Civil War

Fifty-three-year-old British director of meditative, Tarkovsky-esque sci-fi Annihilation (2018) has given up his more artistic and reflective qualities in favour of a commercial, formulaic and predictable film entirely devoid of social and political undertones. Civil War portrays a near future when the Unites States have broken down. Secessionists have taken control of Texas and California, and other rebel groups are steadily making gains elsewhere. The country is crumbling to pieces. The objective of the breakaway forces is to reach Washington and murder the serving Potus (played by Nick Offerman), an unscrupulous politician now on his third term.

While not marketed as a “post-apocalyptical” film, Civil War is indeed structured like an entry to the genre. The cities have mostly been deserted, the road are piled with abandoned cars, and a sense of hopelessness and impotence prevails. What could be worse than an American president being killed? Surely the end is nigh. The world of Americans is so neatly confined to their borders this often feels like the end of the world. Or a world war.

Our protagonists are Lee (Kirsten Dunst) and Joel (Wagner Moura), two Reuters journalists capturing the implosion of the empire with their lenses. They are supported by Jessie (Cailee Spaeny), an aspiring journalist whom Lee saves from a suicide bombing, and Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson), a veteran writer for the New York Times, and some sort of group mentor. In reality, we barely see these people write and conduct interviews, so perhaps it would be more accurate to describe them as photojournalists, The foursome head towards Washington on a mission to interview the president before he falls. Lee explains that she is disillusioned by her job, and thinks that her duty is solely to report, leaving viewers to draw their own conclusions (a very strange notion of journalism, a trade that mandates interpretation and criticism). It is never entirely clear why she forges ahead with what she perceives as a dangerous and pointless job nevertheless. Joel’s sentiments and driving forces are even less clear, in a movie that prioritises action ahead of character development.

They stop at Charlottesville, where the Western Forces of Texas and California are preparing for the final assault and takeover of the White House. It is never clear why Garland, who also penned the film script, chose the sleepy Virginia town for such momentous congregation. This is where the violent white supremacist rallies of 2017 took place (then-president Trump described the marchers as “very fine people”). I have no idea whether the director/scribe is trying to make some sort of political statement. Is he trying to say that the rebels are as dangerous as the racist far-right? Is he suggesting that a self-serving president such Trump or the nameless one here depicted could herald the demise of the United States? Your guess is as good as mine.

The American flag is conspicuous, in a morbid mixture of adulation and decadence. The militants are committed to American nationalism and prepared to shoot anyone who’s foreign-born, in a sheer display of xenophobia. Joel survives by asserting that he was indeed born in “America”, despite a pun about Central and South America (presumably a quip about Wagner Moura’s Brazilian origins). Perhaps the rebels simply wish to re-found the United States rather than establish a brand new nation with a different name? The confusing script leaves this and many other questions unanswered.

Civil War providers viewers with the voyeuristic opportunity to watch the Empire fall to pieces. The pulverisation takes place from West to East, in a movement opposite to the Westward Expansion of the 19th century (when the United States grew its territory through both acquisition and occupation). Smoking fields, piling corpses, unrelenting gunshots, deafening fight jets, parading tanks, constant explosions, mass graves, people casually and sadistically murdered are a scenario familiar to those living in Gaza or perhaps Eastern Ukraine. Americans, on the other hand, have not witnessed any recent conflicts on their immaculate soil. It is shocking to see the perpetrator experience the fate of the victims. This is the utter fetishisation of violence and apocalypse, devoid of any significant socio-political meaning. It gets even worse in the end, when the 109-minute movie lapses into complete bang-bang silliness.

Despite being made an accomplished director from Britain with some arthouse sensibilities, this is just another Hollywood thriller with absolutely nothing to say.

Civil War is in cinemas on Friday, April 12th.

Demons in Paradise

QUICK SNAP: LIVE FROM CANNES

This film is both extremely personal and extremely universal. Personal because Canada-based Tamil-born documentarist Jude Ratnam travels back to his homeland Sri Lanka, which he fled decades earlier as a refugee, and opens up profound wounds of the past. And universal because it’s borderline impossible not to relate to his tragic personal history.

Demons in Paradise explores the Civil War between the dominant Sinhalese and the abject Tamil, which has ravaged the country since its independence from the UK. The demons in the title are the ghosts of an irresponsible handover from the British colonisers to the Sinhalese in 1948, the director clarifies very early on in the movie. This conflict remains largely unknown or ignored in the West, making this documentary an extremely urgent denunciation tool and piece of filmmaking.

One of the most powerful moments in the movie is the emotional moment when director encounters the family who hid his family from the Sinhalese oppressors, who would undoubtedly had killed them. Later on in the movie, the director breaks down as he recalls two friends who sheltered him but never survived the conflict. He also remembers how he had to disguise himself as farmer in order to flee the country, and how speaking Tamil could lead to immediate death. The linguistic oppression might ring some bells in Europe, particularly to Spanish people who experienced the Franco regime. Sadly Jude Ratnam’s experience is less foreign than we’d like to think.

The banal cruelty of the Sinhalese would make an excellent case study for Hannah Arendt. They would pierce Tamil militants in the eyes, burn their back with a hot iron, throw them off fast-moving trains, shoot them through the head (in a practice nicknamed “crown of flowers”) and burn children alive inside tires doused in petrol.

The director wraps up the film by noting that the Civil War may be over, but the latent hatred and fear are not. He believes that the problems haven’t been solved, and therefore the conflict could resume at any moment. This is not the only film this year to expose the consequences of cynical and careless British imperialism in Asia. Gurinder Chadha’s Viceroy’s House dealt with the issue in neighbouring India.

Demons in Paradise is showing as part of the 70th Cannes International Film Festival. The movie is a special screening, and it’s not in the official competition. The importance of the film should not be understated: this is the first Sri Lankan film ever to show in the Festival.