‘Civil War’ Review

Last year’s 20 Days in Mariupol from director Mstyslav Chernov was a harrowing, visceral documentary that captured the vital nature of journalism and photojournalism during wartime. By looking at a war happening today, its timely message came across immediately, and Chernov’s handling of the subject matter felt like it had a serious call to action. However, despite winning an Academy Award in 2024, it is a documentary, and audiences generally don’t enjoy sitting down for 95 minutes to watch the horrors of reality displayed to them - no matter how vital it may be to know what’s happening around them. They have the news for that, and even then, they can switch to another network, find another perspective on the same matter, and maintain the bubble they’ve created. 20 Days in Mariupol interrogates this, whereas for audiences who would like something a little less “real,” there is now Civil War: an Alex Garland-directed thriller about a fictional situation that is believable but lacks the bite and the nuance to be anywhere near as effective of a film.

Single-minded is the best way to describe Garland’s taut thriller. In its pursuit to show the vitality of journalism it depicts a hypothetical near-future America where many states have seceded from the nation, putting the country at war. The President (Nick Offerman) is holed up inside DC as the frontline is pushed closer to the president’s doorstep, leaving a war to play out throughout America as factions like the Western Alliance move forward and the streets of towns and cities become warzones. As much as it sounds like Garland’s screenplay might be interested in the hypothetical war it has created, Civil War is very much not interested in war itself. Instead, it shines a spotlight on the documentation of atrocities and the role journalism plays in that process. As a result, it is visceral as the vulnerability of a profession and its professionals comes under fire, literally, and conveys the responsibility and pressure placed upon humanity to account for its own destruction.

That single-mindedness and almost refusal to engage in its own politics also makes the film’s message impossible to ignore. By following four journalists, whose objectivity is paramount to being able to maneuver through a terrifying landscape of civilians ready to shoot anyone whose values represent a threat to them, Garland weaves a portrait of America sowed by discord told by those whose empathy must be silenced to properly document the struggle. The film's heartbeat - or lack thereof - is Lee (Kirsten Dunst), a photojournalist who has covered many wars on the frontline and has become seemingly desensitized to it all. Paired with her colleague Joel (Wagner Moura), the two plan to drive right into the heart of the turmoil and secure the first interview with the president in 14 months. Along for the ride is Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson), who will join them up to the frontlines in Charlottesville, and a young aspiring photojournalist, Jessie (Cailee Spaeny), who considers Lee one of her heroes.

The cast in Civil War is impressive, with characters generally feeling lived-in without their prior experiences having to be spelled out - though Lee’s background is frequently expounded in blunt and direct dialogue. It’s a shame that the screenplay is often more blunt than it needs to be because Garland is a great visual director, and his cast is more than capable of conveying what the dialogue here requires. That’s most notable in Dunst, whose arc generally works until the screenplay seems to shift in its priorities. Her performance alongside Spaeny’s and Henderson’s are particularly powerful in the burdens they are internalizing. Moura is also great in his character’s negotiation between Garland’s tonal shifts, which meshes with his character well, but also sees him externalize far more often than his colleagues.

It’s the tonal shifts where Garland plays with soundtrack choices and scenes that signal how they will end because of how much they suddenly alleviate tension through jovial banter that creates problems for the film. It wants to be a thriller and doesn’t want to be miserable. Every choice to lay a more upbeat song over a harrowing situation is a case of diminishing returns, and Garland does it too many times for it to maintain effectiveness. The point comes across immediately, but because it makes for a more enjoyable experience than a harrowing one, it is used liberally after particular moments of horror. An exceptionally crafted scene of tension and cruelty that happens later in the film is undercut by a needle drop that happens just late enough that the scene on its own works really well, but the aftermath of it feels underwhelming.

Civil War’s greatest strength is in its sound design, which comes through most noticeably in the climax of the film but is played with far more creatively in the film’s early moments. Garland is very good at making intense sequences tangible - you feel your stomach churn, and the visceral elements come through. It’s a ballet of great editing, sound, and cinematography. Here is no different, but Civil War doesn’t interrogate its politics with enough zeal to sustain that feeling throughout. At a certain point, it becomes a case of “okay, but to what end?” and it’s not entirely convincing that Garland has anything to say outside of his pro-journalist and anti-war stance. He chose to use a very plausible situation of Americans turning on each other due to opposing ideologies but situates the film around how harrowing that might look and why journalists matter in the process. It has a certain exploitativeness to its sensationalist premise without taking a significant stance.

There’s also a noticeable omission from Civil War’s portrayal of vital forms of documenting atrocities in the 21st century: social media. The screenplay is so centered around the journalism profession that it seems to ignore the fact that social media has become a form of journalism, especially during wartime. It feels antiquated to disregard what is currently more trusted by many people than the news. While it may open a new can of worms to explore with regards to “fake news” and the use of AI and photo and video manipulation, it’s also exactly what this dystopian America would likely be relying on, especially countries outside of America that are unaware of what’s going on. It takes a couple of seconds to find harrowing footage of Ukraine and Gaza through social media platforms as of the time of this writing, whereas you can find streamlined accounts of what’s happening in other countries through some mainstream news outlets.

That’s why it is clear that Garland doesn’t seem fully concerned with the importance of documenting atrocities, nor is he interested in war politics. Civil War is solely centered on journalism, hindering the film from being more than just a well-executed thriller. Its characters are enjoyable to spend time alongside and he positions journalism as a crucial element to learning from history. However, the film also acknowledges that many people still don’t pay attention when these things happen, even when it’s in their own backyard. That seems to be where the ire in Garland’s film stems from and fuels its visceral images. Civil War highlights the suffering of humanity as something that should be paid attention to, but it doesn’t explore why that suffering isn’t paid attention to or why it happens in the first place. This is why no matter how effectively the film works as a thriller, its singular focus leaves it unaware of the war going on around it, and the tightening of its scope betrays the others trying to expand the potential for journalism to be paid attention to by those ignoring it in the first place.