Reading the discourse around this movie is, frankly, fascinating. Whether people liked it or not, its been really interesting to read the different takes on it. Some are bothered by "both sides-ism", while others correct that their missing the point, and instead its a reflection on how destructive our identities can be. I actually think this is missing the point, this movie is about the death of journalism.
I think the background plot of a Civil War was chosen simply because its the most divided a nation can possibly be. But pay attention to our main characters, notably Lee, Joel, and how they influence Jessie.
Lee, imo, represents the noble profession of journalism. She takes no joy in the violence she sees, in fact she's haunted and traumatized by it. She states that she must remain impartial and detached for the sake of accurately recording events for people to see. She never says much about picking a side in the conflict.
Joel, on the other hand, is pretty obvious that he favors the WF and hates the President. He gleefully jokes with journalists when asked "where are you going?" and "what are you doing here?". He seems to be an adrenaline junky, excited that he gets to be in the thick of it and totally unbothered by the violence he sees (until its directed at him, of course, in the brilliant scene with Jessie Plemons). We also learn Jessie knows how to stow away with them in the car, because he drunkenly boasts to her where he's going and what he's doing while hitting on her at the hotel.
And then we have Jessie, the young journalist being influenced by these two. There's the scene where Joel hits on her after the first day of violence, which seemed strangely out of place to me at first. However, looking back on it, I think this represents the temptation of his "sexier" style of journalism. Meanwhile, Lee's influence seems colder, yet deep down comes off as more caring to the point she sacrifices herself to save Jessie.
The tragedy takes place during the final assault on the Oval Office in which Jessie disregards Lee's sacrifice and pushes on with Joel, and they both are rewarded with "the scoop" - Joel gets the President's last words, and Jessie gets what will no doubt become an iconic photo. This scene is not supposed to feel good, as we are watching Jessie fall into Joel's style of journalism. I think of it like a devil and an angel on her shoulders, and sadly the Devil's "sexier" style of journalism wins.
I def want to rewatch and think there are many other ways to interpret this, but I really do think the movie is supposed to be a focus on journalism and the whole "Civil War" angle was just a back drop simply because its the most divided a nation can be, which is why there's no real politics or reasons for it, as we aren't really meant to be focusing on that.
I am puzzled by the takes that do NOT see this film as being a commentary on the nature of journalism. Garland could have chosen any characters to center the narrative on, and he chose journalists.
We see so many different sides of journalism.
We see the raucous party at the fancy hotel immediately after the chaos of the suicide bomber. This is the "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot" work hard/play hard school of war reporting where you get drunk and party in equal proportion to the danger you face and the atrocities you see. These journalists are happy to stay on the fringes of the story, where they're safe and comfortable.
We see Lee, who really believes in the power of journalism to change the world. She is haunted by the images she's had to see and hardened by the experience, but she also believes her images make a difference. Half the reason she's so dispirited by Jessie's enthusiasm is that Lee truly hoped she was making the role of war journalist obsolete. But Jessie is a reminder of herself... 20 years earlier... and here is Jessie two decades later doing it all over again. And the war shows how little her work changed anything. The same things are happening here that happened there, despite the warnings she sent home. Lee has put up a hard protective shell because she's had to-- if you let your emotions seep in, you die. So it can't be about anything other than the mission.
We see Joel who is thrill chasing. For him its very much about getting the scoop, being there first, being audacious. Objective reporting... well, he's not AGAINST it but he's also not going to let it eclipse his moment. There's a fun in this for him, but not in the partying to block out the trauma-- in being first and only. He is chasing the soundbite, even if that can hardly convey the full scope of the events.
We see the TV news reporters. They are trying to balance the need to expose what is happening with putting themselves in a ridiculous amount of harm and they're not totally immune to the casualties like Lee is trying to be.
And then there's Jessie. Who is not sure where she fits into any of these views of journalism. She's finding her way.
