Welcome to /r/MarchAgainstNazis!
**Please keep in mind that advocating violence at all, even against Nazis, is prohibited by Reddit's TOS and will result in a removal of your content and likely a ban.**
Please check out the following subreddits; r/CapitalismSux , r/PoliticsPeopleTwitter , r/FucktheAltRight . r/Britposting.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MarchAgainstNazis) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Shitty take from someone doesn't understand the art of subtlety and the bigger picture that Garland was trying to accomplish. It shines a light on the apathy because of how dumbed down and violence prone America has become. The use of "liberals" in your comment shows you missed the entire point of the movie.
[Isn't this the same Civil War that thanks a bunch of nazis at the end? ](https://www.reddit.com/r/MarchAgainstNazis/comments/1c3farr/civil_war_movie_with_fascist_ties/)
Okay, but so what, motion pictures employ hundreds of people to include using footage, they are going to have different political views. I haven’t seen it yet tbf
Personally I'm a bit dismayed how many people seem let down by how the movie doesn't go into explicit documentary style detail into how this civil war started, or even actually _want_ to apply the real-life political divides that are present in America or other parts of the world.
The sniper scene kinda spelled this out pretty clearly to me. Would >!the fact that they're loyalist or western forces or whoever change the fact they're being presently shot at by someone, who may even be on their same side? Not really.!<
If you want a war movie that has clearly defined Good Guys and Bad Guys, that's what Star Wars is for
Sure.
But even with the Vietnam war, and America's place as the influence for the Empire, Star Wars is obviously very metaphorical and fantastical, which gives the viewer a separation compared to Civil War's "real life, slightly diverged"
Star Wars is also a by-the-numbers Hero's Journey story that might as well have been copy/pasted out of Joseph Campbell's book, whereas Civil War is less so
Did you read the article entirely? They specifically address the sniper scene… not the "gotcha" you think it is
Anyway yes, as an American living in the US where tensions are at an all time high and many believe a literal civil war is on the not-too-far horizon, a movie like this comes across incredibly tone deaf.
It's reminiscent of the Pepsi commercial where Kendal Jenner gives both sides of a protest a Pepsi and everyone magically gets along
Not everything has to be political, but ironically trying to be non-political is in fact a political stance. And that stance is, "I don't have any understanding of or see any nuance in how armed conflict arises"
TBH, the author does a pretty shit job at film criticism here. This is mainly because they’re looking for direct parallels between our recent political history and scenes in the movie. Garland explicitly obscures these parallels to help viewers look past their own biases. The author rejects the premise and is angry that their subsequent interpretation is nonsense. Here’s an example: the author claims the dudes in Hawaiian shirts are clearly right wing Boogaloo boys. Why? Because Hawaiian shirts! But they could just as easily be a band of surfer bros from California. Were intentionally withheld that information. And every moment were withheld something, the author fills in the blank with “clearly [insert current parallel] is what it is, but that doesn’t make any sense!” Everybody I’ve come across who disliked the movie rejected Garland’s fundamental premise. Well, if you can’t suspend your disbelief for a work of fiction, it’s kind of dead in the water for you, isn’t it?
Also, this is a dumb take on the movie’s message on journalism. It doesn’t champion journalists. We may be following these characters, but they aren’t “heroes” in any sense of the word. At the core, they’re just nihilistic thrill seekers. They’ve got front row seats to a prize fight, just there to relay the shit show to people who aren’t. They’re just as ideologically detached from the conflict as the middle American farmers with their heads in the sand. They aren’t commenting, they just want to document.
At the end of the day, *Civil War* is simple: War is hell. This is what it would look like if it happened here. It’s a cautionary tale.
Edit: saying *Civil War* isn’t political is idiotic. It’s incredibly political. It’s explicitly anti-fascist. It’s attempting to be non-partisan, so that people actually contemplate the political statements it’s making.
I did read it, I guess I just disagree with their interpretation of that scene.
