1. It seems likely that at some point in 2021 the Biden Administration made a conscious decision to treat January 6th as a normal criminal matter, rather than as a threat to the Republic akin to Fort Sumter which would justify the use of extrajudicial measures, such as throwing Trump in prison and worrying about due process later. And I wonder if Alex Garland style scenes were running through their heads when they decided to exercise political restraint. Furthermore, my guess is that the fears encapsulated in Civil War will aid Trump if he makes a second bid for dictatorship, whether as a legally elected president, or a disgruntled loser.
2. Ten years ago, this movie would have been perceived as wildly fictional; today, however, it feels remotely possible. I don’t know if Trump changed America, or if he’s just a manifestation of changes that were already happening; but, in any case, the country definitely has changed. For proof of this, look no further than Ross Douthat’s column in which he feels the need to explain why a civil war is very unlikely to happen. If America was in a better place, no such explanation would be required.
3. The scene where the just starting out photographer is thrown into an uncovered mass grave and then has to get out of it is artistically brilliant, and profoundly disturbing.
4. From a political, as opposed to a human perspective, the most disturbing part of the movie were the scenes of highly organized military forces attacking Washington, DC and the White House, and ultimately shooting the president. I get that the film suggests that the president had devolved into being a brutal dictator, but we don’t actually see any of that. What we do see are US military forces who have joined the rebellion seizing control of the nation’s capital. It’s jarring, uncomfortable stuff.
5. I am sincerely grateful that Speaker Johnson decided to buck his party over Ukraine last week. His statesmanship gives me at least a transient hope regarding America’s political future.
Thanks Daniel. We're told the Right encourages the kind of division that starts civil wars, but is this so? Most is speculation about what "might" happen. But let's look at what "is" happening. Calls to alter SCOTUS. Using partisan courts to attack opponents. Demands for the end of legacy institutions like the electoral college and the filibuster. Demonizing half of America (Biden's famous fascist label). If the Left is concerned about abuses and division, they can start by addressing their own efforts.
Calls to alter SCOTUS are not the as serious as the actual alteration of SCOTUS by the right by denying the right of the president to fill vaccancues in 2016.
Trump falsely claims to be the rightful president and some people believe him. This is an very serious high crime, being a way many historical civil wars have happened in history. They convicted Capone of tax evasion, but that charge wasn't the reason they persecuted him as you would see it.
You're wrong. Altering SCOTUS strikes at a bedrock tradition, far more dangerous than the typical political maneuvering you cite. Then addressing your "Trump falsely claims to be the rightful president" statement. No he doesn't. He's not insane, he knows he is not the legal president, and has never said so. What he has said is that his loss was due to partisan high-jinks, and stating this opinion is not a crime of any sort.
Trump said he won the election and acted to try to make this a reality. Ordinary citizens are entitled to express opinions they don't mean. Presidents are not, because their opinion can carry real-world consequences. If they do so, it may not be a statutory crime, but it is a high crime.
As for alternating SCOTUS, the number of seats is not set in the constitution and HAS, in the past, been changed by the sort of political maneuvering you dismiss when your side does it. On the other hand, we have never had a sitting president deny the results of an election he lost.
Again, with all respect, you're dead wrong. Presidents are allowed the same First Amendment rights as anyone else, and Trump is allowed to say and act however he pleases, within the law.
Yes, SCOTUS numbers have changed in the past. 150 years past (!) I said it before, the Democrat attacks on our legacy institutions are far more concerning than anyone's opinions on the election. Overturn long-held norms in the way elections and courts operate and you'll have trouble, all right. All the trouble you want.
The concept of "allowed" doesn't really apply to a president. An "allowing authority" is the great power. Who has the greater power than the president? Nobody. The Constitution works in this situation when the president, of his own volition, chooses to accept the results of an election. This was the tradition set by Washington when he voluntarily chose to step down and return to life as a private citizen. Trump broke that tradition by denying that he lost and then taking steps to stay in office including calling election officials to persuade them to fudge the vote totals in his favor, its on tape.