What I thought was interesting was the use of still shots "taken by" Lee and Jessie. Lee sees the word in color, in nuance. Jessie sees it in black and white, more zero sum. Lee can see beauty in moments of horror. Jessie doesn't. Lee focuses more on the victims. Jessie tends to center the "victors." By the end, Lee is self editing. Jessie is not. I think that says a lot about the direction journalism is heading by the end of the film. Lee's time is over, it's now time for someone like Jessie who rejects the moral high ground of Lee's view of journalism and embraces Joel's more sensationalist view-- but also with a bit more balance. That last photo of the military with the dead president harkens to the Abu Ghraib photo. It's not an entirely unemotional or flattering view of events even if Jessie views her role as less morally pure than Lee viewed her role.
I like your thoughts on the different nature of the photos taken by the two women. I think another element is romanticism vs pragmatism. Lee is hardened, she knows the job is just capturing the images and after that it isn’t up to her whether they resonate or not, she has probably had many photos that felt heartbreaking to her that mean nothing to the public etc. Jessie, being new, has an idealized view of the profession and is likely using B&W film as sort of a naive affectation. It is slow and cumbersome and impractical, but to her to probably feels more ‘official’ and real, indicating she is still thinking of the job in terms of following in the footsteps of her idols, not in terms of the brutal reality of it.
Because Jessie is shooting film it takes time for the image to come into focus. We see that last photo she took "develop" in front of us as the image becomes clear just like Jessie's role is developing throughout her journey and starting to become clear by the end.
I really didn't think about this while watching it, but that's a great analysis on Lee I didn't think about. Its right there for us when Lee mentions her warnings, but I didn't put that together with her obvious mentoring of Jessie. Appreciate you bringing that up.
That's another interesting insight, I didn't think about that at all. I don't really have much to add to what you said, but I'm impressed you noticed this on what I assume is a single viewing. Really looking forward to giving this one a rewatch and I'll keep this in mind
I am weirdly attuned to visual elements in film. It's a blessing (in great films) and a curse (in bad ones). I see editing/continuity mistakes, even minor ones. It can be really, really annoying, LOL. Those stills jumped right out at me and were very memorable as a result, so they really impacted my interpretation of the narrative.
It can also be a curse in great films--as in this when I'm telling myself thatJesse didn't have the 21mm lens the photos of the president were shot with, or the motor winder needed to get three shots of Lee as she was struck and falling.
Even with this nitpicking, it was a movie that showed a nuanced depiction of the actual photography--Lee's and Jesse's visual styles were very apparent. To me this added to the film's respectfulness of war photography.
No way she could take those analog photos in low light, night conditions. Even with a fast film.
Yeah, I sometimes have to just try to drown out the part of my brain that says stuff like that. In a bad film with lots of errors, it's hard to unsee. I can suspend it a little more in a good film.
I am not a person who tends to notice score unless it's VERY OBVIOUS or it's a repeat viewing and I always assume that's because I am so visual and other people see more of a blend of visual/sound when they watch films.
On continuity errors, 2 scenes in this movie upon second viewing jumped out. The car switch scene, the windshield is broken, then it's not, then it is again...
And in the final moments, the woman trying to negociate the president's surrender has a gun, then doesn't, then has it again.
I just wanted to say thank you for this comment, and to add on a bit by saying that it’s a lot of the people who claim media literacy is dying that seem to be the most triggered and most reactionary to this film.
It didn’t help that the trailer was kind of misleading. I saw it before Dune 2 in IMAX and it really pitched the film as being an action adventure film.
After the trailer my reaction was “THIS is an Alex Garland film?”
After seeing it my reaction in “THIS is an Alex Garland film!”
Annhilation was also dismissed by large parts of the general audience for similar reasons.
And I guess that's fair. Alex Garland' movies have messages that are oftentimes so obvious that people miss it and focus on rather benign stuff they are looking for instead
I found Jessie’s use of film instead of digital as a sort of pretension That would be totally worthless in such a situation.
