“War is the continuation of politics by other means.”
― Carl von Clausewitz
Having seen Denis Villeneuve’s “Dune Part 2” and Alex Garland’s “Civil War” in IMAX recently, there’s plenty to unpack. Both films qualify as speculative fiction, each being relevant to the human experience in its own way. While Villeneuve’s interpretation of Frank Herbert’s saga presents a far less controversial spectacle compared to Garland’s road trip, “Dune” could be misconstrued by moviegoers as a classic Hero’s Journey, when it’s really more like “Game of Thrones in Space”.
Could there be a meaningful coincidence in the release of these films in 2024? The most obvious parallel is that an empire collapses in both. Indeed, the “Civil War” trailer puts it bluntly: ALL EMPIRES FALL. The process is messy but surely necessary.
“In the end, the good guys win, right?”
Star Wars Meets Lawrence of Arabia
Yeah, you could say it’s more nuanced than that. My sense of Villeneuve’s “Dune” is that the protagonist Paul Atreides struggles not only against his outer opponents, the greedy psychopathic Harkonnens and Emperor Shaddam IV, but against Fate. It sure doesn’t help that Paul foresees that billions will die across the galaxy if he accepts his destiny, leads the fanatical Space Muslims, vanquishes his foes, and seizes the reins of imperial power. In the end, Fate wins.
“I’m not their messiah! Oh wait, I am. Thanks, Mom.”
That’s a tough sell for audiences conditioned to believe in free will, and to his credit Villeneuve did not pander to that belief. Whether or not he stuck the landing is a matter of opinion. If I’m playing film critic, I’d say the two leads (Timothée Chalamet and Zendaya), like most actors of their generation, lack the iconic star power of Hollywood’s Golden Age legends. Why that is, I’m not sure, but the spectacle of “Dune” is much bigger than they are, and that gap is bound to increase in the next installment. It’s the downside of adapting such an epic story: how does one portray a character who becomes godlike and still keep him relatable? It’s almost like trying to play Arjuna in “The Mahabharata”. In the long run, the path of mutation leads to a posthuman monstrosity less Shakespearean and more Lovecraftian than audiences may be ready to deal with. Fun times.
“If first you believe, then you can achieve!”
Fear and Loathing in Washington
As for Garland’s “Civil War,” the controversy about its merits, flaws, and intentions has revealed its magic mirror quality, reflecting what we project into it. The film’s supporters and detractors have made valid points, not all of which Garland wanted to hear. To be fair, any attempt to write the story of America’s downfall from a “neutral perspective” by adopting the POV of apolitical journalists cannot help but look disingenuous to viewers who are rightly cynical about the media’s effects on society.
Example: Does he remind you of anyone in particular? Or is this a generic white man who could have come from any party, from some alternate universe? If Donald Trump had not been elected in 2016, would this film even have been made?
Here’s a thought: What if the President were female, or black, or both, and had to deal with an existential threat, like an environmental and economic collapse in multiple states? What if her emergency responses were perceived as a draconian abuse of power when they adversely affect people in other regions? That is, what if the story had a real political context, so all the factions have rational motives for their actions?
Garland made the conscious choice to focus on the effects of civil war, not its causes, to make his cautionary tale hit harder for the broadest demographic. The proximate causes shown have to do with states that seceded (the “Western Forces” of California & Texas, and the Florida Alliance). The film starts quite late in the game, with military forces from these states fighting to overthrow what’s left of the federal government in Washington, D.C. Maybe the President went overboard with his oppressive policies and airstrikes, enough to unite disparate factions (temporarily), but for sure the gloves are off. Our band of plucky reporters are going after the Big Scoop: an interview with the President, which sounds like a really bad idea, because it is.
We might wish for more heroic journalists to go on this road trip into The Heart of Darkness (thematic echoes of “Apocalypse Now” and “Children of Men” abound). To be realistic, these characters aren’t paragons of virtue or mental health, but more like traumatized soldiers just trying to stay alive. Indeed, our Suicide Squad exhibits the war-weary tropes of emotional armor, depression, PTSD, alcoholism, and lapses of judgment that beggar belief. Maybe this is just baseline American behavior now.
“What we have here is a failure to communicate."
“Civil War” shows the ghastly things that happen to people in wars all over the world — only this time it’s special, ‘cos now it’s all about us. Garland crafted a brooding, viscerally disturbing war thriller that disappointed those who wanted an extrapolation from our partisan strife, rather than a parallel timeline in which ideology is the absent father of chaos. He couldn’t have won either way. Maybe in the end, only Fate wins.