During the Second China Shock nearly all advanced manufacturing and other major industries were taken over by China. BYD crushed Tesla. China won the AI race.
To try to keep Chinese goods out tariffs were erected, but by relocating much production/assembly to mexico China was able to use nafta to get around this.
The Green New Deal and Chips Act also turned out to be major flops, but Mexico was immune to this as American became less competitive.
Meanwhile, boomer retirement and reckless spending caused a fiscal crises and China dumping treasuries wrecked the currency.
Demographic changes and Chinese backed Mexican economic strength caused Texas to flip blue in the 2030s.
Electorally this was offset by the entire rust belt flipping solid red as well as some places in the Mid Atlantic or Northeast turning against this Mexico/China alliance.
The western forces are Chinese/Mexican proxy agents and the end of the movie shows their victory in the proxy war. The United States will henceforth be a puppet state (or perhaps carved up). Perhaps promises of independence were what kept the Florida alliance on the sidelines (and clearly they allowed western forces through their territory).
Was expecting this movie to be about decrying Trump and the fascists supposedly poised to take over the country (what a ridiculous notion). It's fascinating that you say it takes a mostly apolitical stance. I strongly suspect there is a large contingent of people who would want an Alex Garland type civil war--where they can remain timidly apolitical and sit on the sidelines even as history moves forward, anything to avoid having to answer the hard questions.
I don't think the director is trying to thread a needle, I think he fully embraced orders to create a propaganda piece.
Before release I theorized that the movie would be a propaganda film whose main goal would be to make the Right scared of a CW, so that we would lie back and take it in the ass till the end. I based this mostly on what you say here:
"California and Texas are allied part of the same political coalition, which bears zero resemblance to current Year America — but that’s exactly the point."
The whole map was designed as if the intention was to take away any argument that a coherent ideological side existed. Even the Mormon states are on different sides. Completely ridiculous if it was intended to be a believable setting for a story in the near-future. Why even have multiple sides on a map except to divide people up randomly, when the movie only has 2 sides: DC and everyone else. It only makes sense if the point is to remove ideology from the propaganda message. The brilliant (but deceptive) trailer even had the star say something like, "I sent pictures home to warn people CW is Bad, but here we are doing it anyway."
During the movie, as you note, she says something like this:
"One of the journalists makes an offhand comment that after ransacking Washington, DC, the secessionist armies will splinter and turn against each other."
Another warning to us Dirt People to not revolt against our masters, as it won't gain us anything any way. From my perspective, even if the message is correct that it will burn everything down without us winning anything, I'm still fine with that. I'd rather end up in eternal Mad Max than eternal Global Soviet Union, which seems to be their End Game.
I think you are right when you focus on the fact that the movie is about the women (Dunst and the young woman). It is about a changing of the guards. It's about how women ruin everything (like ALL of his movies are). I am also glad you didn't say the President is Trumpian...
"Another basic rule of narrative structure is violated: In proper drama, the hero should be an underdog trapped in an impossible situation with a much stronger or smarter enemy, and the urgency of a ticking clock threatening the arrival or outbreak of some terrible crisis. "
That said, with the above quote I think you need to realise it ISN'T about civil war, so none of the why or dramatic tension matters. It's about the journalists. You want to see the president interviewed BUT NOT he is killed instead. He's a goddamn Brit talking about America! It's just an interesting place to set a civil war. Did you read Prophet Song? It is about a civil war...in Ireland! There aren't too many reasons given or conclusions made in that. Or what about Leave The World Behind? Again, civil war breaks out and there are not just no reasons given, but multiple answers! Anyway, this is all to say that Civil War The Movie is not about civil war and definitely not about American politics.
Agree that the movie was underwhelming from almost all angles. Though I actually thought the sniper scene was one of the better vignettes because it resonated with the veteran in me, and I laughed out loud at the dialogue.
