering performance as her character travels across the country. Whether she is passing through warzones, what’s left of it, or pockets of awful serenity led by folks pretending to ignore the war, we worry about her own humanity slowly disappearing into her profession.
Accompanying Dunst is an equally fantastic Moura as a pillar of support and a phenomenal Henderson as the perceptive nurturing figure. But Spaeny holds a whole other level of spotlight on her. With Garland’s writing so clearly positioning Dunst’s Lee and Spaeny’s Jesse as parallels of each other, it’s compelling to see Jesse undergo that disillusionment and desensitization as the film progresses. Whether it is from quiet dialogue delivery or even a hauntingly blank facial expression, Spaeny gives a performance you can’t take your eyes off of.
While Garland doesn’t pull any punches on the violence and the unbearable sequences of suspense – a particular moment with Jesse Plemons will be in my nightmares for a while – he is surprisingly restrained on narrative and intention. This is where we come to what is perhaps the most frustrating part of the film. Why isn’t there an explanation? A call to action? A rationalization on what they’re fighting about and who’s on the right side of history? Why does it seem like Garland made a political movie while being so frustrating apolitical about it? At its worst, this is a film made out of projections, where people find breadcrumbs to support whatever political leanings or notions they have already brought into the theater with them. It will be easy to interpret Garland’s matter-of-fact approach as equivalent to dodging political talking points that some audiences expect him to say out loud. I can already see the headlines a few weeks out of the film’s release, calling Civil War “irresponsible” or “cowardly,” and therefore “dangerous.”
But I find myself equally pulled to the other side, on what I think Garland really wants to achieve: to have us see everything, not hear him talk about it. Hidden underneath its dystopian world-building but in plain sight is a troubling portrait of journalism, its ethics, and its limits. At one point in the film, one of the journalists says, “We don’t ask questions. We take the photos so others ask questions.” We’re probably meant to ask if that’s really enough, and at what cost. As the film arrives at its explosive third act, with some of the loudest ear-ringing sound design that can rival any war picture, Garland constantly presents the visuals through the (literal) lens of photography. Cutting back and forth between noisy carnage in color to bleak photos in black and white, Garland is conditioning us to see images that we would too often associate with “some other country out there, not here.” But they are happening here, right now.
Then we see these characters we’ve been following this whole journey, wearing kevlar vests with the words “PRESS” written on them, following closely behind military formations as they coup their way into the White House. They take photos constantly, even running into the line of fire to get “the perfect shot.” While Dunst’s Lee is on the verge of breaking, Spaeny’s Jesse is on the verge of becoming like Jake Gyllenhaal from Nightcrawler. Garland doesn’t need to say anything to show how fucked up this picture is. But if Jesse or Lee isn’t going to be there to take the picture, then who is?
Garland, more likely than not, is treating his position of writer and director of Civil War with the sobering responsibility of a journalist as well. He presents the film with almost no thesis. Rather, he aims for the immersive, suffocating experience that hits as if it’s reality itself. That he doesn’t take a side in his own fictional conflict will no doubt be irritating, as I myself am still grappling with that storytelling decision. Civil War is a film destined to be as divisive as the country it takes place in. I walked out of it feeling gross and repulsed. I flinched multiple times, thinking that what was on screen was no different from how things feel today. But the important thing is I am processing it. I’m sure Garland wants all of us to process it. Now the next step is for us to engage.
Grade: B
This review is from the 2024 SXSW Film Festival. A24 will release Civil War in theaters and in IMAX on April 12, 2024.
- Interview: ‘Dead Talents Society’ (鬼才之道) Writer/Director John Hsu and Actress Gingle Wang Talk About the Award-Winning International Horror Hit - October 26, 2024
- ‘The Shadow Strays’ Review: Too Self-Indulgent by Half, Timo Tjahjanto’s Bloodlust Hits Epic Levels | TIFF - September 17, 2024
- ‘The Wild Robot’ Review: An Animated Triumph Destined to Become a Classic with an All-Time Voice Performance from Lupita Nyong’o | TIFF - September 8, 2024
2025 Oscar Predictions: BEST ACTRESS (November) 
‘Sugarcane,’ ‘Soundtrack to A Coup d’Etat’ Lead 40th IDA Documentary Awards Nominations 
AwardsWatch Partners with Vision Media to Revolutionize the Awards Season Experience 
Interview: ‘The Substance’ Special Makeup Effects Designer Pierre-Olivier Persin on Transforming Demi Moore and Margaret Qualley into a Funhouse of Horror and Using 4,000 Gallons of Blood