Tag Archives: war

CIVIL WAR (2024) film review

Posted on by
Reply

A gripping, thought-provoking motion picture about the power and cost of capturing the human experience in a single frame during war. While it would be easy to describe Alex Garland’s Civil War as a thoughtful, if not painful, graphic warning of what happens when society is completely deconstructed and humanity is lost, this film is actually about the power of storytelling through a single frame. Specifically, the state of what remains of humanity and the cost thereof amidst war. Not for the faint of heart, this film takes you only where imbedded journalists have been during a war, complete with all the death and destruction. The film reminds us of the human cost on the battlefield, in the neighborhood, and those that are capturing the images that will tell the story of societies darkest days.

In a dystopian future America, a team of military-embedded journalists races against time to reach Washington, D.C., before rebel factions descend upon the White House.

A picture is worth a thousand words, or so we hold true, but a picture can come at great cost, particularly during wartimes. Instead of focussing on the backstory or who is fighting for whom and for what principles, Garland uses the apparatus of a dystopian warn-torn United States to explore the human dimension and cost of a polarizing, grizzly domestic war. And he does this through a group of imbedded journalists played by Kirsten Dunst, Wagner Maura, Cailee Spaney, and Stephen McKinley Henderson. Together, they face certain death as they strive to cover the war and reach the President for a one-on-one interview.

We aren’t given enough information about the reason for the Western Front (California+Texas) and Florida Alliance secession from the rest of the country, but that’s because Garland wants us to focus on a different story, the human story told through the power of a single frame and the lives that bring these photos before our eyes. Perhaps you’ve never thought of how these photos get from the battlefield to online and traditional magazines and newspapers, but you’ll think twice the next time you are viewing photographs from current or past wars.

But it isn’t simply a motion picture depicting the difficulties in working as a wartime imbedded journalist–that is incidental–this is a picture of the human lives on the battlefield and the places seemingly removed from the atrocities of war. We seldom think of all the different human reactions to war, and this film brings us face to face with those that are fighting for their respective causes, those documenting the various campaigns, and those that go about their daily lives as though the country isn’t ripping apart at the seems a few hundred miles away. Garland doesn’t offer any particular slant, neither does he steer the audience in agreement or disagreement with any faction involved in the war; rather, he crafts a mosaic, if you will, of a collection of metaphoric still images that capture each type of reaction to the war.

I often talk about the emotive difference between film and digital in my classes, and this film is a great example of that argument. It’s the argument that film is superior to digital because with film, there is a tangible relationship between the filmmaker and the film stock, and by extension, a relationship is developed between the editor and film stock. We particularly witness this relationship in Civil War between Jessie (Spaney) and her classic Nikon SLR (film) camera. Whether as depicted in this movie or in real life, there is far more value placed on and discernment in using film to capture people and events, because the photographer/filmmaker is limited to the number on frames on each roll/reel. Therefore, the photos won’t be of just anything, the artist is only going to take a photo that has meaning. Granted, the keeper may still be 1/30, but each was taken with explicit intent, creating immense value in each still frame.

Even after the shutter has opened and closed, imprinting the image on the 35mm frame, the relationship continues through the development process because the developer sends the film through a chemical process that reveals the full spectrum of light–something tangible, that the developed can see, touch, and feel. Digital cannot capture the full spectrum of light the way film can: one is a replicated process that actually cuts off the whitest of whites and blackest of blacks, whilst the other is a chemical process that captures the full range and spectrum of light as imprinted on the film cell. Film photography (or cinematography) creates an emotive dimension between the artist and image, there is a tangible relationship, so everything is done with immense care, consideration, and discernment.

Why is any of this important in discussing Alex Garland’s Civil War? Because to gain the full appreciation of the story he is telling, it is imperative that we understand the relationship between the photojournalist and tragic, devastating events in which they are working to capture the human dimension behind the atrocities of war. Neither Jessie nor Lee (Dunst) will take photos of just anything, every move is thoughtful, the people and events being captured by their respective cameras carry meaning, they carry the human story. That story is made up of those fighting for the Western Front, Florida Alliance (which we don’t see in the movie), or what’s left of the (former) United States’ armed forces.

