Years
ago, when I was working as a tutor at a community college in New York, I was
having a conversation about something (I don't remember what) with a fellow
tutor of mine who was from Nigeria. In relation to whatever we were discussing,
I mentioned "the Civil War". I took it as a given that my colleague
would know which war I was talking about (THE Civil War), but he said to me in
reply, "Which Civil War?". Good question. There have so many civil
wars over time, and in relation to Nigeria alone the Nigerian Civil War, or
Biafran Civil War, from 1967 to 1970 -- at least 100,000 military casualties
and millions of deaths from war-related starvation -- is much more recent than
the war I was referring to and took for granted he would know I was talking
about, the American Civil War. Of course, he did know which war I was
referencing, but he wanted to make it a point that I was being a little
American-centric in saying "the" Civil War when maybe that isn't the
most important civil war, historically speaking, to every person from every
country. Anyway, it's odd, but this was a thought I had leaving the film Civil
War, which I went to the other day.
First off, let me say, I
liked the film, which is an exercise in grim, almost non-stop tension. And I
get why Alex Garland, in conceiving and then executing the story, did not want
to make it so topical in its reference points to US current events that people
watching the film, say, ten years from now might find it hopelessly dated. But at
the same time it seems a little bit narratively disenguous to title a
film Civil War at this particular historical moment in the
United States and then make it so vague in its political underpinnings that it
in effect becomes a film about war, or civil war, in general, a war that could
be taking place anywhere in the world. That in and of itself is not a paltry
aim, and, once again, the film is compelling. It doesn't sugarcoat anything.
But a United States in which the states of Texas and California, forming the
Western Alliance, are allies against an authoritarian president who has refused
to leave office after a second term begs for at least a little explanation. Or
is it the film's oblique suggestion that the two large and powerful states, which
are are so different in their politics, have indeed banded together to fight a
common fascistic enemy? This does seem to be implied. And there are other
alliances mentioned in the film such as the Florida Alliance. In other words,
the United States has descended into a state of semi-chaos, and I think a
character mentions at one point that once the president's loyalist forces are
defeated, the forces fighting the rebellion very well might turn against each
other, a development that has happened in many a civil war in many countries.
Once the enemy is defeated, allies become enemies and war grinds on. The film
is plausible, and in today's world it is true that things change so fast and
alliances are made that are so unexpected, but I for one could have used a bit
more background, however speculative, in exactly how the country has devolved
into the state portrayed in the film.
As it stands, journalists are the film's heroes, and there's
nothing wrong with that of course. In this regard, the film reminded me a bit
of the excellent 1983 film Under Fire, starring Gene Hackman, Nick
Nolte, and Joanna Cassidy. That film is set during a real revolution, in the
last days of the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua, as the government forces and
a horrible authoritarian regime are being overthrown by the rebel Sandinista
forces. Like Civil War, the conflict is seen through the eyes of
journalists who put their asses on the line to document the war. It's a film
absolutely worth seeing, by the way, and not unlike Civil War,
Under Fire ends at a moment almost everyone can agree is a relative high point,
a brief moment of optimism, before the inevitable fighting that will ensue
between the victorious forces and their factions. Before the new
authoritarians, before the inevitable corruption of ideals, the defeat of the
one who deserves defeat happens. Civil War, like Under Fire,
ends on just the right beat.
Is it possible to make a politically oriented film that is almost
aggressively topical but not so topical in its references that it dates fast?
It's difficult, but besides Under Fire while watching Civil
War, I also thought about films from the Cold War era that tackled nuclear
war fear and all the anxieties the US had about Soviet and Chinese communism.
The best films of that time, whether dramatic or satiric, tap into then current
events and the audience's worries but also do stand up to later scrutiny
because they're detailed, well-told stories, films like Fail Safe and The
Manchurian Candidate, and, yes, Dr. Strangelove. Those are
films both specific to their time but also that can illuminate aspects of human
weakness, aggresstion, stupidity, and so forth that are timeless. They are good
models for capturing and understanding a particular historical moment in the
United States but that also have a broader scope. Civil War almost
if not quite gets there, but what is there in the film is strong.
