It was made specifically ambiguous. They released a map with how the US is split up in the movie, but made enough changes you can't draw the conclusion the war is about right v left politics. But yet, MOST of the former union is on the federal side and MOST of the former confederacy is on the rebel side. However, the rebel side is actually two separate factions. The "Western Forces" which comprise california, Texas, the pacific north west and great plains states. Then the Florida alliance which is basically Confederacy 2.0. The only political conclusions I can draw from the bread crumbs left in the movie, is this was a pure democracy vs despotism conflict. The mention the president took an illegal 3rd term, was murdering journalists, shut down the FBI. However, yeah, the really went out of their way not to show anybody's colors. Like when they encounter that sniper battle. And ask the sniper and his spotter "what side they are on". Dude's like "He's shooting us and we're shooting back".
Justin here! I have to say the movie definitely grew on me while I was editing the episode. Like most of Alex Garland movies it takes time to peel back the layers to see what his full statement of the film is supposed to be. Still not my favorite of his by far though. But that could just be because I'm more of a sci-fi guy. Appreciate the breakdown!
The movie wasn't about the right or the left or up and down, or a war movie. It's was a war correspondent movie. Not 100% factual to the war journalists, but 75% there. From that aspect, the movie was good. It portrayed the lifestyle as close as possible.
I definitely agree with it being too ambiguous- it was so broad that you're looking for a point where there isn't one, like is it a portrait of war photographers? Is it a commentary on human nature? A commentary on modern current politics? No, it's none of them. It's just plot armored characters traveling through random events with nothing really said except "bad president will be killed by the oppressed!" Texas and California being allied makes no sense at all politically, Nick Offerman was clearly a Trump-esque character but they tried to play centrist? It said a whole lot of nothing but was definitely fun to watch
The idea was to NOT make this a hypothetical blueprint or something an extreme end would parallel with. It was meant to show how pointless a civil war would actually be and the terror that comes with blind allegiance. So, I do agree it was really separated from the world now, but it would actually be a dangerous tool for whatever group it might seemingly align with the most. They worked hard NOT to make this a parallel of the specifics. A parallel of the specifics would lose 1/2 of the viewership~. That is just how I interpreted it, because at this current time there is literally no reason for a civil war that has any merit or ethical basis.
Yeah, this movie felt like Garland thinks pulling punches is somehow punchier than punching. What was the antifa massacre? Did antifa do it? Were they massacred? mAkEs YoU tHiNk MaN
It was made specifically ambiguous. They released a map with how the US is split up in the movie, but made enough changes you can't draw the conclusion the war is about right v left politics.
But yet, MOST of the former union is on the federal side and MOST of the former confederacy is on the rebel side. However, the rebel side is actually two separate factions. The "Western Forces" which comprise california, Texas, the pacific north west and great plains states. Then the Florida alliance which is basically Confederacy 2.0.
The only political conclusions I can draw from the bread crumbs left in the movie, is this was a pure democracy vs despotism conflict. The mention the president took an illegal 3rd term, was murdering journalists, shut down the FBI.
However, yeah, the really went out of their way not to show anybody's colors. Like when they encounter that sniper battle. And ask the sniper and his spotter "what side they are on". Dude's like "He's shooting us and we're shooting back".
Justin here! I have to say the movie definitely grew on me while I was editing the episode. Like most of Alex Garland movies it takes time to peel back the layers to see what his full statement of the film is supposed to be.
Still not my favorite of his by far though. But that could just be because I'm more of a sci-fi guy. Appreciate the breakdown!
The movie wasn't about the right or the left or up and down, or a war movie. It's was a war correspondent movie. Not 100% factual to the war journalists, but 75% there. From that aspect, the movie was good. It portrayed the lifestyle as close as possible.
“300 Canadian..”
I definitely put off watching it because I thought I’d get angry at how close to reality it might feel and then I saw it and was right. Lol
I definitely agree with it being too ambiguous- it was so broad that you're looking for a point where there isn't one, like is it a portrait of war photographers? Is it a commentary on human nature? A commentary on modern current politics? No, it's none of them. It's just plot armored characters traveling through random events with nothing really said except "bad president will be killed by the oppressed!"
Texas and California being allied makes no sense at all politically, Nick Offerman was clearly a Trump-esque character but they tried to play centrist? It said a whole lot of nothing but was definitely fun to watch
The idea was to NOT make this a hypothetical blueprint or something an extreme end would parallel with.
It was meant to show how pointless a civil war would actually be and the terror that comes with blind allegiance.
So, I do agree it was really separated from the world now, but it would actually be a dangerous tool for whatever group it might seemingly align with the most. They worked hard NOT to make this a parallel of the specifics. A parallel of the specifics would lose 1/2 of the viewership~.
That is just how I interpreted it, because at this current time there is literally no reason for a civil war that has any merit or ethical basis.
Im a movie
Uhm.. what kinda movie?
Yeah, this movie felt like Garland thinks pulling punches is somehow punchier than punching. What was the antifa massacre? Did antifa do it? Were they massacred? mAkEs YoU tHiNk MaN
Lmao Blame Canada!!
black hair guy keeps talking over bald man. very rude.
Bald man is ok with it…