Alex Garland is clearly a talented screenwriter when it comes to these dystopian epics, but he’s not fit to tackle American politics when it’s clear from the trailer that he’s a Brit. I know we haven’t seen the whole thing, but I’m just shocked that nobody on this American production told him that California and Texas forming an alliance is really, really dumb.

@bonesandall said:

Alex Garland is clearly a talented screenwriter when it comes to these dystopian epics, but he’s not fit to tackle American politics when it’s clear from the trailer that he’s a Brit. I know we haven’t seen the whole thing, but I’m just shocked that nobody on this American production told him that California and Texas forming an alliance is really, really dumb.

Right? It's so dumb that I'm willing to or, at least, wanting to extend the benefit of the doubt that there's some flair of artistry here. Let's hope what you know of Alex Garland prevails and he does do something provocative. As I said, I could be wrong, and this could end being abstractly masterful, making us think it's going in one direction and then throwing us a curve ball we did not see coming.

Of course, what many of us anticipated would be the problem with Oppenheimer turned out to be exactly what the problem was. So, while I'm open to be surprised, I'll be surprised if I'm surprised, because that trailer looks like it's not really interested in facing reality (or, realities, aknowledging that others see things I don't see and, while we may disagree, their take on reality is just as real to them).

@bonesandall said:

Alex Garland is clearly a talented screenwriter when it comes to these dystopian epics,

Hey! Speaking of Alex Garland, while I didn't recognize his name, I liked what he did with Dredd and, recently, we've been talking about Ex Machina such that I plan to watch it again tonight!

As a Brit (but not a Garland fan - he's done some interesting stuff, but he does seem to have been getting high on his own farts of late) civil war in America doesn't seem too far-fetched. You guys had a mob storm the Capitol a couple of years ago. At least our nearest such event was 1605.

I just can't imagine California and Texas as allies against a common foe, though.

@M.LeMarchand said:

As a Brit (but not a Garland fan - he's done some interesting stuff, but he does seem to have been getting high on his own farts of late) civil war in America doesn't seem too far-fetched. You guys had a mob storm the Capitol a couple of years ago.

Yep, they did. What it was about appears to be absent in this film. At least, it was not evident in the trailer.

I just can't imagine California and Texas as allies against a common foe, though.

Well, this is it! Those two states are poster states for the polar opposites of the American political spectrum.

omg for real, California & Texas team up to go against the faceless government?? What a watery premise. That's like making a movie about racism where black & white people join forces to fight the evil blue meanies.

I agree with @bonesandall that non-Americans shouldn't attempt to tackle American politics, unless they're willing to take the heat (thank god for Veerhoven). It's not that non-Americans are bad, it's that they play it too safe. Afraid of offending, I guess. But if you're gonna dive into American politics (or any county's politics) you better face that you'll offend half the people and run with it. Anything less than that is, as @DRDMovieMusings pointed out, Oppenheimer esque revisionism. (Although Oppie made buckets of $$ so maybe they're aware of this)

I had this gripe with Ang Lee's Ride with the Devil which portrayed the actual Civil War, but there was a sickening undercurrent of "good people on both sides" as if Ang was afraid of pissing anyone off. The movie was good on a technical & artistic level, but it totally missed the mark on making any definitive statement. So it won't go down in history as a particularly important film. C'mon Hollywood, when are you gonna start taking chances like they did in the 60 & 70s?

It seems like this movie has succeeded in uniting the critics on the left and right. Will they join forces to review bomb the ratings to 0%?

Usually A24 budget per film is below the $10 million. With a $75 million production budget it is their most expensive movie ever. If this movie isn't a success, it will be their biggest loss, more than the total loss of all their previous flops. Their biggest success is "Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022)" with a budget of $14.3–25 million and a box office of $141.2 million. On the other hand there is "Beau Is Afraid (2023)" with a budget of $35 million and a box office of $11.5 million.

It is interesting that the number of states seceding is 19. There are three states presented as leaders: Red (Texas), Blue (California) and Swing (Florida).The remaining 31 states are neutral or on the side of the US president. This looks like a preview of Election Night with roving reporters checking out the exit polls. What will be the outcome?

Anyway, goblins eating babies sounds more interesting.

@wonder2wonder said:

It seems like this movie has succeeded in uniting the critics on the left and right. Will they join forces to review bomb the ratings to 0%?

I'll be keenly interested in what the pre-release reviews have to say about it.

