I’ve heard that some people find the politics of Civil War “confused” or engaged in both-siderism. They are not. Also the first movie in a long time that I just sat in the theater thinking about it while the credits rolled.
Civil War has some specific flaws but 1) might one if the best portrayals of journalism since All the President’s Men 2) Kirsten Dunst is phenomenal 4) It is as gorgeous as any Garland joint 5) I mean I loved it.
I think a lot of that is driven by an interview with the director where he does a lot of both-sides criticism, but most of the folks who've seen the movie have stressed that that is definitely not in the text - or subtext - of the film.
The point of the interviews is to promote the movie and obviously he’s not going to say “this movie is about how one side of the political spectrum sucks, but I hope they see my movie anyway.” He’s pulling his punches so maybe they’ll see it and take some sort of lesson.
And I think it’s a sign of Garland’s misreading of American politics that he highlights the racial divisions so starkly but still apparently thinks he’s made a film about the dangers of being too invested in one side or another.
I was trying to explain to my sister that the movie isn't explicitly a Dems vs Reps or even a Liberal vs Conservative movie, but there are bad guys and those bad guys do resemble some parts of current politics. I suspect some of the critique is that the "good guys" also do some bad things.
I think saying “both sides do bad things” is just real different from “both sides are bad,” but that seems to be how some people are interpreting the movie. Union troops committed war crimes, I’m still happy they’re the side that won.
