Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

‘Civil War’ and its place in civil discourse

Kirsten Dunst in "Civil War"

Kirsten Dunst, one of the stars of the new movie "Civil War," says the film carrries an anti-war message, urging viewers to contemplate the consequences of unchecked division and to reconsider the direction in which we are heading.

A24

Becvar is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and executive director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

In an election year where the air crackles with political tension, the arrival of Alex Garland's film "Civil War" has sparked a broad spectrum of reactions. The movie presents a dystopian vision of a fragmented United States where various factions are at war. This narrative, while unsettling, offers us a valuable lens through which to examine our current political climate and the essential work ahead for those committed to reinforcing the bedrock of our democracy.



The essential role of journalism

At its heart, "Civil War" eschews partisan politics – it meticulously avoids taking any “sides” in a real or fictional political world. Instead, it focuses on a group of journalists navigating a war-torn America, serving as a potent reminder of trusted journalists' critical role in a democracy in providing objective truth. Putting war journalists as neutral observers central to the narrative also anchors the film in neutrality. Through their lenses, we witness the chaos of war — stripped of bias, unburdened by allegiance.

Garland's decision to set this dystopia in eerily familiar American settings magnifies the impact. Photojournalists' shots juxtaposing the remnants of past “normalcy” with the current horrors of war serve to thrust the audience into the visceral truth that war, for Americans long something geographically distant, can become an intimate terror.

A stark warning against political violence

American political violence and war are real concerns that some may not just believe likely but mistakenly think necessary. Eighty-three percent of Americans are concerned about political violence, and 15 percent of Republicans and 20 percent of Democrats say the country would be better off if large numbers of opposing partisans "just died." Four in 10 Americans believe a new civil war is "at least somewhat likely in the next ten years."

But the brutality of this film serves well as a cautionary tale for just a slight glimpse into what that could look like. In an interview Tuesday evening, Garland stated that that is the point: He wants the audience to suddenly feel a really deep, instinctive sense of aversion — of being appalled. For me, it was a mission accomplished.

Reflections from the cast

The concerns raised about the film's release during an election year highlight the delicate balance between artistic expression and its impact on societal discourse. While some argue that portraying a nation at war with itself might amplify existing tensions, others see it as an urgent call to reflect on our collective path forward. Kirsten Dunst, one of the film's stars, reflects on this balance, echoing the director in suggesting that the film, in its essence, is an anti-war message, urging viewers to contemplate the consequences of unchecked division and to reconsider the direction in which we are heading.

Other cast members have spoken about how the film has affected them — compelling them to want to take action. Wagner Moura said, "Now I'm really making an effort to sit down and listen to people that I disagree [with]. And I was absolutely surprised to see that if you value democracy, if you think that democracy is an important thing, then there's lots of common ground." We know that Moura's observation is accurate — research from More in Common on the “perception gap” shows that we are not nearly as divided as we think.

A pivot, not a prophecy

Though fictional, the movie's backdrop aligns with concerns raised by thought leaders and advocates within our network regarding the erosion of democratic norms and the rise of authoritarian tendencies fueled by polarization. Regardless of whether this movie was released in 2024 - or at all - we would still be in a divisive and potentially violent time in our politics and history.

Perhaps the film can catalyze discussions about these challenges to a broader swath of Americans - prompting us to reflect on our values, our responsibilities as citizens, and the importance of upholding a democracy that is inclusive, resilient, and truly representative of all its people. Let "Civil War" not be a prophecy of our future but a pivot point towards a more united, democratic society.

If you plan on seeing the film and would like to join a deeper discussion, please join us for a film dialogue event on April 20 at 4 pm PT (7 pm ET). Register here.

Read More

Does One Battle After Another Speak to Latino Resistance?

Leonardo DiCaprio, Benicio del Toro, Chase Infiniti, and Paul Thomas Anderson pose during the fan event for the movie 'One Battle After Another' at Plaza Toreo Parque Central on September 18, 2025 in Naucalpan de Juarez, Mexico.

(Photo by Eloisa Sanchez/Getty Images)

Does One Battle After Another Speak to Latino Resistance?

