Civil War

[peter]

The new Alex Garland film about a third term US presidency dissolving into civil war is a strangely light affair for such a dark one.

It doesn't bother itself with complexities, but concentrates rather on a simple depiction of events as seen through the eyes of a group of battle hardened reporters who pass no judgement on the rights and wrongs of any given side.

Far from a simple bipolar choice, in Garland's dystopia things have factionalised into multiple groupings and militias, but principally that of the state authority vs the so called WF - the Western Front - an unlikely union between Texas and California, both of whom wish to secede from the Union.

The film is good, and even brilliant in one particular part, but ultimately its lack of depth is telling. It's ultimately just voyeurism dressed as meaningful cinema and great viewing as that is, it is never going to fully satisfy.

Kristen Dunst is great, and her co stars all give creditable performances, but again they are all a bit caricature in nature: the hard boiled pro, the mad pissed journo, the fresh faced rookie gradually having the edges knocked off her - the story is an oft repeated rehash of old tropes, but with little actual human detail fleshing it out.

But it's food for thought, and especially so at this particular time. "Is this how it would be," we ask ourselves, and if the answer is yes, then we are sobered. If the film does no more than instill this warning into us, then it has succeeded.

Because that is its message. No more and no less. Civil war is not going to be nice. Choose where it leads or what comes out of it, it's going to be fucking horrible in the getting through it. As Shakespeare would have said, "All are punished."