Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

Independent film captures Latino immigrant life in Wisconsin

Miguel (David Duran) in an ice fishing tent with a strange local, Carl (Ritchie Gordon)/ Nathan Deming

Photo Provided

Independent film captures Latino immigrant life in Wisconsin

Wisconsin filmmaker Nathan Deming said his independent film February is part of a long-term project to document life in Wisconsin through a series of standalone fictional stories, each tied to a month of the year.

Deming said the project is intentionally slow-moving and structured to explore different perspectives rather than follow a single narrative. He said each film functions on its own while contributing to a larger portrait of the state.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hollywood Gets Congress Wrong—and It’s Costing America Trust in Democracy

Hollywood sign and The Capitol

AI generated picture

Hollywood Gets Congress Wrong—and It’s Costing America Trust in Democracy

The following article is excerpted from "Citizen’s Handbook for Influencing Elected Officials."

Since the 1970s, public trust in American institutions—including Congress—has steadily declined. Approval ratings for the House and Senate usually hover in the teens. Certainly, some misdeeds by our elected leaders have contributed to this decline, and mainstream national media can claim its fair share of “credit” in portraying Congress in a negative light. Yet another major ingredient in the ugly formula poisoning public opinion of Congress is Hollywood. Movies and TV shows routinely portray Congress as craven, corrupt, selfish, and completely indifferent to the public interest. Regrettably, this is a wholly incorrect portrayal of our nation’s legislators.

Keep ReadingShow less
More Artists Boycott Trump‑Renamed Kennedy Center

Musicians and dance companies are canceling performances in protest, adding to a widening backlash over political interference at the nation’s premier arts institution.

Getty Images, ntn

More Artists Boycott Trump‑Renamed Kennedy Center

The recent wave of cancellations by artists at the Kennedy Center underscores a broader and urgent question in contemporary society: the struggle between artistic autonomy and political influence. By withdrawing from their scheduled appearances, these artists are responding to the Center's controversial renaming by a new Board of Directors appointed by President Trump. This renaming, seen by many as politically motivated, has catalyzed a strong reaction. Earlier this year, at least 15 performers withdrew in protest. This forms part of a growing trend, with public resignations and statements from notable figures like Issa Rae, Rhiannon Giddens, Renée Fleming, and Ben Folds. They have all expressed concerns that the Center’s civic mission is being undermined.

More performers are visibly withdrawing from the Kennedy Center, with fan-favorite names disappearing from the roster. In recent weeks, news outlets have reported that more artists and groups have called off their upcoming shows. These include jazz drummer Chuck Redd, the jazz group The Cookers, singer-songwriter Kristy Lee, and the dance company Doug Varone and Dancers. Fans holding tickets now face the stark absence that mirrors these artists' discomfort with the renaming and what it represents politically.

Keep ReadingShow less