Reporters are captured by the militia. A person holding a gun is in front of them. A press pass does not guarantee safety.
Reporters who came to cover the story are now waiting for others’ judgments. The photojournalist, Lee, who has covered many wars, is no exception. I was struck by the fact that, in this situation, the gun in front of them held far more power than their journalistic credentials.
“Civil War: An Era of Division” is a film about journalists covering the American Civil War. Lee and his colleague Joel travel to Washington to interview the president, accompanied by rookie photographer Jess and veteran reporter Sammy. They have come to report the truth of the world, but first, they must gain access.
The horror in this scene is not only that a reporter could die. Even if one survives and arrives at the next scene, it is necessary to consider what a person loses after repeatedly experiencing such events. I felt more fear as Jesse became better at taking pictures. This is because her skill in photography was improving, but her hesitation about worrying about the people in front of her was decreasing.
A person with a gun’s judgment takes precedence over a press pass
What this film captures effectively is the terror that the person recording events can also become a victim. In front of the militia, journalists are deprived of their role as observers of the events.
When taking pictures at a scene, one chooses what to focus on. However, after being captured, one must wait to see how the other party will judge them. The ability to take pictures does not allow one to stop that judgment.
I believe this distinction is important. Knowing the risks and being able to handle risks are entirely different things. Even with extensive experience, a journalist does not automatically gain the right to demand safety from someone holding a weapon.
Therefore, this scene does not simply make the viewer worry about the lives of the characters. It raises questions about what one must do to survive, and whether one can still act as a journalist in that moment. The freedom to leave the scene has disappeared, and how long can someone remain as an observer?
The purpose of going to Washington is clear: Lee and Joel want to interview the president before he is arrested. However, having a clear purpose does not make the violence they encounter on the road understandable.
Gas stations and militia checkpoints repeatedly highlight this disparity. While it is a reporting trip for the group, for the people they encounter on the road, it is an event where unfamiliar individuals suddenly appear before them. The explanation that they are journalists does not convey the same meaning to both sides.
Alex Garland highlights this difference as a source of tension on the journey. Simply getting closer to the destination does not guarantee improvement. In the next location, the experience accumulated previously will once again be tested to see how much it protects the individual.
Here, I could not easily observe their competence. If their skill in navigating risks has increased, it also means they have repeatedly faced dangerous situations. Compliments about their proficiency alone cannot explain the losses that occurred in the meantime.
Is a journalist who makes decisions quickly and hesitates less a good journalist? While this might be helpful in filming, it cannot be definitively stated that this applies to interactions with people. This film is good because it does not easily equate the two.
If you only follow what was captured by the camera, you miss half of this journey. You must also consider what remains with the person after taking the photograph. Does a journalist who repeatedly passes through such scenes grow tougher, or wear away?
Dunst’s tired face reflects the toll of the reporting
I believe the strength of this film lies in the contrast between Lee’s fatigue and Joel’s excitement. Watching the two of them, one can see that their skills in reporting and their ability to empathize with people’s suffering operate independently.
Kristen Dunst plays Lee, who does not readily express her emotions. Even when she treats Jess strictly, she does not try to ease the tension with gentle words. This is the demeanor of someone who knows what to do in a dangerous situation.
However, Dunst’s tired face prevents one from interpreting her strictness solely as confidence. In her face, I saw not someone who is indifferent, but someone who is simply unable to handle any more. There is a difference between suppressing emotions in order to continue working and being devoid of emotions.
Dunst conveys this difference without significantly altering her facial expressions. As Lee distances herself from Jessie, I began to question whether this distance was due to her cold personality or an effort to protect herself. As a result, Lee’s skill is accompanied by a heaviness that makes it difficult to simply admire.
Wagner Moura, who plays Joel, reveals that weight from the opposite side. His enthusiastic drive pushes the group forward on their journey to cover the president. However, his energy feels out of place next to Lee’s somber demeanor.
Joel, you’re going to do a report, not to have fun.
It is good that Morrah does not hide Joel’s drive. His determination to reach the scene and his eagerness to face danger are both evident in the same attitude. This relentless drive is precisely why he cannot stop.
When you see them together, you don’t get the sense that they are incurring the heavy cost of Riemann’s theory. Joel is full of energy and drive, even in the face of danger. It is precisely because of that energy that one worries about what he might be overlooking.
Callie Spaeny, who plays Jessie, a novice photographer, also expressed this anxiety. As Jessie actively took photographs, observing and imitating Lee, I felt more anxious than reassured.
