Whenever there is a mixture of Hollywood and politics on screen, questions arise. Occasionally a studio might hit things correctly and deliver entertaining viewpoints or compelling thrillers serving as a distraction, but just as often what we see delivered is overheated melodrama and laughable social commentary. With one upcoming title, the advance press on the film is either trying to generate hysteria or generate publicity—possibly both.
On April 12, the studio A24 will premiere “Civil War” in theaters, a fantasy looking at the not-too-distant dystopian future. Ahead of that release, The Hollywood Reporter has delivered a polemic about this movie, introducing dire warnings about not only what it all could mean, but what it may inspire in the form of dangerous violence. Apologies if I managed to distract you by rolling my eyes too loudly.
The concept of an individual being inspired to commit violence after watching a movie is the kind of farcical histrionics you would see in a third-rate movie. People are not overtaken by the urge to lash out at society by sitting in a theater and seeing events play out in a 90-minute dose of cinematic agitprop. Anyone even possibly motivated by such already harbored these thoughts, to the extent that a movie would simply be the toothpick added to a pile of sociopathic lumber, achieving a tipping point.
James Hibberd's piece at THR looks at the upcoming film debut and casts this release against our current political climate; he frets we may be on the verge of a societal breakdown. To explain, based on its promo material, “Civil War” paints the picture of a country becoming politically divided and it becomes cleaved in two as a result of a militarized leadership and a rebellious faction of states, with all manner of tension and drama delivered in the aftermath.
Here is the trailer, to absorb the theatrics.
In this land, anything is possible. Welcome to Alex Garland's CIVIL WAR. In theaters and @IMAX April 26. pic.twitter.com/5PG8bKGMaW
— A24 (@A24) December 13, 2023
Look, filmmaker Alex Garland is a solid talent, who wrote “28 Days Later”, and also directed “Ex Machina.” He can deliver an entertaining product, but taking these offerings too seriously is folly. As good as this may look (the film has yet to be screened for the press, as it is set to debut at the SXSW Festival in a week), so much about this film appears to be both overwrought and underthought. The weaponizing of the government is a leftist's dream, the concept of California and Texas banding together is a Cough Syrup Colada hallucination, and don’t even get me going on the heroic framing of a journalist challenging the authorities.
What has Hibberd clutching his pearls and cup of Chamomile is that the timing of this release into the volatile political election environment might inspire adverse reactions from…well, the Deplorables.
The upcoming release of A24’s Civil War during a contentious presidential election year comes amid worry about the prospect of an actual civil war — or, at least, real-life political violence — and has some questioning the movie’s timing.
The key to this whole piece rests on that word, “some.” We’ll address that in a moment. First, here is what we get delivered – a stream of fever dream analysis that intones warnings of what this film will generate as far as a reaction.
Regardless of the film’s (presumably pro-unity) message, the film is uncomfortably timely and its “us vs. us” warfare will become MAGA fantasy fuel.
Hibberd trots out numerous examples from those “some” who are convinced that those MAGA minds will see this and take up their torches and AR-15s to exact violence across the country. He brings out quotes from a number of concerned minds, that this is a dangerous movie to release, in these trying times. Says one:
The potential danger is that [right-wing] groups are not known for media literacy or nuance. And a psychotic gang of rednecks committing terrorism [in the film] to ‘own the libs’ might be obvious criticism to us, but might be interpreted as a role model to MAGA groups if not portrayed carefully.
Just who did Hibberd tap on the shoulder to get these views? Were they Political Science think tank members, socio-economic professors, or community and social research organization experts? Nah - he went to Reddit and yanked some of the quasi-literate opinions from the message boards.
The revealing part in all of that is there is nary a word of concern about how this could inspire adverse reactions from anybody left of center. Despite the two sides seemingly displayed at odds on screen, only the nutbars on the right are going to be inspired to violence. The Antifa/BLM/Eco terrorist/pro-Palestine factions are of no concern. They are the rational thinkers, who would not be prone to be inspired by a movie.
This is the same kind of warped thinking that had many in the entertainment industry raving about “The Handmaid’s Tale,” saying it was a representation of conservative desires for the country. Those on the left felt that conservatives wanted a repressed society because it is their own nightmare scenario writ large. Anyone daring to oppose any of their social positions leads to the thinking it will lead to outright oppression, as displayed in that drama. Funny enough, it never managed to inspire any conservatives to create baby factory communes in the country.
Hibberd undercuts his presentation when he resorts to polls showing concerns over the prospect of a civil war -- yet one figure reveals that just 14 percent feel that it is very likely to happen. That small figure is just from those fretting it may occur, not those who are pushing for it to happen. Then Hibberd completely loses the script, as he immediately quotes an authority promising we are on the verge of a civil war – Ru Paul.
Hibberd does find one historian to weigh in on the matter - and that Harvard expert said a civil war is highly unlikely. When he does finally turn to a conservative opinion, it is of course a crackpot one to be found.
Some conspiracy-minded individuals believe the movie is “predictive programming” being released because they (there’s always a “they”) are preparing the public for what’s to come — namely, the Biden administration going to war with Southern states like Texas over the border crisis.
A note here for James Hibberd: Your entire preamble in this piece quoted the “theys" of the world, and THEY were delivering conspiracies about what those on the right will do. Interesting that you have no such tone of ridicule about their teeth-gnashed pontificating.
Lastly, he closes out with more voices saying the film is a caustic commentary of MAGA nutters, and is basically putting those imbalanced thinkers in their place.
To ease the mind of James Hibberd and the worrisome faction he unearthed in the Reddit rabbit holes – conservatives are not the least bit swayed by this release. When the trailer dropped in December, most of what I heard in my circles was laughter. The over-the-top histrionics on screen and the portrayal of militia members with dyed hair and painted fingernails left most laughing at the proposition. I suggested this was a leftist fantasy of projections based on their views of conservatives, whom they likely have never met. You did not hear a word of any fist-pumping glee.
As for the concept of a civil war being generated by the right – don’t count on it. If you speak with conservatives (seriously, I dare you to), about the worst thing you are likely to hear is that the idea of an actual division is not an unthinkable concept. But this is not a result derived from bloody battle lines; most are just fed up with the contempt and would be content to let the opposition go on their way.
In other words, nobody is looking to gin up for actual violence to break out, but a breakup is not so unthinkable. It is not looked at favorably to have a civil war, but table the idea of a civil divorce? Many people are warming up to that very idea.
