I disagree that his choice to put Texas and California on the same side belies a naïveté about American politics. The movie clearly takes place a few decades into the future (based on Jessie saying Lee took a famous image of “The Antifa Massacre” as a college student, and Lee certainly now appears to be in her forties). Garland has said in interviews, correctly IMO, that states’ placements in ideological blocs have always shifted around over time, and always will.
I haven't watched the movie -- which does not seem like my personal cup of tea. But I think this is correct:
**
I believe that’s what Garland is saying when he notes (okay, okay), “At a certain point, the specifics stop mattering. . . . [the war] stops being, in a way, issue-driven, and it just becomes anger.” I repeat my initial point, louder: He is not saying no issues matter and war is bad no matter what side you’re on or what you’re fighting for. He is saying that being on the side of good and right and true won’t keep you from becoming a war criminal.
[O]ne of my cherished school memories is talking to my history teacher in 9th grade. He was teaching me US history but I was interested in European history. The wars of religion and the history of the Catholic Church and heresy and all that. My interest stemmed from reading Philip K. Dick novels and gleaning some bits, that I more or less failed to digest, about gnosticism, plus thinking The Life of Brian was very funny. I had a few nerd friends and we used to insult each other, Captain Haddock-style, by calling each other ‘Albigensians’ or ‘Sedevacantists’ (although that one is more modern and I can’t imagine where we picked it up.) I thought it was amazing that people would go to war over very abstruse points of metaphysics. In the Thirty Years War a large proportion of the population of Germany died. And for what? Kind of over a theory about how, properly, to read a text. In response to these vague wonderments of mine, my history teacher introduced me to some ideas about political realism that really set me straight. It’s not that they didn’t believe this stuff. But the wars were not over pure metaphysics. Ooooh. Yep. I see that now.
After watching Civil War earlier this week (and agreeing that it was incredible), I sought out some reviews as one does, and like you, I found a huge number of bad takes and people who just didn't seem to get it. Many seemed hung up on details like the Texas-California alliance as though such a thing makes the whole movie unbelievable. This is not the America of today, people! Texas and California are two large states that could swing the nation; that is all. One reviewer was bothered by Jessie using a film camera to the point where he dismissed the whole movie. I agree it was certainly a choice, and maybe an impractical one, but ultimately, who cares what kind of camera she used. (Although my feeling is that she idolized photojournalists of old and wanted to be like them to the point of shooting on film, and developing negs on the road. Also an FE2 doesn't need to be charged up every night which could be an advantage in a war.)
And beyond that, on IMDB there seem to be the usual army (ha!) of politically motivated 1 star leavers who haven't actually seen the film, but have been told what to think/say by some mouthpiece of Right Thinking. (But who knows; maybe they really did see it and it wasn't for them?)
For myself, I found this way more compelling than just about any other war movie I've seen, partly because I can identify much more with a photographer than I can with a soldier. And partly because it forces us to think how to view or react to horrific events. Is it better to document them? Face them head on? Participate in them? Hide from them? Ignore them? Which of these things makes us cowardly? Which make us evil? Is heroism even possible?
Half of me wants to see the film again, and half is afraid I will either suffer PTST or start to enjoy the beauty of the violence. Anyway, I am looking forward to reading the rest of what you have written here, AMC, and I thank you for leaving these detailed musings. As soon as I was done reading a sampling of reviews, I went looking for what you had written since I follow you on BlueSky and remembered you talking about it a few weeks ago.
I disagree that his choice to put Texas and California on the same side belies a naïveté about American politics. The movie clearly takes place a few decades into the future (based on Jessie saying Lee took a famous image of “The Antifa Massacre” as a college student, and Lee certainly now appears to be in her forties). Garland has said in interviews, correctly IMO, that states’ placements in ideological blocs have always shifted around over time, and always will.
I haven't watched the movie -- which does not seem like my personal cup of tea. But I think this is correct:
**
I believe that’s what Garland is saying when he notes (okay, okay), “At a certain point, the specifics stop mattering. . . . [the war] stops being, in a way, issue-driven, and it just becomes anger.” I repeat my initial point, louder: He is not saying no issues matter and war is bad no matter what side you’re on or what you’re fighting for. He is saying that being on the side of good and right and true won’t keep you from becoming a war criminal.
**
And it also reminds me of this good point about the relationship between ideas and actions: https://crookedtimber.org/2024/05/12/originalism-for-realists-two-obvious-thoughts/
**
[O]ne of my cherished school memories is talking to my history teacher in 9th grade. He was teaching me US history but I was interested in European history. The wars of religion and the history of the Catholic Church and heresy and all that. My interest stemmed from reading Philip K. Dick novels and gleaning some bits, that I more or less failed to digest, about gnosticism, plus thinking The Life of Brian was very funny. I had a few nerd friends and we used to insult each other, Captain Haddock-style, by calling each other ‘Albigensians’ or ‘Sedevacantists’ (although that one is more modern and I can’t imagine where we picked it up.) I thought it was amazing that people would go to war over very abstruse points of metaphysics. In the Thirty Years War a large proportion of the population of Germany died. And for what? Kind of over a theory about how, properly, to read a text. In response to these vague wonderments of mine, my history teacher introduced me to some ideas about political realism that really set me straight. It’s not that they didn’t believe this stuff. But the wars were not over pure metaphysics. Ooooh. Yep. I see that now.
**
After watching Civil War earlier this week (and agreeing that it was incredible), I sought out some reviews as one does, and like you, I found a huge number of bad takes and people who just didn't seem to get it. Many seemed hung up on details like the Texas-California alliance as though such a thing makes the whole movie unbelievable. This is not the America of today, people! Texas and California are two large states that could swing the nation; that is all. One reviewer was bothered by Jessie using a film camera to the point where he dismissed the whole movie. I agree it was certainly a choice, and maybe an impractical one, but ultimately, who cares what kind of camera she used. (Although my feeling is that she idolized photojournalists of old and wanted to be like them to the point of shooting on film, and developing negs on the road. Also an FE2 doesn't need to be charged up every night which could be an advantage in a war.)
And beyond that, on IMDB there seem to be the usual army (ha!) of politically motivated 1 star leavers who haven't actually seen the film, but have been told what to think/say by some mouthpiece of Right Thinking. (But who knows; maybe they really did see it and it wasn't for them?)
For myself, I found this way more compelling than just about any other war movie I've seen, partly because I can identify much more with a photographer than I can with a soldier. And partly because it forces us to think how to view or react to horrific events. Is it better to document them? Face them head on? Participate in them? Hide from them? Ignore them? Which of these things makes us cowardly? Which make us evil? Is heroism even possible?
Half of me wants to see the film again, and half is afraid I will either suffer PTST or start to enjoy the beauty of the violence. Anyway, I am looking forward to reading the rest of what you have written here, AMC, and I thank you for leaving these detailed musings. As soon as I was done reading a sampling of reviews, I went looking for what you had written since I follow you on BlueSky and remembered you talking about it a few weeks ago.
Behold! The more I hear about this movie, the more intriguing it sounds, which is the opposite of most film review