Civil War - I'm Just a Naive Midwestern Bitch

When I saw the first trailer for Civil War, I thought, “Who the fuck would want to see that?” While I still believe a full on civil war in this country is highly unlikely, it’s enough of a threat that a movie about it felt off-putting. More than that, I assumed it was going to be a liberal-minded warning that would only preach to the choir. To be clear, I consider myself a liberal, but I hate overly liberal pop culture stuff as much as I hate those silly “documentaries” that Dinesh D’Souza won’t stop making. Anything that leans too heavily to one side is just trying to make money off people who already agree with the author; it doesn’t actually say anything. 

Civil War, to my surprise, doesn’t actually say anything, either, but in a good, literal way. This film still has a liberal tinge to it simply because members of the press are the primary characters, but it’s not like they’re constantly giving speeches directly to the audience or anything. They are meant to be press members in the traditional sense in that they are there to document what is happening, not provide commentary about it.

This may bother some viewers hoping for a message from a film called Civil War beyond “War is bad and messes people up.” But I was fine with the lack of a message and the lack of a specific reason for the start of the war (there are hints, but no concrete history is given, and a reference to an “Antifa massacre” that Kirsten Dunst’s character covered in college implies that this is meant to be an alternate history version of the United States). 

Fairly quickly, the film makes it clear that this is a flat out war film. A civil war is happening, and we’re simply embedded with these journalists as they make their way from New York to D.C. As a road movie during a civil war, this hooked me. Writer/director Alex Garland created an anxiety-filled story in which anything could happen at any time. In many ways, it had the feel of a zombie or general post-apocalyptic movie in that no one can be trusted, and death is a constant possibility. 

And maybe I’m just a naive Midwestern bitch, but the realistic depiction of a modern civil war taking place in America, especially in D.C. was incredibly effective. I found myself short of breath by the end of the film, and it wasn’t because I’m fat (maybe it was a little because I’m fat, but the movie played a part, too). 

Watching this in a theater played a factor, as well. The war sequences are loud and overbearing, and the prolonged moments with gunfire and explosions create a true feeling of chaos. Being in a theater also allowed me to get a sense of what others might feel about the movie. I didn’t talk to any strangers afterwards or anything, but I made a few observations. First off, a couple next to us walked out during the Jesse Plemons scene in which he’s shooting anyone who isn’t a “normal” American, i.e. white American. Watching this in Kentucky (I live on the Indiana/Kentucky border), my first assumption was they were offended that this racist character is what the filmmakers think of people from the more rural part of the country. If that’s the case, I hate to break it to them that if shit did really go down, this area of the country would have no shortage of deranged fuckers who would use the war as an excuse to make their racist fantasies come true. 

Or maybe they were simply offended by the ugliness of the scene in general. If that was the case, I’m not sure what they were expecting from a movie called Civil War, but apparently that scene crossed the line. Or maybe they received a text message from a babysitter and had to leave, who knows, but I think the scene played a factor. 

On the way out at the end, I heard a person say, “So that's what they have planned for us.” First off, what? This had to be a conservative dude who thinks the liberal elites of Hollywood hate him and all he stands for, so he went into this expecting it to be two hours of liberal lies about “real Americans.” Or something like that, I don’t know how these people think. It really seemed like he thought up that line before he even got to the theater and felt the need to still say it even though the movie in no way presents a plan of action for taking out conservative Americans. I could understand his comment if this movie was about the government using the military to confiscate weapons from people or something, but the fighting in this is presented as two military forces fighting each other for the most part, not one evil liberal government subjugating the conservatives. 

I point these moments out to show that people will still find this movie political and/or offensive no matter what. Because of that, I can see why it would be frustrating for some viewers that Garland didn’t take more of a stand with the screenplay. I found those audience reactions as affirmation that Garland made the right choice. People are going to bring their views to a movie like this no matter what you do, so why bother with a message? Instead, just show people what a civil war might look like, regardless of what “side” you’re on. 

As an experience, Civil War turned out to be exactly what I wanted. From a story or character standpoint, there isn’t a ton there. I liked the main characters, but for me they were simply ciphers to experience the war through and not much more. There is a little development with them, I suppose, but not much. Since the film is just about war, the only development for all of them is how much the atrocity of war changes, or doesn’t change, a person. But I didn’t really care that much about any of them. I was just there for the war, and if that’s all you want from this, then you’ll be fine, no matter how you feel politically. 

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Another dude at the end of the movie was talking to a cop at the movie theater, and I heard him say, “It’s actually a follow up to that movie.” And the cop replied, “Okay, I was wondering because it looks like it’s just from the press perspective.” God, I wish I had heard what movie he thought this was a follow up to. I hate approaching strangers, but I truly regret not walking over to him and asking what the fuck he was talking about.

January 6th entered my mind a bit during this, as well. People storming the White House doesn’t seem that unlikely after that event.

America has truly lost her way if we can’t stay united with Nick Offerman as President.

That town that seems to be sitting out the war (thanks to some snipers on top of the buildings) is probably how my small town would react to a civil war. I hope so, anyway.