Stephen McKinley Henderson, who plays veteran reporter Sammy, demonstrates another skill with his calm judgment. His direct action in the face of danger highlights the difference between simply taking a good photograph and protecting people.
Therefore, in order to show what these individuals lose while reporting, is it permissible to omit even the reasons for the start of the war?
The absence of political explanations does not mean there are no questions
I agree with the criticism that the book obscures the responsibility for the American Civil War. However, I do not agree with the assessment that this makes the journalists’ stories empty.
In the movie, California and Texas are on the same side. Because the film combines two states with different political leanings in reality, it is difficult to directly map real-world political parties onto the military factions depicted in the film. One cannot read this film by trying to determine who is on which side.
There is a clear drawback to that choice. If the film specifically features the country of the United States, it is natural to ask what caused the division of the country. However, the film does not sufficiently answer that question.
It seems determined to meticulously explain the divisions within the United States. It starts by getting into a car.
If you were expecting a political spectacle, you will likely find this beginning frustrating. While the stated goal is a presidential interview, the historical reasons for reaching that destination are unclear. I will not simply praise this gap as giving the audience the freedom to think.
When it is unclear who initiated the violence, the basis for assigning responsibility diminishes. The mere fact that everyone experienced a terrible event does not automatically mean that everyone bears the same responsibility. The severity of the fear experienced at the scene cannot be used to erase these distinctions.
However, there is a difference between not explaining the cause of the war and not asking questions to the characters. At the gas station and militia checkpoints, the group repeatedly has to choose their actions. They must decide not only what to photograph, but also when to stop and when to move.
At that moment, what the film shows is the journalist’s judgment. While observing for a longer period might yield more photographs, the risk for the person remaining in that location also increases. Whether the ability to read a situation translates to a better understanding of other people’s fears is a separate issue.
Because the film leaves out the political explanations, I was able to focus on the choices themselves. However, I would not say that I avoided all responsibility. The weakness of leaving out why the war happened does not disappear simply because the film succeeds in showing what journalists lose. This does not fully show what a journalist loses in the process.
In my opinion, the two evaluations are consistent with each other. While the film does not fully address the responsibility for creating violence, it persistently explores the price paid by those who photograph violence.
So, what changes when a journalist who has been covering wars in other countries encounters a war in their own country?
The perspective that once captured the wars of others now turns towards home
The American setting serves its purpose by not allowing the journalist to remain a safe outsider. For Lee, this war is both an event to report on and one that makes him question the work he has done.
Lee believed that showing horrific photos would prevent such events from happening again. The belief is that if someone leaves evidence of suffering, those who see it will prevent future violence. However, war can also occur within one’s own country.
Here, it is not only Lee’s safety that is at risk. The reasons for enduring the danger and taking the photographs are also being shaken. The photographs remain, but the very thing they were meant to prevent is now before us again.
Therefore, I do not view the United States as merely a backdrop that amplifies the shock. Lee was someone who reported on the realities happening far away, but now he is documenting the collapse of his own country. The words “leaving the scene” and “escaping the war” no longer have the same meaning.
It is not the case that journalists in foreign wars pay no price. The crucial difference lies in the fact that the very value of the photographs is being questioned. Even if one has the ability to continue taking pictures, the reasons for doing so are not as compelling as they once were.
Based on this criterion, the work that comes to mind is “Salvador.” When viewed together, this film allows for a direct comparison of journalistic ambition and the responsibility one has towards individuals. It prompts the question of whether obtaining more important news is truly beneficial to the person in front of you.
“Welcome to Sarajevo” provides a useful way to compare the distance maintained by a journalist witnessing atrocities abroad. It places the person reporting on events in another country and the person confronted with the collapse of their own country before the same question. When can a chronicler no longer remain a spectator?
I couldn’t dismiss Lee’s tired face as a simple occupational hazard. His expression reflected not only the fatigue of long hours, but also a doubt about whether his work was truly making a difference in the world. What Lee is losing is not just his physical strength, but also the inner strength that allowed him to believe in and persevere with his work.
Conversely, Jesse is in the process of learning about that. The difference is that what makes Lee waver in his conviction is still an object of admiration for Jesse. Therefore, the process by which Jesse becomes increasingly skilled must remain uncomfortable for him until the very end.
The price of reversing roles too neatly
The changes in Lee and Jesse are significant. However, in the final act, there is a clear intention to place the two characters in opposing positions.
Initially, Jesse admires Lee but is also afraid of the dangers present. Lee sets a firm boundary with Jesse. One person is trying to learn, while the other already understands how dangerous the situation is.
