Ahead of the release of Alex Garland’s new alternate history action drama Civil War, studio A24, which produced the film, has released a map of the United States showing the boundaries of the conflict. The New People’s Army existed in the Pacific Northwest, the Mountain West, and parts of the Great Plains. There was a “Western Army” of Texas and California. And then there was the “Florida Confederacy,” which encompassed much of the Southeast. What remained was named the “Loyalist State.”
This tidbit sparked speculation on social media about the film’s political undertones. What exactly were the risks of conflict? In the world of the film, how exactly did countries come to war? In what world would Californians find common purpose with Texans? This scenario was not just far-fetched. That seemed nonsense. And it didn’t help that when Garland was asked in an interview about the film’s relationship to modern political life, she had a “pox on both houses” attitude. “It’s polarizing,” he said. “We’ve seen it everywhere. And you can see it getting magnified.”
A few weeks ago, I saw “Civil War” at a screening in Charlottesville. I didn’t have any particular expectations, but I was curious to see if this movie would flesh out the worldview. Not to spoil it, but that wasn’t really the case.
Garland and his collaborators are not trying to explain the war. They don’t try to explain the politics of war. They don’t try to explain anything about the world of the movie. There are hints of impending crisis and the contours of conflict. In one scene, a television broadcast mentions the president’s third term. In other instances, soldiers or militias of unclear allegiance execute hostages who are not properly “American.” In another scene, a male rebel soldier fighting against the government is seen dying his hair and painting his nails.
But overall, this movie is not about the war itself. It’s a story about the war itself. It’s not a bad choice that the main characters in this film, and the people we spend the most time with overall, are journalists. They are on a road trip to see the front lines of the war in Charlottesville (I can tell you it was a very strange experience seeing the movie in a movie theater about 30 minutes from where it was supposed to take place) ). Experience conflict from the perspectives of men and women covering violent conflicts. Their job is to look at things as objectively as possible. This is also reflected in the way we film and edit our stories. We see what they see without any charm or excitement. War is bloody, terrifying, and very noisy.
The torture, summary executions, and mass murder depicted in this film are nothing new. It’s part of our actual past. It’s happening in many places around the world. It’s happening in many places around the world right now. What makes this film so striking and so effective is that it shows us this vision of violence in a place like modern-day America.
However, what is important is not to bemoan division in the easy way that is seen in much contemporary political commentary. It is important to remind Americans of the reality of armed conflicts like the ones our government has provoked in other countries. Equally important is dispelling the illusion among Americans that they can go to war with each other in ways that do not end in catastrophic disaster.
There is now a palpable hunger among some Americans for conflict and political violence. Of course, there was also the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021. There are also open calls for civil war against the far right. Georgia’s far-right Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene wants a “national divorce.” A reporter for the influential right-wing think tank Claremont Institute once mused that “most people living in the United States today, certainly more than half, are not Americans in any meaningful sense of the term.” A disturbing number of Americans believe that violence may be necessary to achieve their political goals.
Above all, “Civil War” is deeply concerned with this desire that borders on sexual desire. It shows that people on both sides of the conflict relish the opportunity to kill and rejoice in the opportunity to wipe the enemy off the face of the earth. By depicting this, “Civil War” asks American viewers to think long and hard about what it means to want to harm one’s fellow citizens.
By setting aside the details of the conflict and focusing on the experience of violence, Civil War is a film that asks the audience one simple question: “Is this what you really want?”
what i wrote
My Tuesday column was about Donald Trump’s attempts to distance himself from his anti-abortion base.
The truth of the matter is that if given a second term in office, Trump and his allies will do everything in their power to ban abortion across the United States, with or without a Republican majority in Congress.
My Friday column was narrowly about the Electoral College and broadly about using the past to guide the present.
But those who created the framework, whether as humans or as myths, cannot do this. They cannot justify the choices we make as we navigate the world. The beauty, and perhaps the curse, of self-government is that it is actually self-governing. Our choices are our own and we must abide by them on our own terms. Looking to the past for guidance is often good and helpful, but the past cannot answer our questions or address our problems.
Reading
Abraham Josephine Riesman appears in the Book of Job on the stone tablets.
Moira Donegan talks about the ‘trad wife’ phenomenon in Book Forum.
Adam Gaffney talks about the war on Gaza’s medical infrastructure for dissidents.
Stefania Talladrid speaks for The New Yorker about the fight to restore abortion rights in Texas.
Maggie Doherty speaks to The Atlantic about state sexual morality.
This week’s photo
A few weeks ago, I drove to Petersburg, Virginia, and walked around and took some photos. This is one of my favorites of his.
What I’m eating now: Blistered broccoli pasta with walnuts, pecorino, and mint.
This is a super easy pasta that can be made in no time. Be sure to use some of the pasta water to prevent the dish from drying out. If you’re feeling fancy, you can also add some nice canned fish to the mix. Sardines and mackerel would also be good. Recipe taken from the Cooking section of the New York Times.
material
-
kosher salt and black pepper
-
12 ounces fusilli or other short pasta
-
1/2 cup olive oil, more for drizzle
-
1/2 cup walnuts or pecans, chopped
-
1/2 teaspoon red pepper flakes
-
Coarsely chop 1 bunch of broccoli or cauliflower florets, peel the stems, and slice into 1/4-inch thick pieces.
-
1 lemon (peeled and quartered)
-
1/2 cup grated Pecorino Romano or Parmesan cheese, plus more for serving
-
1 cup packed fresh mint or parsley leaves
direction
Bring a large pot of salted water to a boil. Add pasta and cook according to package directions until al dente.
Meanwhile, heat the oil in a large skillet over medium heat. Add the walnuts and red pepper flakes (if using) and cook, stirring, until golden and fragrant, about 1 minute. Using a slotted spoon, transfer the walnuts and red pepper flakes to a small bowl. Season the walnuts with a little salt and pepper.
Add the broccoli to the frying pan and fry until coated with oil. Shake the pan to coat the broccoli in an even layer. Cook gently for 2 minutes. Mix, shake and arrange again in an even layer and cook gently for another 2-3 minutes. Season with salt and pepper and remove from heat.
Drain the pasta and add the lemon zest, cheese, toasted walnuts, and half of the mint to the skillet. Throw and combine. Divide between plates or bowls and top with remaining mint, additional cheese, and a drizzle of olive oil. Garnish with lemon and squeeze out the juice, if desired.