Beyond what emerges as the main story, Garland’s film does contain a graphic warning of a possible future in which the United States becomes embroiled in domestic warfare (civil war) due to whatever the reasons were that lead to the secession by California, Texas, and Florida (the three most populous states, by the way). It’s to the film’s credit that Garland does leave the backstory vague, as it’s less important what led to this point, but rather the importance is found in the reactions to the war. Both sides of this war are being fought by those that believe they are right, and will fight for the principles in which they believe. The problem isn’t simply the divergence of opinion and belief as it is in the complete disregard or sacrifice of humanity in exchange for a manmade or arbitrary identity.

This is witnessed in an exchange between our journalists and a group of paramilitary civilians, led by Jesse Plemons). Our journalists state they are American journalists, and Plemons’ character reacts by demanding to know what kind of American. This represents those that discriminate or hold prejudice against those that don’t look or sound like they are originally from the United States. In his mind, being from the United States looks and sounds like a particular type, and if one does not fit into that type, then they are not welcomed and ultimately expendable.

Other reactions to the war are also witnessed by our journalists. Such as the lack of reaction to that which is tearing the country to shreds. On their way from New York City to Washington, D.C., our central characters stop in a West Virginia town that is seemingly removed from the war. When the citizens of this town are asked how can they behave as though a few hundred miles away that the very foundations of the country are being shattered, the town reacts in apathy to the war. They are certainly knowledgeable that there is a war, but they choose to stay out of it. Just as the front lines are a reaction to war, this too is a reaction that bares consideration. Garland leaves it up to each audience member where they fall along the full spectrum of the human dimension in war.

In addition to the writing, directing, and technical achievement demonstrated in the film, the performative dimension is outstanding. The genuine reactions to and emotions on display are dripping with authenticity. You will feel what these actors’ characters are feeling throughout the movie. And not just the gut-wrenching parts, the strategically placed moments of humor will stir your soul as well.

Garland crafts a motion picture that serves as cautionary tale of what happens when we stop thinking about one another as unique individuals, as children of God, and instead treat those that are different in some way as a threat to our very existence. What happens when we care more about someone’s identity (with whatever the ideal or principle) than we do about them as a person. There is a time to defend that in which one believes or when one’s life is in danger, but left unchecked, that defense can turn into an offense due to primal fears, anxieties, obsession, and selfishness. Perhaps this film will serve as a reminder of what can happen when we stop treating one another with respect as fellow humans (as fellow Americans) and instead merely treat one another as threats to our very existence. Treatment with respect and dignity does not equate to endorsement or agreement, but it does leave an opportunity to change open. We’ve seen throughout history that there is sometimes a cause for war, but it should always be the last resort.

Often times, I am negatively critical of the writing in the film’s A24 produces or distributes, because I find many of these films are poorly written; however, this film demonstrates the power of acknowledging storytelling/screenwriting conventions and guidelines. Why? Because they work! At first I was wondering why with such a fantastically written screenplay was the realization missing at the end. Then I realized that it is there in character, plot, and in myself. You’ll just have to watch the film to fully understand that which I am attempting to describe without giving away any spoilers.

Garland’s Civil War is unlike anything I expected. I expected a movie dripping with overt socio-political ideology and commentary, but what I got was an incredibly thoughtful motion picture about the human dimension of war, particularly a domestic war between the states. Garland does not hold back on the violence, so those with PTSD from war or uncomfortable with violent movies should be cautioned before watching this film.

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

“Darkest Hour” film review

Posted on by
2

Outstanding! A gripping film that serves as a testament to rising above all odds to lead and protect. An inspirational biographical drama during one of the western world’s darkest hours. Gary Oldman’s performance as the famous United Kingdom Prime Minister is absolutely remarkable. For history enthusiasts, you will swear that you are watching THE Winston Churchill battle his own homefront of politicians and protecting against the Nazi advancement prior to the United States stepping in following Pearl Harbor. The impact of this film is greatly enhanced by the release of Nolan’s Dunkirk earlier in 2017 as this film depicts what was going on in Churchill’s office prior to the valiant rescue operation. The climax of the film includes Churchill’s “We Shall Fight” speech that rallied Parlament behind him–at least during WWII. Screenwriter Anthony McCarten chooses to interject as much amusement and humor as possible in order to balance out the otherwise cranky Churchill and the dire, deadly position that the people and government of the United Kingdom were at the time. Although it is not uncommon for historical dramas to take creative liberties in telling a visual, cinematic story, Darkest Hour sticks closely to historic accounts but does add in material that aids in constructing a cinematic film.

