It's a road trip movie about 4 reporters traveling through an American Civil War, but absolutely zero time is giving to explain any of the beliefs, what the sides are, or who supports what. The "Western Forces" are closing in on Washington, DC. The president appears briefly, and is a generic deep state type. All of this made for an interesting and gripping thriller that never made you feel anyone's politics were being shoved down your throat.
shareI tend to agree with this, and I think most people who accuse it of bias are just projecting their own politics onto it. Which is in a way a credit to the ambiguous backdrop Garland created.
I think it would have been better, though, if Lee had been given more of a backstory if the meat of the film is largely her and the young photographer as mother/daughter like figures.
I can understand that, though on the other hand, I get why Garland didn't do that. The movie was all about moving forward-- the reporters on their inexorable journey to the capitol, the rebel forces doing likewise, and even the nation moving into an unknown future-- that to stop and tell a story from the past would have broken that momentum. I think we got the basic idea that Lee was just like Jessie when she was young, which is why she's torn between protecting her from ending up where she is now and helping her get there.
The film could have gone in a lot of directions. It could have given us battles and action, politics and debates, or deep character studies, but instead it focused on what it's like to be an embedded journalist. I found that interesting. I've always known that the people taking the pictures and writing the stories about war are there, but I'd never considered just how close to the action they are, and how much danger they're actually in.
I thought it was all kind of thin gruel. Either the writing was just lame or they tried too hard to divorce it from current events, but who were these journalists? Random freelancers as society crumbles? Who do they work for or sell their work too? What the hell is journalism during a civil war?
I think the characters came off surprisingly thin, despite Dunst's fairly good acting.
There's nothing "gripping" about enlightened centrism. Also Alex has clear never talked to a war journalist before. Also also his "points" are 30 years late as social media killed this a long time ago.
shareYou can see on this board how the lack of the movie taking a side has people on both the left and the right seeing what they choose to see in the movie.
shareAnd remarkably dull. All the characters were predictable caricatures. This supposed modern civil war was merely a backdrop for a story about photojournalists who care less about human suffering than they do about getting blood and carnage on film. Even the dinky little brat couldn't resist snapping off a few right as her supposed mentor (Dunst) was getting shot. It didn't even occur to her, apparently, to try to kick out her legs and save her. It seems that the crass opportunism of the media is all we're supposed to get out of this story. This is the only film I've seen from Alex Garland, and based on this he's a hack without any clue about how to make a compelling film with characters anyone should give a damn about.