I just watched the new Alex Garland movie, and found it quite engaging, but also disturbing. One element that I found especially interesting was how it treated journalism, particularly photo-journalism as a profession.
One major theme is that of institutional neutrality versus wearing biases on one’s sleeve. In theory, a lot of journalism ought to be neutral. For instance, when Jesse takes a photo of a man torturing people he caught stealing from him, it’s apparent that she has to contain her reaction to the brutality, in favor of objectivity, or telling the story fully. This is also shown in a lot of the active combat situations when the rowdy group of journalists take photos of the action live.
Probably the most disturbing scene, the one with the man wearing pink glasses, shows that neutrality may not always be possible, especially when attitudes towards the journalists are particularly hostile. When someone murders your friends, it’s hard not to intervene, and take action to stop it. Similarly, when the DC Regime falls, it’s clear that Joel doesn’t want anything other than to get a quote, and is happy when the president is killed.
Overall, I think the movie avoids taking a clear stance since it wants to portray the controversy accurately and doesn’t want to hammer you over the head with how to think about it. I think what it gets at is that the situation matters with regards to what one can be neutral about.
Another moral dilemma had to do with whether it’s safe to be in these war-torn areas in general, and if there’s an obligation to discourage other people from becoming journalists. In that sense, is journalism altruistic?
I think this movie ultimately comes to the conclusion that journalists are overall altruistic and good as a result of the main character, Lee’s sacrifice. However, it also suggests that there’s an element of self-serving in how journalists view themselves. For instance, there’s repeated discussions about how journalists take these photos so people know what to avoid, and that’s the purpose of their jobs. Yet, they also express disappointment when the store owner doesn’t express interest in knowing about the war. Similarly, the main characters describe multiple times how being a part of these scenes gives them the rush of feeling alive.
The final question that I think this movie addresses is whether journalists are providing an important service, or imbibing tragedy porn for their own edification.
One thing that I noticed is that while all the journalists are kind to each other’s journalist-we network, it’s unclear whether anyone else really benefits from this coverage. This disconnect is most apparent when the motley crew expresses disappointment over a seemingly early end to the war because they may not get a scoop.
Also, if the point is to discourage people from exhibitionism in war zones, it seems odd that a key storyline focuses on a young woman who flocks to this lifestyle as a result of previous photojournalism.
Watching the movie was a somewhat raw and painful experience, seeing that level of brutality. After watching the movie, I can understand how it might be perilous to demonize people who don’t share my worldview, and that a civil war would be a disaster, killing thousands, oftentimes for no clear credible reason other than power-hungry dictators.
This begs the question of whether the movie Civil War itself is a speculative journalistic piece. Media like documentaries can alter how people perceive and act.
I’m not sure the answer to many of these questions, but I came away knowing I’d be thinking about it for a while, like Ex Machina.
Isadore Johnson's Website 