A thrilling biographical drama that takes place during the crucial days of the Nazi’s march to the sea to conquer western Europe. With France nearly fallen, the United Kingdom is faced with the most deadly enemy it has ever faced in all centuries leading to this very moment. The United Kingdom is searching for a new Prime Minister in the wake of an abrupt end to Churchill’s predecessor. With both the liberal and conservative sides of parliament at each other’s throats, it would take a special leader to unite the government in order to defeat the Nazis. Generally unpopular, but being the only public servant that had the least opposition from both sides, Churchill was a reluctant choice by the King and his colleagues in Parliament. Darkest Hour depicts Churchill’s rise to power and the giants he faced on his first days in office. While he is known to be an unapologetic monolith, a force to be reckoned with, this film also shows his more humble side. All within the span of a few weeks, Churchill is tasked with leading Parliment, unifying the government and people, and protecting the free world.

If you haven’t seen Dunkirk, you should watch it prior to Darkest Hour or at the very least follow up with it because it helps to paint a portrait of what was facing Churchill on his first day in office. Oldman’s performance is nothing shy of exceptional. Although all the performances are excellent, including Lily James’ supporting role, Oldman’s contribution to the film aids in creating the masterpiece that is Darkest Hour. The altruistic behaviors and vulnerable sides of Churchill are brilliantly woven into the narrative, an important move because in films past, he was always shown to be the brilliant orator and rallier that history remembers him as. Oldman’s commitment to character, in terms of speech, posture, and more is incredible; his personal commitment aside, the overall look and feel of Churchill is supported by amazing makeup work and costuming. The energy that each and every character brings to the screen is unquestionably precise and highly effective. While this is a story that takes place during wartime, the character-driven nature of the film is more closely aligned with a heavy courtroom drama than a typical war film. No mistaking it, it is still a war movie, just not in the traditional sense.

While the actors can bring unique, exceptional energy and screen presence to a film, it is often built upon the foundation of excellent writing. Despite the film exceeding the two-hour mark, no scene ever comes across as filler, unnecessary, or simply extra information. Screenwriter McCarten’s adaptation of the life and times of Winston Churchill is precise, efficient, and powerful. He chooses a no holds barred approach that is unapologetic as Churchill himself. As closely as McCarten aligned his screenplay against what we know from history, he chose to invent one particularly inspirational scene in which the Prime Minister leaves his chauffeur and takes the London Underground (what we call a subway)–a mode of transportation that he remarks never using earlier in the film. It is this scene that paves the way for the bombastic, poignant “We Will Fight” speech that will nearly have you standing up in your seat during his ovation on screen. Such a brilliant move by McCarten to invent a scene that truly feels like it very much could have taken place. It’s a scene that also shows Churchill’s heart for the people he was trying his damndest to protect against the evil across the English Channel.

Joe Wright’s Darkest Hour is a must-see film! His direction of this biographical drama is an outstanding work of cinematic excellence. Few directors could have captured the power of these events and the determination of Churchill as Wright has done. The approach of Wright and McCarten may prove to be precisely what is needed for Oscar nominations. Highly recommend for anyone who is fascinated by history or more specifically the events that took place at the time of and leading up to Dunkirk. Darkest Hour also displays a remarkable adhesion to history while adding in elements that provide a much more comprehensive experience that work to inspire audiences.

