Review | ‘Civil War’ offers a barrage of questions over bullets

Alex Garland’s latest directorial effort is riveting, offering its audience more intriguing questions than straightforward answers. Photo collage by JACK SUNDBLAD, Staff Photographer

Spoiler alert: This article contains spoilers for “Civil War.” 

Alex Garland’s “Civil War” is a film filled to the brim with questions. Whether they arise because of the plot, character arcs or messages, the writer-director is never quick to offer answers to his audience. The enjoyment of “Civil War” comes from what viewers take away from their own viewings. In a weird way, Garland has created a film where subjectivity and the blatant withholding of information make the narrative more interesting. 

In “Civil War,” the United States is engulfed in conflict. The two largest factions involved include the country’s government, led by an unnamed president (Nick Offerman) and the “Western Forces” — the states of Texas and California who have joined forces as dissenters. Contrary to what might be expected, “Civil War” never offers explanations of what caused its conflict. Other than off-hand remarks that the president disbanded the FBI or is serving his third term in office, the causes of the war aren’t detailed. 

It may not be needed, however. The longer it plays out, “Civil War” feels less like a war film and more like a dramatic thriller. Up until its climax, the film doesn’t include elaborate scenes of combat. Rather, it’s a story about journalism, following a crew of journalists: Lee (Kirsten Dunst), Joel (Wagner Moura), Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson) and newcomer Jessie (Cailee Spaeny). 

Opening in New York City, Lee and Joel plan to travel to Washington, D.C., hoping to interview and photograph the president before he may be killed. Sammy is permitted to join their trip on his way to Virginia to get to the front lines. Jessie, a young, aspiring war photographer, asks Lee to travel with them. She refuses — but realizes the next morning that Joel has permitted her to join them. 

Before the four even leave New York City for their intended destination, “Civil War” raises questions surrounding the ethics of photojournalism — in my mind, specifically, where the line is drawn regarding what should be photographed. Multiple violent occurrences that Lee has captured are shown to the audience. She seems inwardly affected by what she’s seen, and her response to the work of a war photographer, along with Jessie’s, is the fascinating emotional focal point of the film. 

Garland’s feature also raises questions about what the country’s day-to-day activities look like when in the midst of such a conflict. People still engage in bike rides through the streets of New York City, but military convoys follow them. Drives through town are still an option, but freeways are piled up and deserted. The first half of their 500+ mile journey is, paradoxically, “quiet.” Despite some grisly scenes, Garland’s set pieces aren’t often action-filled or sensory overload. Rather, he lets this film’s world wash over his audience — and the film is still engaging. 

Despite its slow burn, it’s safe to say that “Civil War’s” orchestration of tension and the audience’s investment in its characters isn’t muddled. As the group’s journey progresses, there is genuine attachment developed towards the four journalists. That attachment makes a few scenes absolutely terrifying — specifically one involving government soldiers, one of which is played by Jesse Plemmons. The scene was one of the most tense and uncomfortable I’ve recently watched in film. It’s difficult to stomach but effective. 

Viewers looking for action sequences need not be worried, though. The film’s climax is as tense as the slower scenes while equally engaging. The final scenes are intense, entertaining and thrilling. 

Personal grievances with the film did arise at times. As well-made as it is, “Civil War” does not hold back. Multiple stills and scenes of gruesome violence are showcased here, and I cannot think of a single instance where I thought such an occurrence was not hard to watch. Furthermore, violent scenes, sometimes in slow motion, are frequently overlaid with upbeat songs and music. Maybe a message was missed, but such implementation left me confused as to whether the juxtaposition was intentional to illustrate cruelty or just a poor creative choice. 

If you come to “Civil War” expecting answers, you might be disappointed. Garland’s film, however, assures viewers that the backstory is not as interesting as its characters, their struggles and ethical takeaways.