Great review. Although, the primary secessionists seemed to the Western Alliance and I'm not sure the characterization you give to the secessionists works there as they didn't really ever explain them or even implicitly. Except, I'm not at all sure they were trying to get that at this but if they were, I like it; their being an alliance of Texas and Cali suggests that they've united over material reasons, which, if in the very unlikely event of an American Civil war, is how I'm pretty sure the lines would be drawn
The thing about Derrida and Bloom is they were both that famous character of folklore: the Jewish trickster. In effect, they were both carnies peddling an intellectual version of the coconut shy, a rigged game designed to draw you in, lure you with a promise of wealth (or, in their case, insight) and then leave you empty handed.
Both of these hucksters pimped critical structures that were unfalsifiable, just bald and bold assertions of authority backed by nothing of substance. And what's worse is they made literature BORING. Every text was put through the same meat grinder and created the same sausage, from Beowulf to Virginia Woolf as they say. Everything, EVERYTHING, just meant the same thing, and none of it was interesting. They destroyed literature for a generation of students, and then the grievance mongers came along and made it even worse.
But what they really accomplished was giving the hordes of less scheming academics a method for easy-to-create, highly publishable articles. Of course they were grateful. In the process, Derrida and Bloom both became quite wealthy, by the standards of academia. And they diddled who knows how many students (I don't know either's sexual preferences). It was a masterful con job. You almost have to admire their colossal gall. In the end, they just left a pile of dust. An hour spent with a real critic, like R.P. Blackmur or Marius Bewley, will give you more genuine insight than a lifetime with Derrida and Bloom, the Bialystock and Bloom of lit crit.
PS - If you want a genuinely brilliant takedown of Derrida, check out Frederick Crews' "Skeptical Engagements." After Crews is done with him, Derrida is like a shit stain on a sidewalk.
The year is 2044.
During the Second China Shock nearly all advanced manufacturing and other major industries were taken over by China. BYD crushed Tesla. China won the AI race.
To try to keep Chinese goods out tariffs were erected, but by relocating much production/assembly to mexico China was able to use nafta to get around this.
The Green New Deal and Chips Act also turned out to be major flops, but Mexico was immune to this as American became less competitive.
Meanwhile, boomer retirement and reckless spending caused a fiscal crises and China dumping treasuries wrecked the currency.
Demographic changes and Chinese backed Mexican economic strength caused Texas to flip blue in the 2030s.
Electorally this was offset by the entire rust belt flipping solid red as well as some places in the Mid Atlantic or Northeast turning against this Mexico/China alliance.
The western forces are Chinese/Mexican proxy agents and the end of the movie shows their victory in the proxy war. The United States will henceforth be a puppet state (or perhaps carved up). Perhaps promises of independence were what kept the Florida alliance on the sidelines (and clearly they allowed western forces through their territory).
Interestingly, if this had been a movie where journalists are hunted for sport, it’d have probably grossed $1.B domestically on opening weekend.
Was expecting this movie to be about decrying Trump and the fascists supposedly poised to take over the country (what a ridiculous notion). It's fascinating that you say it takes a mostly apolitical stance. I strongly suspect there is a large contingent of people who would want an Alex Garland type civil war--where they can remain timidly apolitical and sit on the sidelines even as history moves forward, anything to avoid having to answer the hard questions.
I don't think the director is trying to thread a needle, I think he fully embraced orders to create a propaganda piece.
Before release I theorized that the movie would be a propaganda film whose main goal would be to make the Right scared of a CW, so that we would lie back and take it in the ass till the end. I based this mostly on what you say here:
"California and Texas are allied part of the same political coalition, which bears zero resemblance to current Year America — but that’s exactly the point."
The whole map was designed as if the intention was to take away any argument that a coherent ideological side existed. Even the Mormon states are on different sides. Completely ridiculous if it was intended to be a believable setting for a story in the near-future. Why even have multiple sides on a map except to divide people up randomly, when the movie only has 2 sides: DC and everyone else. It only makes sense if the point is to remove ideology from the propaganda message. The brilliant (but deceptive) trailer even had the star say something like, "I sent pictures home to warn people CW is Bad, but here we are doing it anyway."