Yes, talking about changing the SCOTUS is norm breaking, but so was failing to allow a vote for Garland. And Trumps denial that he lost is norm breaking of a 230 year tradition.
There's norm breaking everywhere, we are in the secular cycle crisis, what do you expect?
The movie is accurate af, the possibilities are tremendous, specially focusing strength everywhere and not in main issues inside the country, political fights, and social disorientation with all the woke agenda are a cocktail that make this movie sacary close to a possible outcome. Something like Jan 6 was a sign, luckily for the US wrong people there they just wanted to act as college boys. Give that chance to structured group. And the movie becomes real.
What I found unbelievable was the empty roads implying the riskiness of travel, coupled with the danger faced by the journalists on their trip which supports this implication.
But if travel is dangerous how is it the gas stations have gas, and mass starvation and epidemic disease is not everywhere? And people are still mowing their lawns in a warzone?
Personally I found the use of the De La Soul track to be an odd choice...and indeed at least one section the loudness struck me as a bit much. I do agree the vlisingsection was quite well done.
Just like "ISS" this is a semi-reasonable extrapolation which I chose to not support with my money or attention. We know what might happen; we don't need to glamorize it.
What’s the mystery here? Garland didn’t want to make “Red Dawn”, or “Terminator”, by linking his future to specifics in our present. To do so, he would have to take sides in our present. There are many voices of all stripes who fear (or desire) that today’s crises will provoke civil war. To pick a narrative aligned with one of those voices would be picking a side. All of which would distract from the movie the *artist* wanted to make. (That Douthat is mystified and peeved is merely a bonus.)
I thought the movie’s politics were obvious and clear: the president is Trump, he caused a civil war by seizing absolute power, the forces that oppose him are probably in the right but they are themselves so brutalized by the conflict they may be no better. We are supposed to be thrilled by his summary execution but feel guilty about our reaction. The film tries to avoid being preachy by leaving some details vague.
If there were a civil war in this country, which region was on which side would be determined by which military units rebelled, not by what party a given state voted for.
Five thoughts:
1. It seems likely that at some point in 2021 the Biden Administration made a conscious decision to treat January 6th as a normal criminal matter, rather than as a threat to the Republic akin to Fort Sumter which would justify the use of extrajudicial measures, such as throwing Trump in prison and worrying about due process later. And I wonder if Alex Garland style scenes were running through their heads when they decided to exercise political restraint. Furthermore, my guess is that the fears encapsulated in Civil War will aid Trump if he makes a second bid for dictatorship, whether as a legally elected president, or a disgruntled loser.
2. Ten years ago, this movie would have been perceived as wildly fictional; today, however, it feels remotely possible. I don’t know if Trump changed America, or if he’s just a manifestation of changes that were already happening; but, in any case, the country definitely has changed. For proof of this, look no further than Ross Douthat’s column in which he feels the need to explain why a civil war is very unlikely to happen. If America was in a better place, no such explanation would be required.
3. The scene where the just starting out photographer is thrown into an uncovered mass grave and then has to get out of it is artistically brilliant, and profoundly disturbing.
4. From a political, as opposed to a human perspective, the most disturbing part of the movie were the scenes of highly organized military forces attacking Washington, DC and the White House, and ultimately shooting the president. I get that the film suggests that the president had devolved into being a brutal dictator, but we don’t actually see any of that. What we do see are US military forces who have joined the rebellion seizing control of the nation’s capital. It’s jarring, uncomfortable stuff.
5. I am sincerely grateful that Speaker Johnson decided to buck his party over Ukraine last week. His statesmanship gives me at least a transient hope regarding America’s political future.
Thanks Daniel. We're told the Right encourages the kind of division that starts civil wars, but is this so? Most is speculation about what "might" happen. But let's look at what "is" happening. Calls to alter SCOTUS. Using partisan courts to attack opponents. Demands for the end of legacy institutions like the electoral college and the filibuster. Demonizing half of America (Biden's famous fascist label). If the Left is concerned about abuses and division, they can start by addressing their own efforts.
Calls to alter SCOTUS are not the as serious as the actual alteration of SCOTUS by the right by denying the right of the president to fill vaccancues in 2016.
