• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Alex Garland Scifi Films & Shows

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
52,149
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Interesting. I actually really enjoy discussions about the role of gender on society. Sometimes certain things produce a kneejerk reaction in me, but if I stop and try imagine myself in the other person's shoes, I can usually see where they are coming from.

I'm wondering now about common differences in reactions to romantic rejection from women as opposed to men. Let's say we have two rivals viaing for the affection of one person of the opposite gender. If the rivals are both men, is the man more likely to take it out on the woman if she rejects him in favor of someone else? If the rivals are both woman, are they more likely to fight each other rather than take it out on the man?

I suspect this is the case but somehow I feel you might have more insight on the situation.
I'm just one individual but if you had asked me the question without providing your own answer, I would have answered similarly. Not that women don't kill or abuse men, it definitely happens (hey, look at Heard vs Depp), but yes women seem to be the targets more often in both cases and especially in regards to murder with men hounding/murdering women who leave them. Just watch about ten seasons of forensic files, sigh.

I still gotta say the whole body horror sequence at movie end is completely nuts, roflmao. I'm still like damn!

I still am having trouble knowing how to read the ending. It would be REALLY easy to view it all as some kind of metaphor with her wrestling over her own unfounded guilt imposed on her due to social expectation and yet there are clear evidential signs in the final moments that suggest it was real -- so I have no freaking idea.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
52,149
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
So I just got back from Civil War. I think it's pretty stellar overall. Most complaints seem to obsess that it isn't the film they wanted to see, which is some kind of exposition on the way American government will break down and what political splits will occur. The film pointedly ignores many of the "why's" (I think purposefully) and instead of looks at these series of events through the literal lens of photo-journalism. In a way, it might have more to do with Nightcrawler rather than some dystopian war film, although the latter film had edgelord journalists covertly making the news themselves as necessary and this is more about the protagonists' responses to what is unfolding and what drives them personally.

SOme of these questions cannot really be answered, and Garland refuses to simplify things -- he acknowledges both their idealism but also how some of their behavior resembles junkies looking for something that makes them feel, even while they detach from what they are seeing. Is it justifiable for them to do this, to be more effective and to help with survive, or is it a loss of humanity / leading them astray?

So there are some character arcs in the film that are explored. The battle sequences are actually pretty terrifying and crazy. I just can't imagine standing in one of those places watching this unfold. And a Press jacket is NOT a bulletproof vest either, it's only a gentleman's agreement -- nothing stops you from getting shot in the most horrible ways possible.

Jesse Plemons is also terrifying. Damn that guy.

Offerman, Mizuno, and Plemons really aren't in the film very much. The main cast is Dunst, Moura, Spaeny and Henderson. I will pretty much watch anything with Spaeny, after I saw her in DEVS. She's really solid. I need to watch the Priscilla [Pressley] film.

As far as films he's written/directed, I think Men might be the weakest, despite the creepy ending, and Dredd is probably the next weakest because it's so straightforward (but hey it was an action film). Those two are at the bottom. I don't consider either a bad film, they are actually still both pretty enjoyable. I'd probably say Annihilation is my favorite, with Ex Machina right there as well, then Civil War (which is really solid), then Dredd and Men. I think Ex Machina is more of an overall fan favorite because it is more accessible, but that's exactly why I think Annihilation is more spectacular -- it totally refuses to over-clarify itself and ends up being even more profound. [I really love both of those films.]

In terms of his written work that he didn't direct, I would probably say it's 28 Days Later, Sunshine, Never Let Me Go, and 28 Weeks Later. I think Never Let Me Go is strongest with its writing, I feel like the directing wasn't quite as good.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
22,429
MBTI Type
EVIL
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so

The Cat

The Cat in the Tinfoil Hat..
Staff member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
27,393
I haven't seen the film, but why are they calling it apolitical? I'm guessing it has to do with the ending of the movie.

Garland makes a few points in that article that I really agree with.
Because they have not truly realized (yet) that they cannot just put the genie back into the bottle.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
52,149
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
It's less about the ending and more about the fact is that Garland is not spending time on (1) how the country ended up in a Civil War and (2) whether the rebels or administration is in the right. Basically they think he oughta pick sides and focus on how things got to that point (as some sort of commentary on today's times, i guess), but that wasn't the point of his film.

There are hints of how the civil war started -- there are a few "rebel" factions, not just one. The president is on his third term. Apparently journalists in DC are shot on sight. It sounds as if the president has gone authoritarian for some reason. The amusing thing about the president is that he doesn't show up much and all you hear from him are rosy prospects... but that's not what is happening.

It really is exploring journalism in a beleaguered country, explores whether a journalist is supposed to take sides or just "capture truth" as it occurs for others so others can see and take sides, whether being a journalist saps away some of your humanity, and so on.

The civil war is just a backdrop to the question Garland is exploring.

