“I believe there are things nobody would see if I didn’t photograph them.”

The iconic photographer Diane Arbus isn’t mentioned by name in Civil War, the most recent directorial outing by Alex Garland, but her spectre lingers heavily throughout this film, as does the spirit of many people who dedicated their lives to photography, the art of capturing a brief moment and making it indelible, allowing it to become a part of the historical record that sometimes speaks more than any written words. Garland, in what is now his fourth official endeavour as a director, chose to make Civil War based on his observations about the political atmosphere in the United States, which some consider to be at its most tense and contentious in recent memory, and where division is not only common, many seem to encourage it as a way of ensuring their beliefs are upheld within a very specific community, rather than even entertaining the idea of collaborating with those from across the political aisle. It seems to be common practice to believe that debate is not healthy and that the only way to get a point across is through aggression and, in some extreme cases, unhinged and unabashed violence. Set in an alternate reality where two states (Texas and California) have seceded, the film follows a hypothetical civil war, in which the rest of the country deals with the encroaching violence and despair wrought by this tense political situation, and we observe a team of war journalists and photographers travelling across the United States, capturing the violence and despair found throughout the country. As audacious and thought-provoking as anything Garland has written or directed so far, and a film that is bound to be divisive by design, Civil War is not an easy project to discuss, which seems to be entirely the point. This kind of film is best suited as a sensory and psychological experience more than one that lends itself to immediate discussion – and while it has its shortcomings, its powerful narrative and strong conceptual foundation, while sometimes slightly peculiar, lends itself to a lot of intense thought, which seems to be the entire purpose behind the film.

While his previous films have been well-received, there has always been a sense that Garland’s strength is his writing more than his directing, since the latter can sometimes be somewhat heavy-handed and lack precision, with the strong concepts not quite being serviced by occasionally unwieldy direction. With Civil War, he makes his strongest case yet as a genuinely strong director, since he finally has made something where his writing is perfectly showcased without being dampened by peculiar directorial choices. It is by far his most commercial film and one that shows his ability to weave together a memorable story from a seemingly absurd concept, which we’ll discuss momentarily. The decision to focus on journalists (who are shown here to be entirely neutral and unbiased, which is questionable in its own right, but we can overlook it for now) allows for a very clear path to be formed, allowing the film to follow a coherent line of thought, rather than spending too much time on the details. The result is a rapid-fire psychological war drama that is as violent as it is terrifying. Garland has mastered the art of inciting genuine tension, and throughout this film, we find ourselves consistently on edge, wondering what is lurking around each corner, and feeling a genuine sense of danger. The first parts of the film are quite heavy in terms of exposition, and it doesn’t always feel all that coherent until midway through when a very specific moment occurs that not only increases the stakes but brings everything together in a way that makes even the most chaotic of moments come across as entirely logical in context. It’s a daring achievement and one that is bound to stir a lot of conversation, but it’s undeniable that on a purely directorial level, Civil War is an immense accomplishment, a dizzying combination of striking visuals, cacophonic sounds and a complex story that is superbly realized on screen.

Garland certainly has a special connection with his actors, and whether working with longtime collaborators or newcomers, he frequently brings out exceptional work in all of them. Civil War is anchored by four excellent performances, which come in the form of Kirsten Dunst, Wagner Moura, Cailee Spaeney and Stephen McKinley Henderson, all of which are brilliant. Dunst and Moura are the de facto leads, playing a pair of journalists who have a longtime working relationship, and who decide to brave the nearly impossible task of travelling across the United States, moving through several warzones on their continued quest to find and interview the President of the United States, hoping to get some answers from someone who has ascended to being very close to a dictator, one of the central themes of the film. They’re both able to play these dedicated individuals, capturing every nuanced emotion in vivid detail. Henderson, who is almost always the best part of any project he is in, finally gets a film role that contains some substance, playing the wise and seasoned reporter who acts as the voice of reason and proves to be the person who sacrifices the most. Spaeny is excellent, but her character is questionable, as she’s the source of many of the most perilous situations into which these characters are thrust, which seems to be an intentional choice. Garland’s gift as a writer is creating characters that are far from one-dimensional or limited by archetypal traits. His ability to craft deeply flawed individuals, to the point where they border on being unlikable at some points, shades in the nuances of this film, which is much stronger than it could have been solely because he gives a decent amount of attention to the smallest details that other writers and directors would view as inconsequential. Arguably, we don’t get much to time learn about these characters – their origins are not always clear, and the film doesn’t feel obliged to give us much, but the strength of the performances is more than enough to maintain our attention, especially since Civil War is not designed to be too much of a character study, and instead functions as something far more complex.

