RSS

Movie Review: “Civil War”

Bloodied bodies dangle from the roof of a roadside car wash. Bullets clatter off the stairwells of a suburban office park. The Lincoln Memorial erupts in a nova of flame. What bites deepest in Alex Garland’s Civil War isn’t its narrative, but its imagery—the transformation of heartland America into a nightmarish near-future war zone.

That might surprise audiences looking for a high-concept, #resistance action flick. The premise—contemporary America wracked by a second civil war—seems urgently political, even overtly partisan. But Civil War is not that movie. Indeed, it’s almost eerie how hazily its central conflict is described.

In one sense, Civil War is the precise inverse of The Purge. The premise of the latter franchise—every year, all crime becomes legal for twelve hours as a sort of societal blowoff valve—is brilliant and fascinating. But despite this hook, that series has never served up anything other than the most generic horror tropes. Civil War leaves its premise murky and underdefined, but leans hard into everything else.

Based on the trailers, you might’ve expected Civil War to be an action movie. It’s more like The Last of Uswithout zombies, a long road odyssey across a grisly-yet-strangely-beautiful apocalyptic America. Photojournalist Lee Smith (Kirsten Dunst) and colleague Joel (Wagner Moura) aim to snag a final interview with an embattled president (Nick Offerman) in Washington D.C., as forces from the Western Front—an ambiguously allied Texas/California coalition—close in. (The country is balkanized even beyond that, but the “Florida Alliance” is referenced merely in passing.) Aspiring photographer Jessie (Cailee Spaeny) and veteran journalist Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson) tag along for the ride.

The beating heart of the film is the people and situations they encounter along the way—from trigger-happy war criminals dumping bodies into a mass grave, all the way to a beautiful West Virginian downtown trying hard to pretend the conflict isn’t happening. Their journey is slow, elegiac, brutal, but never once dull. The driving scenario is simply too compelling for that.

Thematically, Civil War is something of a Rorschach test. For the most part, it’s politically noncommittal (Offerman’s villainous President is in his “third term” and has a few Trumpian rhetorical tendencies, but that’s about it). One can easily interpret it as a story about mass violence as such, about political polarization, or even the brutal and fragmented nature of modern warfare.

But to my mind, the most interesting reading of Civil War is as a story about journalism. In recent years, the contemporary mass media has faced a generational conflict, between grizzled professionals committed to the old ideal of “objectivity” and a more socially-conscious younger set. Something reminiscent of this plays out onscreen, with all its associated moral tensions. Lee is hardened and stoic, capable of passively photographing a burning man in a gasoline-soaked tire, but it is clear that her work still takes an emotional toll. For her, journalism is not primarily about social change; it is about distance and discipline. On the other hand, Jessie begins in naïve optimism, passion, and emotional investment, but soon embraces an aggressiveness more like Lee’s. And ultimately, Civil War concludes this tale on a brutally ambiguous note: Jessie metamorphosing into her reluctant mentor, leaving open exactly what she may or may not be willing to do for the one perfect shot.

Hence, Garland suggests, a paradox. Effective work as a journalist requires critical distance from one’s subject matter, but the process of formation required to attain such detachment is, in essence, moral cauterization: to be really good at the job means to be something less than human (or maybe, better, “less than humane”). Something like such an act of self-renunciation makes sense in the context of soldiering: lethality requires, at some level, vilification of the foe. But that sacrifice is performed in service of a clearly defined end (service to one’s country). Can the goal of “sharing information for its own sake” ever justify such a “distancing” from moral concern? American journalism hasn’t yet figured out how to answer this question, and Garland doesn’t attempt to do it here. But it is a problem well worth posing.

In the end, Civil War isn’t really a mainstream film—it’s far closer to arthouse fare—and won’t be to every viewer’s taste. But those willing to fully commit to Garland’s haunting vision will encounter something increasingly rare, in an age of CGI spectacle: a waking nightmare that looks and feels all too real. And it may be the smartest film I’ve seen this year.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 29, 2024 in Thrillers

 

Movie Review: “Dune: Part Two”

First things first, a confession. When I watched Dune: Part One for the first time in 2021, on my basement TV in the middle of a global pandemic, it left me cold. I’d read Frank Herbert’s famous novel years before, but it had been a while, and something about Dune’s refusal to hold its audience’s hand or rely on exposition dumps was off-putting.

But nevertheless, as the years passed, I found myself revisiting Dune more and more, especially on 4K Blu-ray. Something about its instantly distinctive visuals and art design, and concussive sound editing, was compelling in a way few other blockbusters could match. Scenes from the film are haunting, almost impressionistic: a giant sandworm engulfing a spice crawler on the desert world of Arrakis, water-drenched spaceships rising from the ocean planet of Caladan, armies of shielded soldiers climbing the steps of a stronghold, and so on.

Happily, Part Two is a sequel that largely delivers on its predecessor’s promise. This is a truly visceral cinematic experience that demands to be seen in theaters, built on a truly thought-provoking lattice of themes.

Part Two picks up with exiled protagonist Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) in the wilds of Arrakis, hiding out with the Islamic-inspired Fremen natives after the destruction of his family and House at the hands of the evil Harkonnen family. Alongside him are his mother Lady Jessica (Rebecca Ferguson), a member of the Bene Gesserit quasi-monastic order; Fremen warrior Stilgar (Javier Bardem), who believes Paul to be the legendary Mahdi or Lisan al Gaib who will fulfill the Fremen’s messianic dreams; and love interest Chani (Zendaya), who simply wants a better future for her people.