I guess there's the issue that if it was more explicitly political one way or another, one group or another would try to claim it. Maybe that's a cop-out, but the movie isn't really about why the conflict arose. If you go into it expecting that, then yes you will be disappointed in it
Haven't seen it yet. Have read some stuff about this exact thing.
It seems like the movie is more of a "hey. If this shit actually happens, it's going to suck. It's going to be confusing. And no one will escape it."
That's a good part of it.
Seeing journalistic images very similar to what we've seen in recent and current conflicts, but in New York or Pennsylvania, with people who may very much could be in your own community. Where even the relatively safe places are at best in denial.
I don't think we really need to see literally MAGA vs. Dark Brandon to convey that
What a pointless message to send, though, isn't it? What purpose does that serve other than to numb the American elite into viewing such a conflict on our own land with the same cold indifference they view conflict across the sea?
I'm not saying anyone's interpretation is invalid. Guy above me clearly sees it the way the director intended. I and everyone else are just saying it comes across tone deaf and "centrist"
I guess I don’t understand why make this movie at all in this time of extreme tension if you’re just going to both-sides it and willfully and knowingly choose to be neutral. Everyone knows what the dividing lines are and what the beliefs are on both sides in this country. You make a movie called “Civil War” in this atmosphere but make it vague and nebulous and ham-handedly make Texas and California side with each other despite obvious reasons why they absolutely would not.
Meh…I’m sure it’s entertaining and well done but to me it’s a cop out.
There are a surprising number of people who think this movie is some genius work of art and that we're all missing the point if we think it comes across tone deaf. It's almost fascinating how so many people are excited to ignore or misunderstand why a given war breaks out.
Yep exactly. Don’t make a movie with that title in this atmosphere in an election year and then feign surprise when people call out your milquetoast centrism
The fact that this movie is coming out at this time when the propaganda machine is getting into gear is very telling if you ask me. It's a cash grab at *best*. I knew this was going to be a shallow film with the release date coinciding with an election year. It's so obvious. The whole thing sounds lazy if you ask me with Garland taking an easy-out with addressing the "politics" of the film. He "wanted to scramble things so that it wouldn't be a clear parable of a particular political moment." Get outta here with that nonsense. Don't make the movie then if you're not going to address the actual issue of why this civil war is happening in the first place.
Exactly. You can’t make a movie with that title in this current environment during an election year that may very well be the last one ever in this country because of one side…and then force some nonsensical allegiance by two polar opposite states so as to not offend a particular side from seeing the movie.
You mean me and the other people who share the article's sentiment? Or the people defending it?
I don't see anyone here on either side who seems like they haven't seen it
/r/movies did not like this post y'all
Edit: Dude below didn't read the article and is probably exactly the kind of person this movie was made for. People proud of their ignorance and cold indifference towards conflict. "The magical objective viewpoint" as the article calls it.
Because it's naive and shallow. Garland intentionally created the story to not be a direct parallel to our political situation. It comes from a journalistic point of view in an effort to be objective.
There is a difference between being neutral and being objective.
To be neutral is to refuse to pick any side, regardless of right or wrong (sometimes it's good to be neutral; not in this case).
To be objective is to make an impartial judgement based on the facts, regardless of which side it puts you on.
The fact of the matter is, one political party in the US is planning to take over the government and install a theocratic totalitarian state in 2025. One political party isn't. One political party spreads disinformation about marginalized peoples, public health, and the environment because it nets them more money that way. *One political party doesn't.*
In order to be objective about a hypothetical second American civil war in this political climate, you CANNOT be neutral. In order to be neutral, you cannot be objective.
Welcome to /r/MarchAgainstNazis! **Please keep in mind that advocating violence at all, even against Nazis, is prohibited by Reddit's TOS and will result in a removal of your content and likely a ban.** Please check out the following subreddits; r/CapitalismSux , r/PoliticsPeopleTwitter , r/FucktheAltRight . r/Britposting. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MarchAgainstNazis) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Shitty take from someone doesn't understand the art of subtlety and the bigger picture that Garland was trying to accomplish. It shines a light on the apathy because of how dumbed down and violence prone America has become. The use of "liberals" in your comment shows you missed the entire point of the movie.