As the journey continues, Jesse actively takes up filming. Conversely, Lee focuses more on protecting Jesse than on filming itself. The priorities shift from obtaining photographs to safeguarding the person.
This change itself is convincing. It is natural for Jesse to learn not only how to film, but also the attitude of enduring risk, by following Lee. The problem is that the risky actions in the latter part of the story too precisely demonstrate that change.
When Jesse approached danger, I sensed the film’s calculations before I sensed Jesse’s judgment. It felt like the film was pushing Jesse to act more recklessly in order to give Lee a chance to be a protector. Even though the characters are making their own choices, they are being pushed towards a predetermined conclusion.
Jessi, wouldn’t it be good to develop your photography skills and your sense of safety at the same time?
Of course, the character’s portrayal is not necessarily incorrect simply because they engage in risky behavior. In this film, even the experienced Joel is drawn to danger. However, Jesse’s recklessness stands out particularly because she also takes on the task of explaining the difference between her and Lee.
However, the arrangement of assigning learning to Jesse and wise judgment to Sammy is too familiar. Jesse needs to learn, and Sammy needs to make more considered judgments. While their roles are clearly defined, there is little room for them to deviate from those roles and surprise us.
Despite the significant achievements, I could not simply celebrate Jesse’s skill. I could not feel relieved as my initial fear diminished, because the hesitation that had hindered the filming also contained a sense of concern for people.
It is not a simple story that losing fear means losing one’s humanity. Jesse actually learns the work. Before applauding that learning, the film asks what was sacrificed along the way.
One must acknowledge the force that brought such discomfort into the process of becoming a skilled photographer. I would place more weight on the force that kept me from celebrating that growth than on the neat arrangement at the end.
Becoming a good photographer is not necessarily a sign of good personal growth
My rating is 4 out of 5 stars. I recommend “Civil War: Age of Division.” It distinguishes between the ability to take good photographs and the ability to understand people. In this film, skill is not a reason for complacency, but rather a reason to consider what has been lost.
Dunst’s exhausted appearance and Jessie’s proactive filming style clearly demonstrate the price of journalistic work. However, the blurred depiction of the political responsibility for the war, and the overly neat role reversal at the end, are points that detract from the overall quality.
Despite those weaknesses, I believe this film relentlessly pushes its central questions to the very end. It doesn’t just show what journalists gain; it also reveals what they become numb to and what they can no longer endure as a result of their work.
If you are more interested in the choices made by individuals in the field than in the outcome of the war, then this film is worth your time. Especially if you are tired of stories that portray becoming a detached professional as a positive form of growth, this is the right film for you. Conversely, if you are looking for a political drama that explains the causes of the American Civil War and the arguments of each side, it is best to avoid this film.
When watching, you don’t need to try to match the reality of political parties with the military depicted in the film. Instead, follow who is taking photographs and who is taking action in the face of danger. Just as important as who is more skilled between Lee and Jesse is who is still hesitant.
Following these, I recommend “Salvador” and “Welcome to Sarajevo.” The former film is excellent for examining the intersection of journalistic ambition and the responsibility to protect people. The latter film is valuable for comparing the perspective one has when viewing a war in another country with the collapse of that distance in this film.
A person who is skilled at using a camera does not necessarily have hands that are good at caring for others. I could not celebrate Jesse’s improvement in photography.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
“Civil War: A Divided Age” – Is it based on a true story?
This is not a film that accurately recreates the American Civil War; rather, it tells a story about a fictional civil war. It is more appropriate to view it as a film about journalists reporting on a collapsing society, rather than a political drama that precisely predicts the future.
Is this movie based on a novel?
This is an original screenplay written by Alex Garland, and it does not rely on any pre-existing novel. There are no books to read in advance, nor any prior works that need to be known.
Can it be understood even if you don’t know much about American politics?
It is understandable. The setting, including the alliance between California and Texas, does not directly reproduce the confrontation between real-world political parties. Instead of trying to match a political map, the story follows the choices that journalists make in the face of danger.
Can we expect a war film focused on combat?
While the film strongly addresses the dangers of war, its focus is more on the reporter’s judgment and transformation than on victory or defeat. The running time is 109 minutes. If you are looking for a film that provides detailed explanations of the causes of the civil war or military strategies, this film may not be what you are looking for.
What movies are similar in theme?
“Salvador” is a good film for examining both the drive to report and the responsibility to protect people. “Welcome to Sarajevo” is useful for comparing the experiences of a journalist covering a foreign war with that of a journalist witnessing the collapse of their own country.