Usually A24 budget per film is below the $10 million. With a $75 million production budget it is their most expensive movie ever. If this movie isn't a success, it will be their biggest loss, more than the total loss of all their previous flops. Their biggest success is "Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022)" with a budget of $14.3–25 million and a box office of $141.2 million. On the other hand there is "Beau Is Afraid (2023)" with a budget of $35 million and a box office of $11.5 million.

It would not surprise me if it did well financially, as it appears to be more fantasy than reality which appearls to a radicalism with a tendency to eschew reality and embrace fantasy. American Sniper is a sterling example of this.

It is interesting that the number of states seceding is 19.

Please tell us (or, me, anyway, as it's entirely possible I'm the only one in the dark here) what's interesting about the number 19?

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Please tell us (or, me, anyway, as it's entirely possible I'm the only one in the dark here) what's interesting about the number 19?

In World War II the average age of the combat soldier was twenty-six

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sajngb0W6I

In Vietnam he was nineteen

?

@DRDMovieMusings said:

It is interesting that the number of states seceding is 19.

Please tell us (or, me, anyway, as it's entirely possible I'm the only one in the dark here) what's interesting about the number 19?

It probably means nothing, but I was just considering if the number 19 had some significance. Perhaps it is just a random number chosen by the scriptwriter.

When I saw the number 19, some thoughts flashed through my head: COVID-19, Indiana was the 19th state admitted to the Union in 1816, the first one since the War of 1812, when the Federalist Party and the Republican Party were on opposing sides. In 1824 during the presidential elections, there were internal conflicts within the Republican Party, which led to it splitting into two factions: the Democratic-Republicans (later known as the Democrats) and the Nationalist Republicans (later known as the Republicans). After the election of President Lincoln in 1860, eleven southern states (Confederate States of America) seceded from the Union, leading to the Civil War of 1861-1865.

So, two centuries ago there were turbulent times with big changes in the US. Now history seems to be headed again towards an inevitable crisis which could lead to states seceding and a new civil war.

One more trivia: in 1862, 19 Abercromby Square (known as Number 19) in Liverpool, England, was specifically designed to be a European "White House" for the Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

@wonder2wonder said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

It is interesting that the number of states seceding is 19.

Please tell us (or, me, anyway, as it's entirely possible I'm the only one in the dark here) what's interesting about the number 19?

It probably means nothing, but I was just considering if the number 19 had some significance. Perhaps it is just a random number chosen by the scriptwriter.

When I saw the number 19, some thoughts flashed through my head: COVID-19, Indiana was the 19th state admitted to the Union in 1816, the first one since the War of 1812, when the Federalist Party and the Republican Party were on opposing sides. In 1824 during the presidential elections, there were internal conflicts within the Republican Party, which led to it splitting into two factions: the Democratic-Republicans (later known as the Democrats) and the Nationalist Republicans (later known as the Republicans). After the election of President Lincoln in 1860, eleven southern states (Confederate States of America) seceded from the Union, leading to the Civil War of 1861-1865.

So, two centuries ago there were turbulent times with big changes in the US. Now history seems to be headed again towards an inevitable crisis which could lead to states seceding and a new civil war.

One more trivia: in 1862, 19 Abercromby Square (known as Number 19) in Liverpool, England, was specifically designed to be a European "White House" for the Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

See, now, these are some intruiging angles, especially that 19 Abercromby thing.

One cannot talk credibly about civil war in America without acknowleding the southern/Confederate/white supremacy component, whether historically or contemporarily, and that is precisely what I felt was glaringly absent from the trailer. It's not at that Oppenheimer level of factual obligation since Oppenheimer was a dramatization of real history and this is more a futuristic, hopefully cautionary "what if" fiction but, still, some semblance of plausibility can't sidestep that elephant in any room about American politics.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@wonder2wonder said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

It is interesting that the number of states seceding is 19.

Please tell us (or, me, anyway, as it's entirely possible I'm the only one in the dark here) what's interesting about the number 19?

It probably means nothing, but I was just considering if the number 19 had some significance. Perhaps it is just a random number chosen by the scriptwriter.

When I saw the number 19, some thoughts flashed through my head: COVID-19, Indiana was the 19th state admitted to the Union in 1816, the first one since the War of 1812, when the Federalist Party and the Republican Party were on opposing sides. In 1824 during the presidential elections, there were internal conflicts within the Republican Party, which led to it splitting into two factions: the Democratic-Republicans (later known as the Democrats) and the Nationalist Republicans (later known as the Republicans). After the election of President Lincoln in 1860, eleven southern states (Confederate States of America) seceded from the Union, leading to the Civil War of 1861-1865.