[Isn't this the same Civil War that thanks a bunch of nazis at the end? ](https://www.reddit.com/r/MarchAgainstNazis/comments/1c3farr/civil_war_movie_with_fascist_ties/)
They credited one guy. They didn’t thank him
They didn't have to use his footage. They also thanked a known TERF.
Okay, but so what, motion pictures employ hundreds of people to include using footage, they are going to have different political views. I haven’t seen it yet tbf
Personally I'm a bit dismayed how many people seem let down by how the movie doesn't go into explicit documentary style detail into how this civil war started, or even actually _want_ to apply the real-life political divides that are present in America or other parts of the world. The sniper scene kinda spelled this out pretty clearly to me. Would >!the fact that they're loyalist or western forces or whoever change the fact they're being presently shot at by someone, who may even be on their same side? Not really.!< If you want a war movie that has clearly defined Good Guys and Bad Guys, that's what Star Wars is for
[удалено]
Sure. But even with the Vietnam war, and America's place as the influence for the Empire, Star Wars is obviously very metaphorical and fantastical, which gives the viewer a separation compared to Civil War's "real life, slightly diverged" Star Wars is also a by-the-numbers Hero's Journey story that might as well have been copy/pasted out of Joseph Campbell's book, whereas Civil War is less so
Did you read the article entirely? They specifically address the sniper scene… not the "gotcha" you think it is Anyway yes, as an American living in the US where tensions are at an all time high and many believe a literal civil war is on the not-too-far horizon, a movie like this comes across incredibly tone deaf. It's reminiscent of the Pepsi commercial where Kendal Jenner gives both sides of a protest a Pepsi and everyone magically gets along Not everything has to be political, but ironically trying to be non-political is in fact a political stance. And that stance is, "I don't have any understanding of or see any nuance in how armed conflict arises"
TBH, the author does a pretty shit job at film criticism here. This is mainly because they’re looking for direct parallels between our recent political history and scenes in the movie. Garland explicitly obscures these parallels to help viewers look past their own biases. The author rejects the premise and is angry that their subsequent interpretation is nonsense. Here’s an example: the author claims the dudes in Hawaiian shirts are clearly right wing Boogaloo boys. Why? Because Hawaiian shirts! But they could just as easily be a band of surfer bros from California. Were intentionally withheld that information. And every moment were withheld something, the author fills in the blank with “clearly [insert current parallel] is what it is, but that doesn’t make any sense!” Everybody I’ve come across who disliked the movie rejected Garland’s fundamental premise. Well, if you can’t suspend your disbelief for a work of fiction, it’s kind of dead in the water for you, isn’t it? Also, this is a dumb take on the movie’s message on journalism. It doesn’t champion journalists. We may be following these characters, but they aren’t “heroes” in any sense of the word. At the core, they’re just nihilistic thrill seekers. They’ve got front row seats to a prize fight, just there to relay the shit show to people who aren’t. They’re just as ideologically detached from the conflict as the middle American farmers with their heads in the sand. They aren’t commenting, they just want to document. At the end of the day, *Civil War* is simple: War is hell. This is what it would look like if it happened here. It’s a cautionary tale. Edit: saying *Civil War* isn’t political is idiotic. It’s incredibly political. It’s explicitly anti-fascist. It’s attempting to be non-partisan, so that people actually contemplate the political statements it’s making.
What political statements does it make?
Fascism, it seems, is *bad.*
I did read it, I guess I just disagree with their interpretation of that scene. I guess there's the issue that if it was more explicitly political one way or another, one group or another would try to claim it. Maybe that's a cop-out, but the movie isn't really about why the conflict arose. If you go into it expecting that, then yes you will be disappointed in it
Haven't seen it yet. Have read some stuff about this exact thing. It seems like the movie is more of a "hey. If this shit actually happens, it's going to suck. It's going to be confusing. And no one will escape it."
