Only the most naïve and shortsighted of filmmakers could’ve presumed that the premise of a modern civil war in America would somehow avoid stirring up uncomfortable and polarizing conversations. Hopefully, most would agree that such a broad accusation couldn’t reasonably be leveled towards the artist behind complex, challenging movies like “Sunshine,” “Ex Machina,” and “Annihilation.” If we take Alex Garland’s (arguably) apolitical stance as an intentional choice — a bare-minimum benefit of the doubt that we ought to grant to most, if not all, works of art we engage with in good faith — then the next step requires investigating why and whether the results match the execution.
Take it directly from Garland himself. In an interview with /Film’s Jacob Hall, the director spoke about his aims in telling this story the way he did and how his ambitions reflect the journalistic point of view at the center of the film:
“The film attempts to function like old-fashioned reporters and, in a way, what old-fashioned reporters would do. Not that they don’t exist anymore, they do, it’s just they exist surrounded by this noise, which diminishes their traction. What they would do is, in a sense, say, ‘This is what I observed.’ Then, it would be up to the reader in the old days or the viewer to take their own meaning from that.”
Dismissing this approach might carry more weight if the nature of subjectivity versus objectivity weren’t baked right into the work of photojournalists — and, by extension, the entire film. Constantly, the editing in “Civil War” cuts to still photos of carnage and killing taken by various characters, daring us to separate ourselves from the horror on screen. It’s telling, then, that this is precisely how Jessie captures Lee’s haunting death.
Source link