So I guess the arc for Dunst is that she starts off not caring about anyone anymore, but Stephen McKinley Henderson’s death and her mentoring of Cailee Spaeny made her care about people enough again to sacrifice herself? I don’t know. And why not just push her down and fall down with her? Why push her away and stand up in the line of fire? And I didn’t really get her panic attack leading up to the White House, either. Like I wrote above, what little character development there is in this just didn’t matter to me, or make sense in this case.

How do you put Jimmy from Yellowstone in this and not kill him?

This is clearly an alternate universe America since they didn’t drive past a single Dollar General.

"Melancholia"

Melancholia - Written and directed by Lars von Trier, starring Kirsten Dunst, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Alexander Skarsgard, and Kiefer Sutherland - Rated R

Melancholia might seem boring at first, but if you let it sink in you may come to love it, as I did.

Lars von Trier is a bit of an egomaniac and it can be hard to separate the filmmaker’s comments from his films. It’s hard not to mention the director since he makes his name as big as the title in Melancholia and even goes so far as to include that name on the title card…above the title. He is certainly a gifted enough filmmaker to warrant attention, but von Trier’s more outrageous statements should be ignored while the actual films should be scrutinized.

Those well-versed in von Trier’s work know that his films are not always easy to sit through. That was certainly true of Antichrist, and while Melancholia lacks the complete shock value of his previous film, there are still elements that make this a difficult watch.

Melancholia is mainly a film about the relationship between two sisters, Justine (Kirsten Dunst) and Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg). Much of the film is set during Justine’s wedding reception and it is a fairly basic drama about these two women and their problems. But there is one other plot element: a planet is moving past Earth and could possibly destroy it in the coming days. That certainly ups the interest factor in a sibling drama.

The planet, Melancholia, adds a sense of foreboding to the film that becomes its saving grace. This is a film that is all about atmosphere and what creates a greater, darker mood for a film than Earth’s potential destruction? Too often end of the world movies have been about the scientists trying to stop it and all the action that entails. It’s refreshing, and a bit depressing, to see a film that just accepts it and uses it as a backdrop for a troubled familial relationship.

The relationship is the main point of this film, though. At no point does this actually feel like a film that is focused on the sci-fi element. Melancholia is completely about Justine and Claire. That might cause a problem for some viewers as the destruction of Earth is a bit more interesting than two bickering sisters, yet if you allow yourself to be drawn in by the film then the sisters should completely hold your interest and that planet that may or may not destroy Earth can stay where it belongs: in the background.

Justine and Claire are just as interesting as Melancholia because of their mental problems. Justine suffers from immense depression and Claire seems to be in a constant state of anxiety. Their problems can be of the infuriating kind as there are so many scenes of unspoken issues. You may find yourself urging them on to just cut the crap and yell at each other. Aside from that, though, it is quite clear that something is wrong and most of their scenes are compelling, especially when the rest of the family is involved.

Melancholia also works because of the insanely talented cast. Dunst (who took home Best Actress at Cannes) gives a great performance that completely embodies depression. Gainsbourg gets the less showy role but handles it with impressive understatement. The rest of the cast has their moments as well: Alexander Skarsgard, Kiefer Sutherland, John Hurt, Charlotte Rampling, Udo Kier, and Stellan Skarsgard all keep the film moving nicely in their supporting roles.

Then there’s the last star of the film: Lars von Trier. As usual, he has made an absolutely beautiful film. The first ten minutes of the film are like watching slowly moving paintings. The rest of the film never lives up to those first images but the camerawork still makes the film interesting on a visual level. And since this is von Trier there are plenty of ways to look at the film. Just scan the message boards for some wild theories. While most of the theories as to what Melancholia represents and what some of Justine’s actions really mean are quite ridiculous, it’s still fun (or perhaps interesting is the better word since fun and von Trier occurring together just seems wrong) to look deeper into a film. Theories can be applied to absolutely any movie out there, sure, but von Trier’s work earns a closer, deeper look.

Whenever theories are thrown around about movies like Melancholia there is the backlash that viewers are looking for things that are not there because the movie taken at face value is simply boring. I certainly felt that way after my initial viewing and I can completely accept anyone condemning Melancholia as boring, pretentious crap. You’ll hear no argument from me because that is a completely valid opinion. What saved the film for me was the intense atmosphere of the film. After I finished it my response was along the lines of, “What the hell was that, von Trier?” I didn’t think it was a bad film so much as a disappointingly boring film. But the next day I couldn’t stop thinking about the film and had an intense need to watch it again (I couldn’t, though, because of those damned 24-hour On Demand rental time limits). And as I thought back on the film I realized that those “boring” moments (the wedding reception that goes on nearly as long as the notorious celebration in The Deer Hunter) were actually captivating because of everything that wasn’t happening. It’s a strange way to explain a film, I know, and it’s definitely a pretentious “critic”-type way of looking at it, but it is what it is.

In short, Melancholia is not a film for most people. I can’t imagine von Trier ever making a film for most people, anyway. In fact, I wasn’t one of those people this film was for after my initial viewing. It just grew on me. And perhaps all films should be taken at face value, but when you watch hundreds of movies a year, something as different as Melancholia deserves a second thought. Casual filmgoers should probably skip this one, but the more obsessive watchers should give Melancholia a close look.