Along with Stilgar and Chani, Paul learns the ways of the desert as Jessica spins her webs. Bluntly put, the faith of the Fremen is a carefully cultivated psyop, nurtured over time to till the earth for Paul’s coming. All the while, the Bene Gesserit have used decidedly less hallowed means to breed their chosen genetic scion—a scion who will emerge onto the Fremen stage to play his part at the appointed hour, and reshape the known universe. Paul knows this. So too, he knows that if he travels to the “fundamentalist” south of Arrakis, he will be welcomed as a god and a Fremen uprising will immediately follow. Forces will be set into motion that cannot be easily corralled. But, of course, fate—or something else—will have its way.

Technically speaking, it is hard to overstate just how good Part Two looks and sounds. Years of shoddy CGI blockbusters might’ve inured a lot of viewers to grand worldbuilding, but the scale and weightiness of the images onscreen here are staggering. A detour to the violent Harkonnen homeworld of Giedi Prime, illuminated by a black sun and shot in washed-out lighting, is mesmerizing, as is Paul’s first sandworm ride. As far as visual effects go, Part Two ranks with the like of Avatar and Lord of the Rings. That’s all backed up, of course, by fantastic audio work: in Dolby Cinema, the bass of thundering sandworms and explosions shakes the ground, and you feel the reverberations of machine gun fire in your chest. And Hans Zimmer’s work on the score is as good as anything in the original.

Thematically, of course, Dune is a story about religion and politics.  The Fremen are, essentially, desert mujahideen. They revere Paul as Mahdi—a title reserved, in Shia Islam, for a prophesied figure who will lead Muslims to govern the world. But is this a straight-up tale of religious fanaticism, in all its glories and horrors, or something else?

After all, there’s something profoundly strange about the “religion” that figures so prominently in Fremen culture and in the arc of this saga. Though there are a few passing references to “the hand of God,” and glimpses of salat-style daily prayers, this is a film that has basically nothing to say about divinity as such. When the Fremen pray, are they actually worshiping Paul, or perhaps the concept of him as Mahdi? Or are they praying to something else, something beyond Arrakis’s horizon?  Villeneuve suggests the former. Indeed, messianic expectation as such seems almost to exhaust the content of Fremen spirituality. The “paradise” Paul promises is no transcendent realm, but merely a utopian vision of Arrakis.

To be sure, Villeneuve is not valorizing Paul’s rise. Dread and awe, not exultation, accompany Paul’s eventual emergence from the sands. But the sheer oddness of the Fremen faith suggests that the nature of the story that is being told is something subtler than “the danger of religion in politics,” which a surface-level reading might suggest.

Consider the issue this way: what factors internal to Fremen culture might possibly lead a member of the Fremen to reject Paul’s claim to messiah-hood? Note that while Chani rejects Paul’s rise because she views his ascendance as a betrayal of egalitarian Fremen ideals, this judgment is formed on the basis of an ethical standard (her concept of Fremen nationalism, or planet-ism) independent of the theo-political order in which Paul ostensibly stands at the apex. Hence the question stands: how would an “ordinary” Fremen “fundamentalist” ever be able to see Paul as anything other than what he claims to be?

Here’s the problem. Only something like an anti-idolatry principle could make it thinkable, within the terms of Fremen culture, to ever call Paul’s crusade into theological question. Of course, it is just such a principle that characterizes the Abrahamic monotheisms from which Dune derives so much of its inspiration. But for a story that borrows so heavily from Islamic thought and culture, it feels odd that there is no corresponding principle of shirk, the heresy of associating finite beings with God qua God. Paul claims to be Mahdi, messiah, but is there no higher theological court of appeal, no higher standard against which his claims might be judged? In Villeneuve’s hands, Fremen life offers a curiously secularized portrayal of religion, a society structured by “religious”-looking cultic practices that have lost their inner logic.

As such, the Fremen “faith” collapses almost entirely into what modern scholars would simply call “ideology”—the domain of politics as power and violence. (Carl Schmitt, who famously argued that all modern political concepts are just theological ideas shorn of their transcendent moorings, would nod along approvingly.) At bottom, the Fremen await a figurehead who will organize and lead them to a better Arrakis, and a certain amount of ritualistic bowing and scraping just happens to come with the territory.

Maybe, for Herbert and Villeneuve, something like that is precisely the point. Maybe the charge is that “authentic” religion simply cannot exist—that its forms are always, everywhere, parasitic upon a more basic domain of “sociality” in which manipulation and information control are the order of the day. (That is the way of the Bene Gesserit.)

But still, even in the face of all this, there is something unexpected about Paul’s ultimate rise as Lisan al Gaib. When Paul finally comes into his own, Jessica looks as stunned as anyone else. A lurking question remains unanswered—that maybe, for all the Bene Gesserit’s meddling, there are larger forces at work here than those under human control. To be sure, the ambiguity of those forces—Providence or animal spirits or the primordial will to power—is profoundly unsettling, but they cannot be ruled out.

Part Two ends on just such an unsettling note. There is a terrible sort of glory in Paul’s ascension, and Villeneuve lets the audience feel it. When he roars “I will lead you to PARADISE!” something in the viewer’s soul responds.  And it is precisely that response that Villeneuve insists we question. There is a kind of political energy that only comes into its own when narrowed to a single sharp point, when concentrated in a single figure claiming to bend the arc of history and destiny to his will. It is, as Oliver O’Donovan would say, the essence of antichrist.

In the end, we realize as Paul’s Fremen army departs Arrakis for galactic battlefields unknown, what Paul describes as “holy war” can be only one of those things.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on March 4, 2024 in Sci-Fi