Non-political? What does that even mean in this context? It's literally about a civil war in America caused by political issues.
this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2024
17 points (66.0% liked)
Movies and TV Shows
2196 readers
6 users here now
This is a community for entertainment industry news and general discussion about movies and TV shows.
Rules:
- Keep discussion civil and on topic.
- Please do not link to pirated content.
- No spoilers in the title of submissions. And please use spoiler MarkDown in the body of discussions. This is a courtesy to other users.
- Comments solely criticizing headlines and/or journalism will be removed for being off-topic.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I think they mean that it's non-partisan. The movie clearly is broadly political.
But it's also clearly partisan with just enough play to avoid a boycott. Everything the authoritarian president does to initiate the war has a very direct analogue in actions taken by Trump and his administration.
Most of the OPs posts are in Conservative, a movement that thinks original series Star Trek was originally not political at all and media becomes political when they show the real experiences of a minority or disenfranchised member of society. I would take them saying something isn't political with a grain of salt.
I don’t want to spoil it but politics are never discussed. It isn’t about left or right politics. They never even talk about why the war started. There is one hint but that’s a bout it.
It’s not a satire.
That's still a political message though, it doesn't have to be about a specific political party. The idea of the film itself is political.
The preview I saw of it makes it look like shit. What is the justification at all? Why did the fighting start? Sounds like bullshit, feel free to spoil it for me, not going to watch it regardless. Just looks like some type of brainworm took over everyone and they started wanting violence indiscriminately.
The why is not really important to the movie. The only mention of why is the president taking a third term and possibly also doing airstrikes on citizens before the start of the civil war. The film more focuses on the how of a possible civil war: the societal breakdown, the atrocities, how people are making it through, etc. There is not really a clearly good militant group in the movie and it is not clear that things are going to somehow be all good if/once the president is removed from office.
I think there were definitely some things that could have been added in like many more corrupt as fuck checkpoints blocking roads. They did show a checkpoint but the characters had no issues with it. Checkpoints are a very easy way for soldiers or locals to shake people down.
If you want something that goes more into why a civil war might happen, I recommend the beginning of the podcast series It Could Happen Here. It was made back in 2019 and foretold some of how things unfolded in 2020 and 2021.
Otherwise there is no justification and they never say why the fighting started.spoiler
The only real clue is the president is on his third term
I enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would but it’s hard to watch
Also bombing civilians?
I took that as after the war started.
A mod of a conservative echo chamber says its not political. Bwaaa Ha ha ha
LOL these comments are a hint as to why things are so bad here and we need this movie. It's like people can't conceive of a nonpartisan message. The only thing they seem to understand is "other side bad, tho". And I'm very much someone who thinks the other side is bad. But for the love of god that's not the point of the movie.
spoiler
There are four factions but the focus is on two. The western forces and the American side. It’s hinted the WF are the good guys but you see them commit war crime after war crime.
It’s more like when we are divided, we just see the other side as an enemy instead of people.
It isn’t about the left is good. The right is bad or vice versa. It’ll be hard for a lot of people to process because they are partisan and the film is about that being bad.
but you see them commit war crime after war crime
Ib keep seeing people saying this and i think it misses one of the major points of the movie. We're not supposed to look at this and go "they are bad because they committed war crime". We are supposed to look at this and go "of course they're committing war crimes, who's gonna stop them". This movie is very interested in the idea of what happens during war when a hegemonic US can't play world police.
In all seriousness is this movie aimed at anyone other than the US?
Would I enjoy it not being resident of said country.
I think so. It isn't about American partisan politics, but rather what civil war does to a country, its population, and its national spirit.
Yes. I’m still processing the movie as it wasn’t what I was expecting. I was expecting an action satire. What I found most jaring was the journalist are taking photos of people dying and being harmed, not doing anything but taking photos. The action scenes don’t glorify war. They feel pretty real as someone who been through several shootouts.