Civil War Movie

Civil War Movie

Finally, a movie all about violence without any thematic context.

In the beginning of the movie three veteran journalists encounter a young woman photographer who is an admirer of the veteran journalist (kirsten dunst) who amidst a violent protest gives some advice to the young wanna be journalist. 

When the vets decide to go to,washington d.c. The young journalist tags along, much to the dismay of the veteran, who is hard line and knows whats what in this world of getting the story and the pictures to back it up. The money shots.

It's not clear who prints or even hears the stories because nothing seems to be "normal".

These journalists are covering an American civil war which from the film's opening looks as if it's been going on awhile. Throughout the countryside there is damage to cities, towns, and the land is scattered with men with guns, refugees, tribes, armies and burnt military equipment.

There's the western front army which i think represents secessionists from california, texas, florida but it doesn't really matter because unlike those states, there is absolutely no ideology behind any of the secessionist military, militias, individuals nor any reasons given or implied why secessionists want to secede, except when the journalists encounter a group of military camo clad soldiers dumping a dump truck load of bodies into a pit with hundreds of other bodies. One of the soldiers starts asking the journalists where they're from and when one answers China, the soldier shoots him.

Maybe its pre-MadMax, yet the presence of the journalists and general  exceptance of their right to follow the action and maintain their neutrality. Free press gives the entire thing a sliver of civility. 

The journalists are impartial chroniclers of the carnage and decide to go to washington dc because they hear the president may give an address to the nation. They think they may even be able to get an interview. 

Their journey, like other famous journeys, the Odyssey, for example, they encounter various individuals, militias and the western front army that is going to make a final push into washinton d.c. They follow along and embed themselves with the WF forces in order to get into the main action which is the defeat of the president. The armies' orders are to kill him and thats it but, again, the viewer isn't privy to who gives the orders and what the orders are. The movie itself maintains a level of neutrality and pretty much leaves it up to the viewers own moral/political perspective on who is perpetuating violence and who is the victim of it.

One other thing that this movie reminded me of was the european directors in the late sixties and early seventies who made several film parodies of american involvement in viet nam, civil rights and the turmoil of that period. At that time also, the european outlook did not convey on film some great american theme being played out but was, like this film, a reminder that in america, violence of any sort seems to be the background for all ideologies and beliefs. 

When you consider that a recent poll, 2024, shows that nearly 30% believe violence is necessary, either on the left or right, to fight extremism (of the left or right).

And also considering, that everywhere in the world, violence is always played out over the dead bodies of those who aren't part of it.

In the end, there's a battle raged around the walled up white house, against the soon to be defeated president. The journalists follow a squad of WF forces right into the White house where secret service and others sworn to protect the president put up a fight all the way to the oval office. The young journalist is right there and when her mentor is killed, the young one gets even more determined, to be there when the president is killed, and she is. The end of the movie credits are rolled over a photo of the squad of soldiers gathered around the dead president in the oval office, like proud hunters surrounding a downed elk.

Okay, so maybe i should have put a spoiler alert ahead of this but its too late. The movie isnt about journalism anyway, and the characters, whether it be journalists or anyone else, are drawn to be imbued with the great american avoidance syndrome of not caring about why things happen, just that they do happen, and everyone has a right to know it's happening.

Maybe it can be summed up with the final scene when one of the vet journalists asks the dying president to give him a last quote and the president says, "Please, tell them not to kill me," and the journalist stands, and says, "I guess that'll have to do."

I was somewhat intrigued with this neutrality issue. I guess one could say, if the president gets killed, then the movie isn't quite neutral, but the fact we know nothing about what happened prior to the civil war and no one gives us any verbal clues as to who believes what, then it is neutral. There are plenty of scenes of people, both individual and en masse who are riding out the conflict in a somewhat normal way, in shelters, in stadiums, in homes.

You know, the ones who will inherit the mess. Just like now.

Sent from my iPad