“Last Flag Flying” film review

Posted on by
Reply

An all-star cast takes audiences on a memory journey of war, loss, friendship, and patriotism as genuine human emotions are dealt with through comedy and grief. Amazon Studios hits a homer again with the release of Last Flag Flying distributed by Lionsgate. Now in select theaters, writer-director Richard Linklater crafts an incredible motion picture that organically deals with the loss of a loved one during a time of war through the stages of grief and irreverent comedy between friends. While this film is currently flying under the radar, don’t allow that to dissuade you from watching this incredible war film. I cannot remember the last time that I saw a film that felt so genuine. Watching this film, I truly felt like a fly on the wall, watching a Vietnam vet deal with the loss of his son and reconnecting with some of the closest friends he ever had in his life. Last Flag Flying is a subgenre of war movies that places the camera at a distance from the characters and allows them to mourn and laugh on screen without interference from censors and other outsiders. While not a conventional war movie, the topic of war is found underlying many diegetic components. Dialogue driven, this film provides social commentary on patriotism, God, and friendship. Bring your listening ear to this movie because the context of the tough subject matter contains subtle yet powerful messages that highlight otherwise unstated emotions. Sometimes the best way to go through the stages of grief is to throw caution to the wind and allow humor to work its powerful remedy.

Three Vietnam war veterans reunite for a different kind of mission that forces them to deal with the present and the past. When Larry “Doc” Shepherd (Steve Carrel) arrives at the dive bar that belongs to former comrade Sal Nealson (Bryan Cranston), he asks his Marine brother to go with him without naming where. Sal drives Shepherd to a old country church now pastored by their Marine brother Richard Mueller (Laurence Fishburne). When Shepherd doesn’t touch his pale cobbler, the group realizes there is something wrong. It’s then the Shepherd reveals that his son was killed outside of Baghdad, and wants his two Marine brothers to go with him to bury his son at Arlington. Along the journey, the three former military comrades are forced to come to terms with their shared past that continues to shape their present lives by discussing tough topics such as grief, God, war, honesty, and addiction.

The sheer storytelling beauty of Last Flag Flying is found in the solid writing made evident through the excellent direction and A-list cast (and one surprising cameo that I won’t mention because it will detract from the brief but powerful screen presence). While it may appear like a somber tragedy on the surface, beneath that surface of sadness beats the heart of dark but respectful comedy that takes audiences on the memory journey right along side the characters. War movies about the loss of loved ones is not something new; but this film allows the characters to go through the stages of grief in organic ways that paints a motion picture of how human these emotions are. Human. Truly human. At times, there are no holds barred when three very different voices all converge on the same topic. You have the grieving father, a reverend, and foul-mouthed barkeep discussing everything, just as friends in real life often do. In many ways, these three former military comrades could not be any different in their present states; but at one time, they were inseparable and very much alike. While the focus of the film could have been on Shepherd’s loss or the politics of war, the focus is clearly on what makes us human and how one genuinely has to deal with loss due to war. Not that discussions of politics and religion are not found in this film–they are–but the discussions and arguments between these friends are used as tools to comment on the human condition. Because we never see combat footage, the expositional dialogue about war and politics adds incredible weight and a little mystery to the events in the film.

Before you begin to think that Linklater uses flashbacks to connect the present to the past, think again. While that would have been the easy, lazy way of accomplishing that task, he chooses to connect the present to the past through exceptional exposition between characters that prompt the audience to engage their own emotions to connect the pieces of the story together. Because we never shift between the past and present, the main story is always the main story. When constructing strong characters as we have this this film, it is the responsibility of the actors (though proper direction) to not allow the actor to get in the way of the character. Honestly, there are times that I see the individual actors eclipse the respective character, but most of the time, the audience will see the characters themselves throughout the dark comedy. The cinematography is simple, but perfect for the story within this motion picture. Linklater uses no gimmicks to tell this thought provoking story. The movie has an intimate feel to it because you can likely identify with one of the lead or supporting characters, especially when they are talking about “Disneyland” in Vietnam (you’ll just have to watch to understand why that’s in quotes). So incredibly genuine. No pretense about any of the characters in the film.