During the movie, as you note, she says something like this:
"One of the journalists makes an offhand comment that after ransacking Washington, DC, the secessionist armies will splinter and turn against each other."
Another warning to us Dirt People to not revolt against our masters, as it won't gain us anything any way. From my perspective, even if the message is correct that it will burn everything down without us winning anything, I'm still fine with that. I'd rather end up in eternal Mad Max than eternal Global Soviet Union, which seems to be their End Game.
I think you are right when you focus on the fact that the movie is about the women (Dunst and the young woman). It is about a changing of the guards. It's about how women ruin everything (like ALL of his movies are). I am also glad you didn't say the President is Trumpian...
"Another basic rule of narrative structure is violated: In proper drama, the hero should be an underdog trapped in an impossible situation with a much stronger or smarter enemy, and the urgency of a ticking clock threatening the arrival or outbreak of some terrible crisis. "
That said, with the above quote I think you need to realise it ISN'T about civil war, so none of the why or dramatic tension matters. It's about the journalists. You want to see the president interviewed BUT NOT he is killed instead. He's a goddamn Brit talking about America! It's just an interesting place to set a civil war. Did you read Prophet Song? It is about a civil war...in Ireland! There aren't too many reasons given or conclusions made in that. Or what about Leave The World Behind? Again, civil war breaks out and there are not just no reasons given, but multiple answers! Anyway, this is all to say that Civil War The Movie is not about civil war and definitely not about American politics.
Agree that the movie was underwhelming from almost all angles. Though I actually thought the sniper scene was one of the better vignettes because it resonated with the veteran in me, and I laughed out loud at the dialogue.
Predictive programming. Why do the Boomers still fall for it?
Fantastic social media excerpts in here. Have never read you before Psycho. Great stuff!
Much deep, depth here.
Great review. Although, the primary secessionists seemed to the Western Alliance and I'm not sure the characterization you give to the secessionists works there as they didn't really ever explain them or even implicitly. Except, I'm not at all sure they were trying to get that at this but if they were, I like it; their being an alliance of Texas and Cali suggests that they've united over material reasons, which, if in the very unlikely event of an American Civil war, is how I'm pretty sure the lines would be drawn
“The marketing campaign for this film has been marvelous.”
I've literally never heard of this movie
Morality irrelevant when in war, and original causes forgotten.
Hard truth.
The conception and execution of this piece was phenomenal! Kudos to you.
And I'm not even an American.
Get
Those
Red
Things
Off
Your
Face
Hit after hit, great essay as usual.
The thing about Derrida and Bloom is they were both that famous character of folklore: the Jewish trickster. In effect, they were both carnies peddling an intellectual version of the coconut shy, a rigged game designed to draw you in, lure you with a promise of wealth (or, in their case, insight) and then leave you empty handed.
Both of these hucksters pimped critical structures that were unfalsifiable, just bald and bold assertions of authority backed by nothing of substance. And what's worse is they made literature BORING. Every text was put through the same meat grinder and created the same sausage, from Beowulf to Virginia Woolf as they say. Everything, EVERYTHING, just meant the same thing, and none of it was interesting. They destroyed literature for a generation of students, and then the grievance mongers came along and made it even worse.
But what they really accomplished was giving the hordes of less scheming academics a method for easy-to-create, highly publishable articles. Of course they were grateful. In the process, Derrida and Bloom both became quite wealthy, by the standards of academia. And they diddled who knows how many students (I don't know either's sexual preferences). It was a masterful con job. You almost have to admire their colossal gall. In the end, they just left a pile of dust. An hour spent with a real critic, like R.P. Blackmur or Marius Bewley, will give you more genuine insight than a lifetime with Derrida and Bloom, the Bialystock and Bloom of lit crit.
PS - If you want a genuinely brilliant takedown of Derrida, check out Frederick Crews' "Skeptical Engagements." After Crews is done with him, Derrida is like a shit stain on a sidewalk.