There has been quite a bit of criticism levelled against Civil War for its decision to not focus on the political aspects of the story. By the time we are introduced to these characters, the United States has been engaged in the Second American Civil War for some time and is inching towards a violent conclusion, with our journey being through what is soon to be seen as the final chapter of this conflict. Garland never hints at anything relating to the cause of the war, and the film is entirely devoid of any mention of known political figures or ideologies. The terms “Democrat” and “Republican” are never once uttered in this film, and it’s difficult to discern the conceptual foundations of the two warring factions. This was a deliberate choice on Garland’s part since even implying one political ideology over another would entirely dismantle the purpose of the film as a whole, which has many functions, absolutely none of them being based on existing political ideas. Coming from someone who is essentially an outsider to American politics, and made for a global audience, Civil War is a fascinating film that makes good use of its directly apolitical nature by creating a vivid and disturbing image of a dystopian future, one that is not entirely implausible. In fact, the authenticity that goes into this film is what propels it forward, even if it is important to put aside some slightly questionable narrative choices (such as California and Texas supposedly being allied in the decision to secede from the United States – there doesn’t seem to be a single logical issue that could cause these two states to unite against the rest of the country, but dwelling on this detail is antithetical to the nature of the plot), which are the result of Garland taking a few bold strokes rather than immersing himself in the details. For those who consider themselves to be political activists and who prefer to see films that choose a side, the fact that Civil War not only refuses to take a stance but actively goes against any political alignment, could be frustrating. Yet, this is entirely the point, and centering the story on the journalists, rather than the military or political figures involved in the war, was a smart decision to establish exactly what this film intended to say with its narrative.

However, this doesn’t mean that Civil War doesn’t have a few slightly questionable elements, which is why it can sometimes come across as uneven and lacking in narrative precision. Garland is known for his more off-the-wall style of storytelling, and his previous directorial endeavours have been defined by a more eccentric sensibility, one that doesn’t feel entirely realistic in conception. This film is by far the closest he has come to something authentic, but there are countless moments where we see his off-kilter style coming through, particularly when it comes to establishing the tone. The film is not sure whether it wants to be a satirical dark comedy, a bleak dystopian thriller or a violent action drama – and as a result, it sometimes has to settle for something in the middle of all these disparate genres. I’m not entirely sure whether Garland is strong enough of a director to balance so many different genres all at once, especially with a story steeped in current affairs to an extent, and some of his choices are bound to be controversial. There are scenes of excessive violence set to the most upbeat music, as well as numerous tonal shifts that we struggle to interpret: do they exist to cut through the tension and offer a reprieve from the neverending barrage of suffering, or is it done to emphasize the absurdity of war, using pitch-black humour as a means to underline the lack of hope in this version of the world. In terms of genre, Civil War is difficult to categorize outside of the obvious, and many would consider this a sign of its brilliance since Garland’s ability to cut through genre boundaries and instead deliver something with multiple layers is admirable. However, we would have hoped for slightly more precision, especially since this is a film that plays like a horror film in some parts, and an eccentric road trip comedy in others – and yet, the jagged tone is ultimately merit, especially since it becomes very clear in the final moments that this is not a film that particularly intends to have a happy ending, but rather offers a conclusion as disturbing and terrifying as anything else contained within the film, not due to the content, but rather the implication of those haunting final moments, and what they represent overall, which is that a clear resolution is seemingly impossible, and the world is simply doomed to repeat the same mistakes until our species is eradicated.

By this point, you’d imagine with a few films under his belt as a director and even more as a screenwriter who achieved an immense amount of acclaim over the years, that Garland would have formed a clear voice as a filmmaker. Yet, it seems like he is still developing a very clear vision. His style is still in the process of emerging (although his recent comments call into question how many more directorial endeavours we will see from him in the future), which means that a film like Civil War, which is suitably ambitious, struggles to situate itself within the broader context of the current cinematic landscape, and instead is bound to exist as some peculiar novelty that is appreciated but not widely beloved. However, considering Garland’s previous output, it seems like he doesn’t place too much credence into critical acclaim or universal popularity amongst viewers, likely because he knows that there will always be an audience for his work, which is often extremely intelligent, tense and challenging projects that intend to make us feel uncomfortable. The feeling of dread that emerges as we watch this film is a powerful tool, since it keeps us engaged in the story, and makes the audience realize that, despite being a piece of speculative fiction, this film touches on some very real issues, and we could easily imagine something like this happening in reality, an unsettling concept that is not helped by the fact that Garland is striving to make it as realistic as possible, setting aside his penchant for more abstract ideas and instead embracing a more plausible scenario. Civil War has its imperfections, but any film with such an ambitious premise was going to have some difficulty in establishing a clear premise. The reason it works so well is because there is a sense of genuine urgency in this film – Garland is warning us against what he perceives as a very real danger. While he may take some bold strokes that may not be logically plausible, there is still something profoundly challenging about this film and how it functions as a cautionary tale. Well-crafted and brilliantly written, anchored by tremendous performances and driven by a genuine sense of danger, it’s a fascinating glimpse into a possible future, and a film that bears the burden of offering insights into a side of the human condition that will certainly unsettle and disturb, but proves to be a story worth telling for several reasons.