This. I actually liked the movie, but this took me out of it a bit. In no way would a war photographer (especially one trying to get the most difficult, in-the-moment shots) go with film over digital as their only carry. No self-respecting photojournalist is going anywhere in a war zone without a digital camera with modern focus. It’s a silly choice. If that was the only camera Jessie had, Lee would have just given her another to use (as Lee must have a backup), and advised to save the film for non-action moments. I dunno, maybe Lee wouldn’t respected the artistry but artistry is not everything with photojournalism. Also surprised Joel wasn’t carrying a small camera.
I think it this was rather an artistic choice from Garland.
First of all, the movie doesn't spcify in what "era" it plays. We don't see any smartphones, so It could be anything from late 90s to 2011. Maybe even today ..... And sure someone will point o a specific car or some gun configuration to point out there would hav ebeen anchronism ... but ... I think it's intentionally set in a very undefeined era. So a normal camera might not be out of place
You don't need to have everything realistic in a movie. Normally they should have gone in with digital cameras to record every second and edit it later. But the truth is,, that people want 1min tik tok videos because we don't want to invest more time in something since it might not pay off. I like the sound that the camera made with each photo
Jessie uses a smartphone to view her negatives, they just say they don't use them much because there's no signal due to the war. I think the director explicitly said it's set around 2020.
Well, that just really depends.
Do you think Annihilation is a commentary on the state of scientists exploring an alien ecosystem?
War journalism might be the vehicle, but that doesn't mean that the subject is limited solely to that perspective.
I just as easily see the setting and roles to be a messaging about the current state of "engagement culture" and what it will lead to if we don't start seeing the bigger picture, including but not limited to journalism.
That's a lot bigger than just war photographers.
To be clear, I don't think the nature/future of journalism is *all* Civil War is commenting on. But I think it's ONE thing that film is commenting on.
And absolutely I do think one thing Annihilation is commenting on are the limits of science. Lena thinks she can use science to understand the shimmer, and on one level she can, but on another level the answers are beyond science. This is part of why she can't really explain what happened to the agents/scientists interviewing her in the end. So, yes, I think in part Annihilation is commenting on the limits of science to answer questions about humanity. That's not its only thread, but it's one of them.
They did nothing to show this was a movie about journalism. Journalism isn't when take photos. Journalism is much more than that; it's interviewing, writing, filming, creating a story, allowing the peoples voices to be heard.
These mfs in this movie were nothing but adrenaline junkies and paparazzi feeding their high with war tourism. If Garland truly wanted to make this movie to show the importance of journalists then he did a shitty job.
They're photojournalist
War paparazzi is a better description. Why wouldn't they just film and record everything? Photos aren't as important as they used to be for journalists lol.
Photojournalism still exists, I don't know why you are arguing about that lol. Also the movie is not glorifying photo journalists or journalists in general. You are supposed to have negative feelings about the characters and their choices
Everyone gets it’s about journalism. It just does it poorly. The journalists come off as horrible people and the type of war journalism isn’t even relevant anymore, but the backdrop of the movie is near future US. It’s a good movie. Really well shot and some of the most tense scenes in a while. Stop trying to act like people are too dumb for the movie it’s an incredibly shallow and pointless for entertainment movie.
If you check out some discussions on r/movies or reviews on Letterboxd, it's pretty clear everyone does not get the focus on journalism.
The sheer number of people asking "which side was which" and "why doesn't this get into the 'politics' of the war" is pretty suggestive of people misunderstanding the thesis of the film.
My favourite take was "'Saving Private Ryan' did it better 20 years earlier."
Like... what??
That's a good one. I saw "why make a film about journalists when Nightcrawler already exists?" As though there can only be one film on any given topic.... EVER...
Meanwhile, how many "war journalism" films have I seen? "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot," "A Private War," oh, and this little film you might have heard of recently during an awards ceremony called "20 Days in Mariupol."
