I know it’s been quite a while since I published anything on this site or anywhere else for that matter.  It boils down to a nasty case of writers block that has lasted longer then I had hoped.  That block, however, has not precluded my desire to seek out the writings of those around me, Kronykal Jones being one them. 

I’ve quoted this gentleman in a couple of my own blog posts over the years because I have a deep respect for his rationale and opinions, and his innate ability to see through the muddy chum filled waters of social media.  Yesterday Kron posed a simple question on X, formally Twitter. 

Given the present state of our economy, the majority of the replies were what you might expect.  No movie is worth $20 dollars theses days.  So Kron, being Kron, sent out a post stating he was gonna live post his opinions of the movie on X as he watched it.  I perused his posts on the movie for a bit last night, but it was the answer to his original post “Is Civil War worth $20?” that caught my attention this morning. 

I reached out to Kron and asked to repost his answer here on LL1885 and was graciously given permission.  I can’t say the movie is worth $20 bucks, but I confidently believe Kron’s words are worth the read.   Here they are in their entirety.

Ok so this is long. So long it won’t fit on one post. Feel free to skip this but the movie was thought provoking to me. So I have thoughts.

Civil War, the review. I started live tweeting this movie and quickly realized I needed to pay attention in order to really understand the point Alex Garland was trying to make. Because about 30 min in I decided it deserved that.

The answers to whether this film was worth the money to rent it illustrated the fact that this movie is polarizing in the same way that the movie itself was trying to illustrate the polarization of America today. Being an older man and having decades of life experiences I think it’s tragic that 25-30 year olds probably don’t remember a time when the divide we have in this country wasn’t as profound as it is now. I’ve said similar things before and every time I do I’m inevitably met with cynical “It’s always been this way.” comments. And while there has certainly always been division, the vehicles that drive and feed it weren’t there or weren’t as active in not only perpetuating it but making it worse. TV and movies avoided it more than not. Political statements, especially in tv, were more subtle or wrapped in comedy to soften them. Social media didn’t exist. For the most part we had views that we kept to ourselves or in our groups of friends and family and that was it. Even journalism was different in that they mostly reported things without their own commentary. You didn’t know their views because they didn’t tell you. And that was good.

One thing people didn’t like is the focus on the journalists. In this case photo journalists. Journalism has become a punchline. The 4th Estate is no longer trusted by anybody, really. People have their specific journalists they think tell the real truth but others will call those journalists liars and hacks. And they’re all correct. Journalism has done this to itself. The 4th Estate is largely dead and it’s self inflicted. That’s a whole post in itself but it’s a valid criticism of this film. That said, we, as a society, really need journalism. We need what it used to be. In a way it’s supposed to be part of our system of government in that it’s supposed to be one of the checks and balances that the people can trust to keep those in power in check. That’s largely gone now, and that’s a shame. Because I really believe we need it.

This movie doesn’t really show the press as playing a part in the war going on. They’re just taking pictures of the horrors they see. It removes the fact that today’s journalism is actually playing a large part in perpetuating and even widening the divide we have. I would have like to see the acknowledgment of that a bit more. At the same time, photo journalists are different in that they aren’t usually in front of the camera so they don’t really have a stake in the narrative game. So I’ll allow it.

Anyway, the movie was, indeed, worth it to me. The point was clearly to show that we shouldn’t ever actually want a civil war. It would be absolutely horrific. And I think it showed exactly how civil war would play out in today’s America. It wouldn’t be like the last one, at all. Much of the country would just close up shop and try to live through it by protecting their own. Some would join a larger group and those groups would fight. The supply chain would collapse. Cities would burn. States would take sides, but the people within those states would have their own sides. It would not be a huge war. It would be many smaller wars. The movie put Texas and California together, I think, on purpose, because it was both trying to not make it about the obvious sides we have now, which would alienate a large portion of the audience, and to show that some things bring groups together because there are sometimes more important things that can do that.

The president was clearly a fascist and was constantly lying about how his side was doing. He talks about how the US govt is winning against the Western Front and Florida but everything you see in the movie immediately shows how that’s a lie. He’s in his 3rd term, which is really the only clue you get as to why this war is happening. Journalists are considered enemy combatants. One of their destinations during the movie is Charlottesville. These clues lead me to believe it’s a Trump analogy. But it doesn’t have to be, and the movie in no way presses that point. The redneck right winger is accurate. Anyone that claims that guy wouldn’t exist in various forms during a civil war is lying to themselves. Many of us know that guy. The president, in the end, does not make it. And that’s how it ends. Literally. But nobody wins. Because the movie has shown you that everybody already lost. It ends there because what comes next would be a much longer story. All in all, it was good for what it was trying to be. A lesson and a warning. It was not trying to give candy to any one side. You will probably take away from it whatever your biases tell you to.

If you romanticize the idea of a new civil war you will be disappointed. And that’s because you’re wrong about what such a thing would be like. You don’t want one. Pray we don’t have one. If we do you will find out why you and everyone else should have tried much harder to avoid one.

-Kronykal Jones