[decimalenough]

...huh? Civil War is about a group of reporters in the final days of a future civil war in America where a rather Trumpian president is about to be overthrown by rebels. It's not "replacing" anything in Ukraine because it's an entirely different story than Ukraine.

[mnky9800n]

I am talking about the visual language of the movie and how it takes the style of documentary films like 20 days in Mariupol (a movie about the beginning of the war in Ukraine). not the narrative.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

I am confused. What is your complaint here? That US author's stole the visual approach?

[mnky9800n]

I don't think the approach was stolen. It is fine for artists to take styles and ideas from other works and put them in their own. My point is that I found the film to be generally an affront to the suffering of people in actual, ongoing wars. It trivialized those experiences using them as a costume so american audiences could giggle in delight at the cinema without having to worry about the trappings of an actual war. And it did so all to tell a narrative that was somewhat against war-time journalism, painting their efforts as self absorbed and self serving. Like look at the way they film the death of the Kirsten Dunst, in this hero pose with camera in hand searching for the perfect picture. Contrast that to the actual life and death of someone like Viktoriia Rushchyna who was tortured and had organs removed or Shireen Abu Akleh who was allegedly shot in the head by a sniper while wearing a press vest. I simply found the film disgusting and if people disagree with me that is fine.

Of course any film about war (or perhaps any topic) could be controversial to someone. The WW2 epics starring John Wayne or Sergei Eisenstein's Alexandr Nevsky are both examples where the directors twisted every detail and used every opportunity to present a political message that the viewer may or may not agree with. My view on this is that the director of Civil War, Alex Garland, makes statements with the film that I disagree with. He seems to not see the humanity in people, at least, in my opinion. The movie never doubles down on anything, there is no deeper examination of the characters in the film, they just are until they aren't anymore. This is similar to his 2018 film Annihilation, which is essentially a retelling of J.G. Ballard's The Crystal World, and all of those characters in some way lack a humanity (although I think this works much better in this film as you discover that each character goes into the zone to find something about themselves that is missing and what defines them as human to themselves). And similar to The Beach, the novel he wrote that was turned into the movie The Beach, starring Leonardo Dicaprio about vapid westerners partying in thailand, or 28 days later, the zombie movie he wrote directed by Danny Boyle. Garland seems to see life as cheap and meaningless across the books and movies he has created. He cares more about the visual trappings of the setting he creates than the humans who live there. In the case of Civil War, I find it offensive as it uses the visual style of documentary films about ongoing wars as a costume and set dressing for his movie. And this movie comes from a culture (American) that started a war in Iraq and has done basically no introspection as to how those decisions completely changed their society into what it is today. This also influences the Civil War film. The president is blamed exclusively for all bad things across america. The entire movie is about how everything is the president's fault but lets interview him to see why.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

<< My point is that I found the film to be generally an affront to the suffering of people in actual, ongoing wars.

In a sense, you do have a point. I do happen to agree that it is rather hard to match the sheer.. what is a good word here.. brute reality of war. It is genuinely hard to do even with the best efforts, because, and this is kinda the point that I am slowly leading towards: that the reality has to meet the expectations of the audience.

And this is where I think you seem to fail at something you chastise the director/producer/maker(whole crew?), who made that movie. You seem to think that all wars all the same at all times; that the esperanto of violence would immediately cause a rather quick, normative default 'war' state that anyone could recognize. But you would be wrong... I don't want to bore you with the details, but just to give an idea consider the thought that it was not that long ago that soldiers wore rather colorful uniforms ( for a reason ) and it is only more recent wars that made them try to blend into environment. And this is but one, small, but visible difference, which will define how a war "looks" like.

<< It trivialized those experiences using them as a costume so american audiences could giggle in delight at the cinema without having to worry about the trappings of an actual war

Does it? I watched the movie, because I heard so many differing opinions that it got me curious. I try to abstain from most movies lately. Frankly, were it not for my wife, we wouldn't stream, but it is what it is.

But more to the point, which scene seemed trivial to you? Maybe my experience is different, because I watched it home?

On the other hand, I think, again, you misunderstand something. Just by default, most of us do make odd sounds, when were are nervous or uncomfortable ( yes, even laugh ). I do not want to assume too much, but I think even if you saw someone laugh, you might be misinterpreting something. My point is that, even if what you observed ( assuming it was observed ) is true, it is.. not the movie's fault. People's come in all shapes and sizes. I know I laughed hard that one time I thought I was close to dying.

<< And it did so all to tell a narrative that was somewhat against war-time journalism, painting their efforts as self absorbed and self serving.

I mean.. I did not get that impression, but I think that one could be safely left to interpretation.

<< I simply found the film disgusting and if people disagree with me that is fine.

I am not sure what to disagree with. That war is bad? That the movie does not capture its true horrors? That people suffer? You might be losing your point a little.

<< Of course any film about war (or perhaps any topic) could be controversial to someone.

I didn't see it as controversial. It was mildly interesting, but that was it. I personally think too many read too much into it, while Bill Hicks probably would have called it for what it is.

<< The WW2 epics starring John Wayne or Sergei Eisenstein's Alexandr Nevsky are both examples where the directors twisted every detail and used every opportunity to present a political message that the viewer may or may not agree with.

Ok. Now I know you are older than me. And to that I can only say: welcome to the cinema. It is not just WW2 movies. Everything now has a message. Sometimes, it is ridiculously overt, sometimes not.

<< My view on this is that the director of Civil War, Alex Garland, makes statements with the film that I disagree with.

Hwell, you probably should not have watched the movie or listened to him or both.

<< The movie never doubles down on anything, there is no deeper examination of the characters in the film, they just are until they aren't anymore.

Well that.. is an interesting criticism. I was going to respond reflexively, but I am going to ask you a real question that ties back to your original complaint how movies don't show the true horrors of war.

Would you agree, especially based on the lack of deeper examination phrase you used, that, the fact that all those deaths don't matter is in a sense a lot more terrifying than whatever deeper meaning you would want to add to those deaths. Meaningful death could mean immortality, but just not being there anymore is just that..

<< The president is blamed exclusively for all bad things across america. The entire movie is about how everything is the president's fault but lets interview him to see why.

Again, I think you misunderstand the audience of that movie, because that part is a very clear reflection of the real life in US.

I was going to continue, but I think it is clear that we disagree to a fair degree. Please let me know what you think. It may end up being an interesting conversation.

For the record, I was fortunate enough to not have experienced actual war, but some of family members did so I got to hear some of the stories. I am not even talking about a trained soldier doing a tour in a foreign land ( though that experience clearly gives you a close insight into what is happening in that time ). I am talking about the civilians just trying to survive.