>>211382005 (OP)Garland imagined as a journalist-centered story about what they go through when they cover conflict and set it in America to make it edgy. A24 had the brilliant idea to market it as some legitimate alternative history, teasing world building, factions, motivations. It was none of that. A marketing stunt that paid off.
Civil wars are personal because you have people that were “one” and then fractioned and started killing each other.
The whole State vs State thing is idiotic because the moment something like this happens, state lines will disappear. We’re not in the 1860s. Today identity is more cultural than territorial. Red vs Blue, urban vs rural, white vs non-white.
And it was 100% political.
- The President was so obviously a Trump stand in: the hairdo, the speeches, him being hated by the press and ordering journos shot on sight in DC
- we see a blonde white woman weaving an American flag committing a terrorist attack against diverse civilians in a NY “liberated” by the CA-TX alliance.
- TX & CA wasn’t some sort of dummie excuse to say “nah it’s all made up: TX and CA joining up isn’t far fetched at all; both are minority white states, with blue cities and red rural areas. TX is going to be CA 2.0 soon. The movie is supposed to take place in the early 2030s.
- most acts of violence and war crimes are committed by whites.
- not a single instance of urban racial warfare, riots, nothing coming from minorities.
- the secret service SS (!) protecting the president we’re all white.
- I am supposed to believe that the President remained in DC (and not even in a bunker but in the White House) as the war was going on steps away?
There’s more but it’s just so messy. A literal war porn movie with very shallow messaging and some banal “it could happen here” as if we didn’t know there was an actual civil war here.
Alex Garland cemented himself as someone dripping with overconfidence who thinks is way smarter than he is.