That is probably the most braindead take I have seen yet.
I can’t decide if I like it until it know which side is vaccines and which side is abortions.
This is a whole literary analysis of Civil War. It dives into some of the ideas you brought up.
There’s definitely an existential crisis in regard to journalism. Sammy says that about Lee, how she had lost faith in the power of the profession.
But I wouldn’t say Joel is less quality than Lee. They are partners. And if we take what he said at face value, both work for Reuters, one of the most respected and neutral agencies.
While he is more animated than Lee and does have a run at Jessie, he’s doesn’t do anything all that bad during the course of the film.
If what you were arguing were the point, I’d imagine Garland would have had Joel work for another outlet and end up in the van. Like he’s with the New York Post and Lee’s with Reuters.
I’d argue that the point of the film is more about finding humanity. Lee had lost hers because of the nature of her work. And the less objective she becomes, due to her crisis of faith, the more she begins to feel again. That culminates with Sammy’s death and her initially taking the picture but then deleting it because emotion trumped profession. After that, the floodgates open.
So the question is about whether or not Jessie will lose or keep her humanity. Her not taking a picture of Lee’s body signals, I think, a middle ground.
I'm kinda joking here, but I'm also kinda not. Jessie can't shoot very fast with a film camera. She has to advance the film to get to the next shot. So she wouldn't have gotten those shots at the end, of Lee's death before falling to the ground, without quickly and aggressively shooting the photo and advancing the film as quickly as humanly possible. She must have gotten three shots in less than a second.
I'm sure you're correct but the actual mechanics of Jessie doing what she did comes across as utterly sociopathic lol. But I know that wasn't what the film was going for. Just a funny thing I noticed.
Yeah the film camera thing kinda felt like how guns have infinite bullets in action movies. Like girl, where are you getting all of these rolls to the point that you can shoot recklessly lol
One of my friends has like 10 rolls on him at any given time so it's not that crazy that she'd have as many rolls as she did.
I don't think her having that many rolls is crazy, I think her shooting recklessly is when the country is having tremendous strife and supply is probably difficult. Film is constantly in a state of flux of being hard to get. Last I looked the stuff was over $1 per shot. Granted she's shooting black and white which is cheaper and more available, but I'd think that availability might be difficult.
Edit: Looks like color film is affordable again!
I dabble in film photography and noticed the same thing lol, I just kind of ignored it but it was pretty goofy. There's a great comment elsewhere in the thread about how Lee was shooting color and Jessie was shooting black and white, and I think Garland figured the only way to make that work is to have her using a film camera and the audience wouldnt notice
Fellow film photographer lol. Yeah, that scene definitely did not pass the smell test for us. I'm sure Garland knew but obviously a majority of people wouldn't be thinking about that so he let it go. It's fine lol. Just the weight of the moment was undercut but how that distracted me for a second.
also distracting was how Nick Offerman's arm came to rest on his chest during his death scene
Watching her develop film in broad daylight in a stadium made me chuckle. How'd she get it out of the camera and into the canister?! (that said the last time I did film photography was 20+ years ago and I don't know if there are other ways now, but I always did it in a pitch black room)
She said she had a travel kit. You can have a black fabric bag that has openings for your hands and then you take out the film in pitch black. You do it just by feeling, because you can't see it from the outside of the bag. I did it this way in an analog workshop once.
Probably inside a dark room within the giant abandoned stadium. I mean that wasn't weird. We also don't see every time characters in movies take a dump but we don't assume that's a misrepresentation of reality.
Yeah this particular part bothered me. I have two 35 mm film cameras, one fully manual, and another that winds the automatically and has autofocus. With the second camera she might've been able to get 2-3 shots off in the same situation but she was shooting with a Nikon FE2 which requires you wind between shots, she would've got one..
Her shot of Lee also wouldn't have been in focus if she were trying to get a shot down the hallway since Lee was way closer to her.