So, two centuries ago there were turbulent times with big changes in the US. Now history seems to be headed again towards an inevitable crisis which could lead to states seceding and a new civil war.

One more trivia: in 1862, 19 Abercromby Square (known as Number 19) in Liverpool, England, was specifically designed to be a European "White House" for the Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

See, now, these are some intruiging angles, especially that 19 Abercromby thing.

One cannot talk credibly about civil war in America without acknowleding the southern/Confederate/white supremacy component, whether historically or contemporarily, and that is precisely what I felt was glaringly absent from the trailer. It's not at that Oppenheimer level of factual obligation since Oppenheimer was a dramatization of real history and this is more a futuristic, hopefully cautionary "what if" fiction but, still, some semblance of plausibility can't sidestep that elephant in any room about American politics.

I don't know what Alex Garland's intentions were when he wrote the script. Did he deliberately come up with a plot and alliances that defies reality, so that it causes controversy, a buzz, and perhaps will have people flocking to the theatres to find out what the twist is at the end? Or is he just ignorant, which is doubtful. The trailer doesn't reveal much, but enough to start a train of thoughts - e.g. an alliance of California (5th largest economy of the world rivalling that of the UK) and Texas (8th largest) would make sense economically as they are the number one and two in the US with the highest GDP and if both secede it would cause the financial collapse of the US - which I quickly nipped in the bud, as politics is a necessary evil that feels like a woodpecker constantly pecking in your head.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Right? It's so dumb that I'm willing to or, at least, wanting to extend the benefit of the doubt that there's some flair of artistry here. Let's hope what you know of Alex Garland prevails and he does do something provocative. As I said, I could be wrong, and this could end being abstractly masterful, making us think it's going in one direction and then throwing us a curve ball we did not see coming.

I did not know about this movie (Civil War). But thanks for bringing it to my attention, I might check it out. I've seen some of Mr. Garland's work in the past, and have enjoyed it. The fact that he is a foreigner and is an outsider looking in, could work to the story's advantage. I'm not necessarily of the mind that just because someone is not from a certain country or culture, that they cannot have an opinion. Sometimes outsiders can see things that insiders cannot, and/or can say/make observations which insiders cannot, either because the person on the inside cannot see it, will not see it, or indeed can see it, but is understandably afraid to critique his own nation or culture for fear of the repercussions.

On the face of it, DRDMovieMusings, from watching the trailer, you appear to be correct in that the premise would seem to make no sense, the story seemingly ignoring the present political tensions in favor of some future dystopian fantasy.

However, this might just be a vehicle to display to the present-day American audience the idiocy of our own hatreds toward each other (think of the classic Original Series Star Trek episode where a race of humanoid aliens takes over Enterprise: half the aliens have faces black on one side and white on the other, and the other half has the same two colors, only on opposite sides of the face. Each half of the race hates the other, because the colors are on the "wrong" side of the face).

The scene in the trailer of Civil War where one of the rebels has the woman down on her knees, apparently about to kill her, demanding to know "what kind of American are you?" (in other words, are you a "good" or "bad" American) almost brought tears to my eyes.

This COULD be a very good movie . . . or not.

But I just might give Civil War (2024) a chance. Thank you again, DRD, for bringing it to my attention.

@northcoast said:

However, this might just be a vehicle to display to the present-day American audience the idiocy of our own hatreds toward each other (think of the classic Original Series Star Trek episode where a race of humanoid aliens takes over Enterprise: half the aliens have faces black on one side and white on the other, and the other half has the same two colors, only on opposite sides of the face. Each half of the race hates the other, because the colors are on the "wrong" side of the face).

" Are you blind, Commander Spock? Well, look at me. Look at me!"

One of the most epic lines, especially the way he delivers it so matter-of-factly. Good point, maybe that bizarre alliance is meant to show us that we need to leave our own prejudices at the door.

Sometimes outsiders can see things that insiders cannot, and/or can say/make observations which insiders cannot, either because the person on the inside cannot see it, will not see it, or indeed can see it, but is understandably afraid to critique his own nation or culture for fear of the repercussions.

Totally agree if done that way. That's why I love Wim Wenders' films about America. He presents America with either wide-eyed wonder (Paris, Texas) or with stern criticism (Land of Plenty) without pulling any punches. What I worry is, since Garland is working for a big moneyed $75mil American production, he might be either instructed or personally inclined to play it safe. I guess we'll see...

Texas Border Standoff: Seeds of Civil War or All Theater?- video