A Review of Alex Garland’s Civil War: Unraveling the Layers of Conflict

Review of Alex Garland’s Civil War: Alex Garland, the mastermind behind thought-provoking sci-fi masterpieces like “Ex Machina” and “Annihilation,” takes a departure from the realms of fantasy to delve into the gritty reality of war with his latest directorial effort, “Civil War.” Set against the backdrop of the United States torn apart by internal strife, Garland crafts a visceral and harrowing journey that explores the cost of conflict through the lens of journalism.

The film follows a group of journalists, led by the formidable Kirsten Dunst as Lee Smith, as they embark on a perilous journey from New York to Washington in search of an interview with the President. Along the way, they navigate through conflict zones and refugee camps, bearing witness to the devastating toll of war on both individuals and society as a whole.

Garland, known for his provocative storytelling, uses “Civil War” as a platform to examine the nature of conflict and the motivations behind it. In a world where the lines between right and wrong are blurred, the characters are driven not by ideology, but by the primal instinct of self-preservation. It’s a stark portrayal of the human condition in the face of adversity.

Central to the film’s narrative is the riveting performance of Kirsten Dunst, who imbues her character with a hardened resolve that anchors the story amidst the chaos. Supported by a talented ensemble cast including Cailee Spaeny, Stephen McKinley Henderson, and Nick Offerman, Dunst shines as the driving force behind the journalists’ quest for truth.

One of the film’s standout moments comes from an uncredited Jesse Plemons, whose portrayal of a casually evil militia leader adds a chilling depth to the narrative. In a white-knuckle sequence that builds to an explosive climax, Plemons delivers a performance that lingers long after the credits roll.

Garland’s trademark sensory style is on full display in “Civil War,” as he uses explosive sounds and shocking imagery to immerse viewers in the disorienting reality of war. From the haunting sound of camera clicks replacing gunshots to the juxtaposition of De La Soul’s “Say No Go” against scenes of violence, Garland creates a visceral experience that leaves a lasting impact.

However, the film is not without its controversies. Garland’s decision to adopt a ‘both sides’ view of the conflict has sparked debate among viewers, with some interpreting the film as supporting a morally ambiguous stance. Yet, it is this very ambiguity that allows “Civil War” to serve as a Rorschach test, inviting viewers to confront their own biases and perceptions.

In its exploration of the role of journalists as observers of history, Garland poses difficult questions without offering easy answers. Whether journalists are heroes or vultures, tasked with recording events for posterity or exploiting suffering for sensationalism, remains open to interpretation.

As the film builds to its climactic finale, Garland delivers a tour-de-force sequence that evokes the chilling parallels of recent events. The rebel forces’ descent on the White House echoes the storming of the Capitol building, serving as a stark reminder of the fragility of democracy in the face of unrest.

In the end, “Civil War” offers no easy resolutions, no tidy conclusions. It is a challenging and thought-provoking exploration of the complexities of conflict and the human condition. As the characters grapple with the chaos unfolding around them, viewers are left to ponder the timeless question: in the midst of turmoil, what does it mean to be human?