Trump falsely claims to be the rightful president and some people believe him. This is an very serious high crime, being a way many historical civil wars have happened in history. They convicted Capone of tax evasion, but that charge wasn't the reason they persecuted him as you would see it.
You're wrong. Altering SCOTUS strikes at a bedrock tradition, far more dangerous than the typical political maneuvering you cite. Then addressing your "Trump falsely claims to be the rightful president" statement. No he doesn't. He's not insane, he knows he is not the legal president, and has never said so. What he has said is that his loss was due to partisan high-jinks, and stating this opinion is not a crime of any sort.
Trump said he won the election and acted to try to make this a reality. Ordinary citizens are entitled to express opinions they don't mean. Presidents are not, because their opinion can carry real-world consequences. If they do so, it may not be a statutory crime, but it is a high crime.
As for alternating SCOTUS, the number of seats is not set in the constitution and HAS, in the past, been changed by the sort of political maneuvering you dismiss when your side does it. On the other hand, we have never had a sitting president deny the results of an election he lost.
Again, with all respect, you're dead wrong. Presidents are allowed the same First Amendment rights as anyone else, and Trump is allowed to say and act however he pleases, within the law.
Yes, SCOTUS numbers have changed in the past. 150 years past (!) I said it before, the Democrat attacks on our legacy institutions are far more concerning than anyone's opinions on the election. Overturn long-held norms in the way elections and courts operate and you'll have trouble, all right. All the trouble you want.
The concept of "allowed" doesn't really apply to a president. An "allowing authority" is the great power. Who has the greater power than the president? Nobody. The Constitution works in this situation when the president, of his own volition, chooses to accept the results of an election. This was the tradition set by Washington when he voluntarily chose to step down and return to life as a private citizen. Trump broke that tradition by denying that he lost and then taking steps to stay in office including calling election officials to persuade them to fudge the vote totals in his favor, its on tape.
Yes, talking about changing the SCOTUS is norm breaking, but so was failing to allow a vote for Garland. And Trumps denial that he lost is norm breaking of a 230 year tradition.
There's norm breaking everywhere, we are in the secular cycle crisis, what do you expect?
The movie is accurate af, the possibilities are tremendous, specially focusing strength everywhere and not in main issues inside the country, political fights, and social disorientation with all the woke agenda are a cocktail that make this movie sacary close to a possible outcome. Something like Jan 6 was a sign, luckily for the US wrong people there they just wanted to act as college boys. Give that chance to structured group. And the movie becomes real.
What I found unbelievable was the empty roads implying the riskiness of travel, coupled with the danger faced by the journalists on their trip which supports this implication.
But if travel is dangerous how is it the gas stations have gas, and mass starvation and epidemic disease is not everywhere? And people are still mowing their lawns in a warzone?
Kirsten Dunst may be "best known for girlish roles", but have you seen "Melancholia"? 😯
Personally I found the use of the De La Soul track to be an odd choice...and indeed at least one section the loudness struck me as a bit much. I do agree the vlisingsection was quite well done.
Just like "ISS" this is a semi-reasonable extrapolation which I chose to not support with my money or attention. We know what might happen; we don't need to glamorize it.
What’s the mystery here? Garland didn’t want to make “Red Dawn”, or “Terminator”, by linking his future to specifics in our present. To do so, he would have to take sides in our present. There are many voices of all stripes who fear (or desire) that today’s crises will provoke civil war. To pick a narrative aligned with one of those voices would be picking a side. All of which would distract from the movie the *artist* wanted to make. (That Douthat is mystified and peeved is merely a bonus.)
I thought the movie’s politics were obvious and clear: the president is Trump, he caused a civil war by seizing absolute power, the forces that oppose him are probably in the right but they are themselves so brutalized by the conflict they may be no better. We are supposed to be thrilled by his summary execution but feel guilty about our reaction. The film tries to avoid being preachy by leaving some details vague.
If there were a civil war in this country, which region was on which side would be determined by which military units rebelled, not by what party a given state voted for.
I would add if there were a civil war, it would be because of a breakdown in our legal system, or even just the widespread belief.