It is a very thoughtful film and there are some sequences and/or snap shots that are going to stay in your headspace for a long time after. There's some terribly bleak moments and a few glorious moments as well.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
52,149
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
1000004996.jpg
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
52,149
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
So, here's my second home viewing of Civil War (and I have to say that the 4K imprint is really great -- it got 5/5 for audio and video from the Blu-Ray site -- and my experience was definitely in agreement).

Kirsten Dunst is just excellent, and i love how she looks her age -- beaten, weathered, tough exterior... but in the process of connecting with this young woman that reminds her of who she used to be at that age, she starts to lose her edge that has kept her alive all this time. THAT is the focus of the film, along with questions about the role of journalists in morally dubious situations (should they interfere with events based on their moral instincts, or should they simply capture the hard moments so that OTHER people can consider the morality of them and make future choices based on them?)

This interplay between the four of them -- Lee (Dunst), Jessie (the newb), Joel (kind of still hot-blooded and wanting to dive in), and Sammy (the voice of age and reason) -- is excellent. All of them have different reactions to Jessie kind of sneaking her way onto this road trip to DC where supposedly the capital is going to fall to the rebels in short order, and Joel and Lee really want to snag an interview / photos of the incumbent before he is shot.

I grew up in this area of the country and still live there, so many of the locations seem like I *almost* know them or just *might* have seen them before (although it's likely they are just very similar). But it makes it even more eerie.

Coming out of my second viewing, I have some new reactions. The film is bookended by shots of the incumbent -- in the opening, he's presenting a flowery speech to inspire people to fight the insurgents and bring America back together, but we realize soon it's mostly just fluff and falsehood, and then at the end he judge begs for his life after all of his supporters and staff have pretty much been shot to death just so the troops could get to him -- and it puts into context that ALL of this is because of some guy for whatever reason took another term of office / generated this kind of rebellion. He just wants to hold onto power without suffering any ramifications for his choices, and yet we get a bunch of people across the film who are fighting and killing each other in truly brutal and often callous ways, who don't even really understand why or otherwise have a strongly personal reason for it. The journalists encounter one event after another of this kind of brutality and destruction of "the other side" as if the other side are not also comprised of people, but why exactly are they all fighting?

The worst moment is when we run into Plemons' character who apparently killed a bunch of civilians just because they didn't fit with what his definition of an American is. He ends up executing a few more just because of nationality, in a completely calm and quiet way (which is terrifying) and there's no reasoning with him.

So this chain of experiences of brutality kind of jolts the old Sammy awake and he's providing the moral conscience of the group (and is willing to take action rather than just be a bystander), but it also changes Lee so that she loses her edge as she becomes more humanized and it costs her. Meanwhile, Jessie is coming into her own, after falling apart during some of the film's early events, and now just becomes reckless and detached in pursuit of the best pics.

At the end of the film, you're like, "Is this all we're left with?" It's like the guy who created this terrible violence was just a catalyst and now there was lots of awful stuff going down just triggered by prejudices and humanity's tendency to just drift into tribal mentality and lose track of why they originally disagree or what grievances are legitimate.

Garland's musical selections are typically unexpected and never cliche, and he's capable of transitioning from dark violence and blood into transcend beauty within a few moments.

I noticed this time too the young woman putting on the bomb vest in the opening sequence. (It can be easy to miss on first view, as a lot is happening, and she doesn't run in until a few minutes later.) When she runs past Lee and Jessie, she's got a huge American flag streaming behind her and Lee immediately recognizes her for what she is.... but instead of taking a PICTURE of the woman as she rushes towards the police barrier, about to detonate herself, Lee grabs Jessie and throws them both behind the protective vehicle. I wonder if that was the first moment of change for Lee. Without Jessie there, i think she would have gone for the shot. And that would have been a hell of a shot.
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
22,429
MBTI Type
EVIL
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Annihilation has some great themes (and a great cast).

I think the movie also posits a rapid form of evolution, where everything is changed and is no longer what it was before. This can be terrifying but maybe not necessarily bad. What the Shimmer does is create change; it causes things to evolve so that they're as different as a rainbow is from white light, even though it's ostensibly made up of the same thing.

This is meaningful because this is kind of like how I live my life. I'm different, maybe even unrecognizably so in an abstract sense, from the person I was even two years ago. When I was younger I was always trying to find ways to evolve, but the most drastic changes happened in my 30s. I doubt I'm the only one like this. Maybe as things around us change, so will everyone.

There's also the theme of life leading towards self-destruction. This is signified by Dr. Ventress, who has cancer (but it comes up elsewhere). This is what cancer is; it's a paradox. It's unrestrained growth that refuses to follow programmed cell death, which itself becomes highly destructive. Does the Shimmer represent self-destruction, though? Perhaps Lena saw it that way at first, but at the end, she says "It's not destroying, it's creating something new." She is altered and changed by what she encountered, but I still think she's right. It's an agent for rapid, unpredictable evolution; but this isn't comparable to cancer.

It's also a beautiful movie and I like to see that. I like the weird wildlife, the lighthouse, the rainbow cells; even the scary things are gorgeous in this movie.
 
Top