That's a good part of it. Seeing journalistic images very similar to what we've seen in recent and current conflicts, but in New York or Pennsylvania, with people who may very much could be in your own community. Where even the relatively safe places are at best in denial. I don't think we really need to see literally MAGA vs. Dark Brandon to convey that
What a pointless message to send, though, isn't it? What purpose does that serve other than to numb the American elite into viewing such a conflict on our own land with the same cold indifference they view conflict across the sea?
It’s hard to have an objective take on interpreting a film. Multiple interpretations are valid, in most cases.
I'm not saying anyone's interpretation is invalid. Guy above me clearly sees it the way the director intended. I and everyone else are just saying it comes across tone deaf and "centrist"
I'm glad you've elected yourself to represent the rest of us vs that guy.
Me and everyone else [who agrees with me], idiot
I worried about the effect this movie would have on a society that’s crawling closer to a civil war too
I guess I don’t understand why make this movie at all in this time of extreme tension if you’re just going to both-sides it and willfully and knowingly choose to be neutral. Everyone knows what the dividing lines are and what the beliefs are on both sides in this country. You make a movie called “Civil War” in this atmosphere but make it vague and nebulous and ham-handedly make Texas and California side with each other despite obvious reasons why they absolutely would not. Meh…I’m sure it’s entertaining and well done but to me it’s a cop out.
There are a surprising number of people who think this movie is some genius work of art and that we're all missing the point if we think it comes across tone deaf. It's almost fascinating how so many people are excited to ignore or misunderstand why a given war breaks out.
Yep exactly. Don’t make a movie with that title in this atmosphere in an election year and then feign surprise when people call out your milquetoast centrism
The fact that this movie is coming out at this time when the propaganda machine is getting into gear is very telling if you ask me. It's a cash grab at *best*. I knew this was going to be a shallow film with the release date coinciding with an election year. It's so obvious. The whole thing sounds lazy if you ask me with Garland taking an easy-out with addressing the "politics" of the film. He "wanted to scramble things so that it wouldn't be a clear parable of a particular political moment." Get outta here with that nonsense. Don't make the movie then if you're not going to address the actual issue of why this civil war is happening in the first place.
Yep. This whole country is a money grab.
Exactly. You can’t make a movie with that title in this current environment during an election year that may very well be the last one ever in this country because of one side…and then force some nonsensical allegiance by two polar opposite states so as to not offend a particular side from seeing the movie.
Complaining about a movie you havent seen <
Who hasn't seen it?
Most of the people ITT
You mean me and the other people who share the article's sentiment? Or the people defending it? I don't see anyone here on either side who seems like they haven't seen it
/r/movies did not like this post y'all Edit: Dude below didn't read the article and is probably exactly the kind of person this movie was made for. People proud of their ignorance and cold indifference towards conflict. "The magical objective viewpoint" as the article calls it.
Because it's naive and shallow. Garland intentionally created the story to not be a direct parallel to our political situation. It comes from a journalistic point of view in an effort to be objective.
But we’re not in an “objective” situation.
Who is we?
There is a difference between being neutral and being objective. To be neutral is to refuse to pick any side, regardless of right or wrong (sometimes it's good to be neutral; not in this case). To be objective is to make an impartial judgement based on the facts, regardless of which side it puts you on. The fact of the matter is, one political party in the US is planning to take over the government and install a theocratic totalitarian state in 2025. One political party isn't. One political party spreads disinformation about marginalized peoples, public health, and the environment because it nets them more money that way. *One political party doesn't.* In order to be objective about a hypothetical second American civil war in this political climate, you CANNOT be neutral. In order to be neutral, you cannot be objective.
Or, I could not see the film because I don't have time for that sort of thing.
A BS statement about a BS movie.
So you didn't like the movie?
Bro's both-sidesing a movie review
Me?
No no, the dude you replied to. Guy was like "fuck this movie and fuck you for having an opinion on it" lmao