If one is willing to turn one's brain off and not ask questions about the setting and/or about larger issues, this is a solid action-thriller with very good performances, particularly by Kirsten Dunst. The director, Alex Garland, did an excellent job. Unfortunately, I have a difficult time turning my brain off. This film has problems that can be blamed on the writer, Alex Garland. Below, I will discuss my problems with Garland the writer. While reading that, remember that Garland the director did a very good job.
The basic premise of the film is plausible. I believe that the United States is headed toward civil war. If that statement sounds a bit alarmist, I will say that the United States is headed toward civil war in the sense that a car travelling west on Interstate 80 through Salt Lake City is headed toward San Francisco. The car could easily stop, turn around, or exit and go a different direction. However, if the car does not do those things, it will eventually reach San Francisco.
Likewise, the United States could stop, turn around, or change course. However, if it does not, we will have a civil war. Worse, if I were to make this analogy a few years ago, I probably would have had the car travelling west through Des Moines instead of through Salt Lake City.
[Just in case readers from outside the United States have not already figured out what I am saying, Interstate 80 is a major highway that extends from San Francisco on the west coast almost to New York City on the east coast. Des Moines is roughly at the midpoint of the highway. Salt Lake City is quite a bit to the west of Des Moines.]
The problem with the film is that Garland seemed to think that if he stated that it took place in the United States and if he used state and city names from the United States, then he does not have to do any worldbuilding.
One reason is that Garland did not seem to want the film to be seen as taking a side on any real-world issue. For example, the film mentioned an "Antifa massacre" while pointedly not mentioning whether Antifa members were the perpetrators or the victims of the massacre. This ideological squishiness seemed to have worked financially in that
an equal number of liberals and conservatives went to see the film.
There seems to be a general consensus that the most egregious example of Garland's ignorance of American politics is the idea that California and Texas would be on the same side of a civil war. They are on opposite sides ideologically. Their governors frequently engage in immature trash talking about each other's state. If these two states were on the same side on an issue, it would be likely that most, if not all, of the rest of the United States would be on that same side. If that were the case, there would be plenty of non-violent ways to get rid of a bad president.
According to Garland, California and Texas turned against the president because he was too fascist. However, not every state in the film turned against the president. Here is a map from Wikipedia that illustrates the factions in the film:
Legend: - Blue—Loyalist
- Yellow—New People's Army
- Red—Florida Alliance
- Green—Western Forces
Supposedly, the president was so fascist that even Texas turned on him, but New England and New York remained loyal. Is Garland suggesting that Texas is to the left of New England and New York (and New Jersey and Illinois)? There is a saying that it OK to include the impossible in a work of speculative fiction but not the implausible. Portraying Texas as being to the left of New England and New York falls in the implausible camp.
To be blunt, this film makes it look like Garland is very ignorant about American politics. He is from England, so he might not have the exposure to American politics that someone who lives in the United States would have. I do not think that I would do any better if I were to write a screenplay about a civil war in, say, France. However, I am not writing a screenplay about a civil war in France. A person who is ignorant about American politics should not write politically-charged films that take place in the United States.
I do not believe that only Americans should be allowed to write politically-charged films about the United States. Often, an outsider sees things that an insider would not. However, the outsider needs to understand what is actually going on in the United States.
This film could easily have been set in a fictitious nation with little change. It was set in the United States supposedly to enhance audience reaction to the film. However, too little information is given about the various sides for me to care about any of them.
If Garland does not want to say anything about current American politics, what is he trying to say? As best as I can tell from what is written about the film, he is trying to say two things: "War is bad" and "Journalists are heroes." The problem is that there was a film that came out last year called
20 Days in Mariupol that did a much better job at saying both of those things.
I have a couple more comments that I will put in spoiler tags:
One thing that I do not believe is that Jessie would go quickly from reacting to danger like a normal person would to being a
Leeroy Jenkins. A transition that takes place over a few months would be plausible but not over just a couple of days.
For those who did not click on the link, a Leeroy Jenkins (a.k.a. Daisy Johnson) is a character who charges into danger without any thought to her or his own safety or to the safety of teammates who feel obligated to save the Leeroy Jenkins.
Speaking of which, when Jessie asked if Lee would photograph Jessie being shot, it became way too obvious that one would shoot (with a camera) the other being shot (with a gun) at the end of the film. It is possible for foreshadowing to be subtle.
Finally, I want to emphasize that much of the above is just me overthinking things. This is still a very good action thriller for people who do not care about the things that I talked about.