Why Are Movies so Bad at Making Civil War Look Scary?

🌈 Abstract

The article discusses the film "Civil War" and its portrayal of a dystopian future civil conflict in the United States. It analyzes the film's approach to depicting the horrors of war and the challenges in creating an effective anti-war film.

🙋 Q&A

[01] The Filmmaker's Intentions

1. What is the filmmaker's intention with "Civil War"?

• The filmmaker, Alex Garland, has made it clear that "Civil War" is intended as a warning about the potential consequences of America's political divisions and fractious disaffection.
• Garland hopes the film will be a "searing vision of a future nobody wants" by depicting the depravity and social costs of war on civilian lives.

2. How does the film's portrayal of the war differ from Garland's stated intentions?

• While Garland intends the film to be an anti-war movie, the film's depiction of the war's violence and destruction comes across as "comforting thrills" rather than a true warning about the consequences of war.
• The film obscures the political and social contours of the war, focusing more on the spectacle of destruction rather than the impact on ordinary citizens.

[02] Comparison to Other Anti-War Films

1. How does "Civil War" compare to other anti-war films like "Come and See" and "The Battle of Algiers"?

• Unlike those films, "Civil War" struggles to unsettle the relationship between image and titillation when depicting violence.
• The film's focus on destroyed buildings and corpses does not effectively convey the social costs of war on civilian lives, as seen in the powerful scenes from "Come and See" and "The Battle of Algiers".

2. What are the challenges the film faces in creating an effective anti-war message?

• The film's promotion and marketing highlight the "thrilling" and "jaw-dropping" combat scenes, which undermine the intended anti-war message.
• The film's depiction of large-scale destruction is not significantly different from typical summer blockbusters, failing to truly shock or disturb the audience.

[03] Comparison to "Leave the World Behind"

1. How does "Civil War" compare to the approach taken in "Leave the World Behind"?

• Both films treat the details and causes of the war as "MacGuffins", focusing more on the impact on the characters rather than the specifics of the conflict.
• However, "Leave the World Behind" also restricts its attention to the experiences of two upper-middle-class families, largely ignoring the wider war taking place off-screen.

2. What are the limitations of this approach in both films?

• By obscuring the political and social dimensions of the war, these films miss the opportunity to truly explore how the conflict would corrode American life and social fabric.
• The films' focus on spectacle and destruction fails to convey the psychological toll and dehumanizing effects of war on ordinary citizens.

[04] The Film's Portrayal of Violence

1. How does the film's portrayal of violence compare to Truffaut's observation about the relationship between image and titillation?

• Truffaut argued that every film about war ends up being pro-war, as the depiction of violence becomes appealing or intriguing to the audience.
• "Civil War" struggles to break this relationship, as its depiction of large-scale destruction and combat scenes comes across as "comforting thrills" rather than a true warning about the consequences of war.

2. What are the more effective moments in the film's portrayal of violence?

• The film's best moments come when it shows how the ugliness of war lies in its magnification of societal divisions and the dehumanizing rhetoric that can make people inhuman, as seen in the scene with the opportunistic mass murderer.
• However, these moments are overshadowed by the film's focus on large-scale destruction, which fails to truly shock or disturb the audience.