A few viewers who don't mock the incredibly unlikely alliance of Texas and California in the film's trailer have theorized that perhaps the two of them were driven to teaming up out of sheer desperation, which suggests just how bad things must've gotten for this to happen, something that was eventually confirmed byAlex Garland.
A long-time resident of Texas wrote about how the California-Texas alliance makes perfect sense. Except that the article is sparse on anything substantial.
Given the US's position of power on the world stage, there is no doubt that civil war might have a profound effect on other countries abroad, especially when it comes from an economic viewpoint. One of the aspects of how devastating the war was is the devaluation of the US Dollarnote One scene indicates that $300 is barely enough for a sandwich (ham or cheese), but $300 Canadian is enough for gas, what else did the civil war have on the world, both domestic and internationally?
On the flip side, how would close allies of the US, like NATO, react to the civil war? Being the most powerful country in the Western world, the infighting of America would cripple the allies' capabilities in the long run, especially when it comes to the integrity of NATO's offensive and defensive capabilities and nations that have close ties with the US, such as Japan or Ukraine. This effect would occur if POTUS were to recall the military forces abroad back to the US in order to fight back against the secessionist states. Furthermore, Article 6 of NATO's constitution states that an attack on one member is an attack on all, but doesn't factor in the possibility of a member going to war with itself, making it uncharted territory.
One must wonder how Canada and Mexico are handling with their borders with the US as the war rages on. As the war progresses, there is no doubt that the countries' borders will become a main issue for border patrol guards in dealing with American refugees escaping from the war.
Or that the conflict will spill over into Canada and Mexico as forces pursue each other across international borders and fighting sparks between different factions of refugees, as seen in Rwanda or Syria.
The sniper team has no idea which side the 'enemy' sniper is on. And there's no way for either sniper team to communicate. For all they know, they committed fratricide - and it was the only way to survive.
Many of America's nuclear weapons, including their ICBMs silos, nuclear submarine bases, and nuclear bomber bases, are now in rebel-controlled territory. With the incredibly unstable situation and proliferation of extremist groups, the loss of America's nuclear deterrence has consequences around the world, especially for its allies that depend on the US being their nuclear guarantor for their security. And that's just if they are non-functional, and not worse.
By the end of the film, Jessie has developed into a reckless war photographer who is both heavily traumatized and excited by what she had gone through in her journey to D.C., to the point where she doesn’t faze at all after seeing her mentor sacrificing her life to save her and simply takes photos of her getting shot. With only Joel left to protect her (and he’s also quite reckless himself, if somewhat more restrained, and who knows what he’ll become now that he lost several close colleagues that he cared a lot for) and the civil war being implied to continue even after the president’s death, it’s highly likely that neither Jessie nor Joel would survive for long in the chaotic aftermath if they continue to stay on the frontlines and travel the wartorn United States where most everyone they meet has a ‘shoot first, ask questions later’ policy to take hot scoops of the action.
The movie has drawn criticism for not addressing the politics behind the war, but that’s exactly the point of the movie. We, the viewers, aren’t supposed to sympathize with any side; the whole moral of the film is that the Second American Civil War is a monumentally bad idea and everyone is wrong for fighting. What’s more, applying the lessons of this film to Real Life, it isn’t conservatism or progressivism that is bad, it’s the political polarization that’s the problem.
the "genocide" shown (militia with a truckload of corpses) appear to be locals thugs taking advantage of the chaos to go on a rampage. And that seems to be the point: war brings chaos, and chaos enables thugs.
And if the war didn't happen, it's likely the side advocating for genocide would happen more fluidly and quietly, as the genocide of the Uighurs can attest.
Counterpoint to the above: while it may be true that some sides may be motivated by altruistic or noble reasons, those reasons will usually quickly deteriorate into 'us vs. them' mentality on the battlefield, and actual combatants tend to not care about why they're fighting as much as trying to survive, killing or punishing those who aren't on their side, or just taking advantage of the chaos to commit brutal acts on others. For example, during World War II, the Allies as a whole undeniably held the moral high ground over the Axis, but that didn't stop some Allied soldiers from committing war crimes the same as the Axis soldiers did. Not to say that both factions are equally as bad as each other, but the point that the movie seems to establish is that in any conflict, regardless of whether any faction is motivated by noble causes or not, the sheer chaos of what actually happened in the warzones mean these ideologies don't matter anymore; it's only kill or be killed out there.
One of the promotional images is a fighter/soldier wearing a Hawaiian shirt under their body armor - this looks like an allusion to the Boogaloo Movement - as in "Civil War 2 Electric Boogaloo."
Jessie's gradual turn into a Blood Knight, albeit on much more reckless scale than most of the other adrenaline junkies we meet, can be seen in the change in her physical language between the Western Forces skirmish in the beginning to the Washington D.C. battle in the end. In the former, she stays with Joel at all times and never leaves his side until the fighting's mostly ceased, and is clearly terrified by some of the more gruesome things she has to photograph. In the latter, she recklessly charges into the action, disregards Lee and Joel, outright refuses to seek any sort of cover, and sticks her head out so often that she has to be held back by the WF convoy several times.
Garland said that the film's message is supposed to be about how the media, the fourth estate, is essential for maintaining the health of democracy by informing the public. This is typified by the characters, with the exception of Jessie, being affiliated with "establishment" media outlets (NYT, Reuters, etc.) and using traditional cameras instead of smartphones or livestreaming devices. However, the film also levels some subtle criticisms of journalism, such as remaining dispassionate observers to moral wrongs and being complicit in war crimes for photos and interviews. Rather than being moral paragons, the media can be just as callous and opportunistic as the actual belligerents.
Some argue that resistance against a tyrannical government is unrealistic because the government has tanks and jets. In the movie, the Western Front is shown to be heavily armed and coordinated. Which is a likely direction if the POTUS really did try to establish a dictatorship. The military is still comprised of people just doing a job. They have friends and family they would have to fight or kill if they blindly followed orders. And much of what is implied to have happened would be considered unlawful orders. They would desert and take whatever arms and vehicles they could if the entire base or military didn't turn on the President at the same time.
Given how often American movies and other media depict fictional wars in distantforeigncountries without regard to the actual politics in these countries, is it really a surprise that a British director would do the same with a conflict in America?
Alex Garland.