The content of this film truly reflects the tenor of the times in which we live. Topics of war, politics, and religion seem to be inundating us from all angles. It takes a special film to deal with each of those respectfully, candidly, and effectively. The trifecta of voices in this film allows the thought provoking conversations to transcend the screen and enter the minds of the audience. While working through his grief, there were times that Shepherd could have gone on an anti-military or anti-American rant, but he never speaks a negative word against anyone, though he is sometimes in immense pain. Patriotism, God, and the human condition are shown and discussed in quite unconventional and maybe even controversial ways; yet, the manner in which these topics are discussed, as it relates to Shepherd’s loss, are absolutely perfect. In a seemingly binary world where you are either a red-blooded patriot or you’re anti-American, with no room for nuance or discussion, this film provides the platform to begin to realize that we are first human before we take sides.

Although I did not care for Linklater’s Boyhood, I can honestly tell you that this film is one that you don’t want to miss. Whether you are in a military family or not, this film offers a glimpse into a world that many people have to face on a daily basis. The genuine, organic approach to the hard topics in this film allows the humanity to shine through. Not speaking for ALL veterans, but the vets that were in the screening last night had high praise for the film. And the rest of us had many positive remarks and feedback for the screener hosts.

“Dunkirk” film review

Posted on by
1

Journalism meets cinematic visual storytelling. Christopher Nolan’s war epic Dunkirk provides audiences with a different kind of war movie experience. Different in that the narrative is nonlinear and highly experimental. From a technical perspective, the film is flawless. The cinematography, sound design, and score all work together to create an immersive experience in which that fourth wall is nearly removed. One of my friends that I saw the film with last night described it as being a fly on the wall within each timeline. With little dialog, the focus is on the various groups of the army, air force, and civilians. The stylistic film reminds me of photo/video journalism. Dunkirk demonstrates that an emotionally satisfying experience can be delivered without conventional storytelling. In many ways Norma Desmond would be proud of Nolan’s film because “[he] didn’t need dialog, [he] had faces.” Dunkirk invites audiences in for a rare glimpse into the reality of war, and the reality of not only the armed forces but the civilian assistance that truly made the difference and just why this particular war story is so remarkable. Be sure to brush up on your knowledge of the events of Dunkirk before watching the film. You’re definitely going to need to have a base of knowledge of the theatre before becoming the proverbial fly on the wall.

Instead of a plot synopsis, here is what Wikipedia has as a summary of the history of Dunkirk Evacuation. This is definitely going to be helpful prior to watching the film.

During the Second World War (1939–1945), in the May 1940 Battle of France, the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) in France aiding the French, was cut off from the rest of the French Army by the German advance. Encircled by the Germans they retreated to the area around the port of Dunkirk. For years, it was assumed that Adolf Hitler ordered the German Army to stop the attack, favouring bombardment by the Luftwaffe. However, according to the Official War Diary of Army Group A, its commander, Generaloberst Gerd von Rundstedt, ordered the halt. Hitler merely validated the order several hours after the fact. This lull in the action gave the British a few days to evacuate by sea and fortify defences. Winston Churchill, the British Prime Minister, ordered any ship or boat available, large or small, to collect the stranded soldiers. 338,226 men (including 123,000 French soldiers) were evacuated – the miracle of Dunkirk, as Churchill called it. It took over 900 vessels to evacuate the Allied forces and although over two-thirds of those rescued embarked via the harbour, almost 100,000 were taken off the beaches. More than 40,000 vehicles as well as massive amounts of other military equipment and supplies were left behind, their value being less than that of trained fighting men. The British evacuation of Dunkirk through the English Channel was codenamed Operation Dynamo. Forty thousand Allied soldiers (some who carried on fighting after the official evacuation) were captured or forced to make their own way home through a variety of routes including via neutral Spain.

If you are approaching Dunkirk from a desire to see a Saving Private Ryan, then you may want to rethink going to see this film. With little convention in the storytelling, this film puts you on the beach, in the air, or on the sea alongside the civilians, pilots, soldiers, and officers. The focus is not on the characters, special effects, or the bloody atrocities of war, but focussed on highlighting a significant event in WWII history that has largely gone unknown except for those in France and the UK. You are very much like a journalist who is capturing the imagery with your camera. It’s a snapshot of war, not necessarily the story of war. War history buffs, this IS a film for you!