After decades of work, Angeleno director P.T. Anderson has scored his highest-grossing film with his recent One Battle After Another. Having opened on the weekend of September 26, the film follows the fanatical, even surrealistic, journey of washed-up revolutionary Bob Ferguson (Leonardo DiCaprio), who lives in hiding with his teenage daughter, Willa (Chase Infiniti), some fifteen years after his militant group, French 75, went underground. When their nemesis Colonel Lockjaw (Sean Penn) resurfaces, Bob and Wila again find themselves running from the law. When Wila goes AWOL, her karate teacher, Sensei Sergio St. Carlos (Benicio del Toro), is enlisted to help Bob find his daughter. Although ambitious, edgy, and fun, the political message of the hit film is generally muddled. The immensely talented director did not make a film matching the Leftist rigor of, say, Battleship Potemkin. Nor can the film be grouped among a veritable cavalcade of fictional and non-fictional films produced during the last twenty years that deal with immigrant issues along the U.S.-Mexico Border. Sleep Dealer, El Norte, and Who is Dayani Cristal? are but a few of the stronger offerings of a genre of filmmaking that, for both good and bad, may constitute a true cinematic cottage industry.

Nevertheless, the film leans heavily into Latino culture in terms of themes, setting, and characters. Filmed largely in the U.S.’s Bordertown par excellence—El Paso, Texas—we meet the martial arts teacher Sergio, who describes his work helping migrants cross the border as a “Latino Harriet Tubman situation.” We learn that the fugitive revolutionary, Bob, is known by several aliases, including “The Gringo Coyote.” His savior, Sensei Sergio, explains to him outrightly that he’s “a bad hombre”—cheekily invoking the hurtful bon mots used by then-candidate Donald Trump in a 2016 debate with Hilary Clinton. The epithet is repeated later on in the film when Bob, under police surveillance in the hospital, is tipped off to an exit route by a member of the French 75 disguised as a nurse: “Are you diabetic? You’re a bad hombre, Bob. You know, if you’re a bad hombre, you make sure you take your insulin on a daily basis, right?” All this, plus the fact that the film’s denouement begins with a raid on a Mexican Restaurant in Northern California.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Jimmy Kimmel onstage during the 67th GRAMMY Awards

Jimmy Kimmel onstage during the 67th GRAMMY Awards on February 01, 2025, in Los Angeles, California

Getty Images, Johnny Nunez

Why the Fight Over Jimmy Kimmel Matters for Us All

There are moments in a nation’s cultural life that feel, at first, like passing storms—brief, noisy, and soon forgotten. But every so often, what begins as a squall reveals itself as a warning: a sign that something far bigger is at stake. The initial cancellation of Jimmy Kimmel by Disney, along with the coordinated blackout from network affiliates like Nexstar and Sinclair, is one of those moments. It’s not merely another skirmish in the endless culture wars. Actually, it is a test of whether we, as a society, can distinguish between the discomfort of being challenged and the danger of being silenced.

The irony is rich, almost to the point of being absurd. Here is a late-night comedian, a man whose job is to puncture the pompous and needle the powerful, finding himself at the center of a controversy. A controversy bigger than anything he’d ever lampooned. Satire that, depending on your perspective, was either too pointed or simply pointed in the wrong direction. Yet, that was not the ostensible reason.

Keep ReadingShow less
Bad Bunny preforming on stage alongside two other people.

Bad Bunny performs live during "No Me Quiero Ir De Aquí; Una Más" Residencia at Coliseo de Puerto Rico José Miguel Agrelot on September 20, 2025 in San Juan, Puerto Rico

Getty Images, Gladys Vega

From Woodstock to Super Bowl: Bad Bunny and the Legacy of Musical Protest

As Bad Bunny prepares to take the Super Bowl stage in February 2026—and grassroots rallies in his honor unfold across U.S. cities this October—we are witnessing a cultural moment that echoes the artist-led protests of the 1960s and 70s. His decision to exclude U.S. tour dates over fears of ICE raids is generating considerable anger amongst his following, as well as support from MAGA supporters. The Trump administration views his lyrics and his fashion as threats. As the story unfolds, it is increasingly becoming a political narrative rather than just entertainment news.

Music has long been a part of the American political scene. In 1969, Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young released “Ohio,” a response to the Kent State shootings that galvanized antiwar sentiment.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Pop Culture Can Save Democracy: Lessons From Just Do It to Designated Drive

Shoppers stand in line at a Nike outlet store on May 3, 2025 in San Diego, California.

Getty Images, Kevin Carter

How Pop Culture Can Save Democracy: Lessons From Just Do It to Designated Drive

In the late 1980s, the Harvard Alcohol Project did just that. By embedding the term designated driver into prime-time television—from Cheers to L.A. Law—they didn’t just coin a phrase. They changed people’s behavior. The campaign was credited with helping reduce alcohol-related traffic fatalities by nearly 30% over the following decade. President George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, along with organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, endorsed the movement, amplifying its reach.

They made sober driving socially admirable, not awkward. And they proved that when language meets culture, norms shift.

Keep ReadingShow less