I'm dying at the thought of her developing that film and Lee's death shot is just an out-of-focus mess.
I could see her having time to refocus in the split second that it happened, just going from infinity to whatever is closest, but yeah the last several shots would've been blurry. Also I thought it was weird how lee seemingly died didn't get shot in the head? she was wearing kevlar so I would've assumed she got shot in the head if she died immediately but we don't see any blood spatter or anything in the shots
That’s actually pretty hilarious
Lee and Joel seem to have such a different approach, though, I think if he separated who they worked for we'd be scratching our heads as to why they're together. He needs them to be on this trip together and to be familiar with each other, so having them both work for Reuters is an easy way to explain that and move past it. It also needed to make sense as its clearly shows the journalists compete with each other for "the scoop". The older guy worked for NYT, but he joined in after the hotel, and Garland clearly wanted to establish that Joel and Lee had a long working relationship.
I wrote this up pretty quick, and its not meant to be an indictment on Joel on a personal level, more so I just think how animated he is and his clearly different attitude from Lee is meaningful in the film.
Its a good point about humanity, and you can argue Lee's death isn't necessarily the issue for her, but she missed that shot due to it. I think its pretty well implied at the end of the film that Jessie's shot would be an infamous moment in history.
Jessie did keep snapping photos of Lee as she died, but yeah I could be off about her, but it def felt like a bit of tug of war for her between the way Lee and Joel behave towards things. I def need a rewatch to make a more serious analysis, but this was just my first impression after sitting on it a few days.
Jessie didn't photograph Lee's body because she got even more powerful shots: the pictures of the moment of her death.
And I do think Joel is less of a quality journalist than Lee is, and that's kinda clearly broadcast with the scene at the winter wonderland and also the end sequence. Lee's a legend at her job but Joel strikes me as an average reporter who's just lucky to have been paired with her. He wasn't even smart enough to realize the president wasn't in his motorcade despite how obvious that was — it was Lee.
And also Lee's corpse wouldn't dispapear, so she can do it later if she wanted to.
Joel is bad at his job. He should have had an audio recorder with him at all times. At least that's the way I see it. On the other hand itÄs a movie so I forgive it such things. This will bother only people who know. Like gun enthusiasts are also always bothered by firefights but understand why it's necessary to keep it unrealistic
I think that my thoughts really came from me pondering the scene in which Joel hits on Jessie. It seems kind of random and idk what it really added to the movie, but when you look at it as what Joel and Lee could represent to her than it makes more sense in the context of the film.
Jessie is 23 and just getting started, and Joel is an older guy whose had a lot of experience. Its no secret that a young woman like Jessie would prob find that kind of attractive, so I viewed it more as her being seduced by Joel's seemingly more sensational approach to reporting on all the violence going on, in contrasts to Lee's which seemed more "noble" to me. However, in the moment she rejects it and the sexual tension is never revisited, so maybe she turns out more like Lee in the end? I really just want an answer as to the purpose of that scene lol, it wasn't threatening on Joel's part and it felt kind of random to me.
Really need a rewatch to give this a fair analysis, but thats where the snowballing started on this thought.
As someone who analyzes movies for a living, I think your instincts are in the right place. When you see something like that, it should get noted as potentially meaningful, not just narratively but thematically as well. And you properly diagnosed the direction it could go: someone who is inexperienced has two older figures kind of mentoring, one is more serious, the other more free-wheeling.
So the foundation is there for that to go off in the direction you were thinking about. What follows is seeing if the movie ever reinforces that through action/dialogue/cinematography/etc. Like a really basic example would be a scene where Joel wants Jessie to shoot something one way and Lee wants her to do it another way. Or a bit of dialogue where Sammy explains that Lee and Joel have two different approaches but that’s what makes them so good together.
Obviously, it can get more nuanced than that. Like in Perfect Blue, the main character, Mima, has her first role in a major TV series after having been a successful idol (Japanese pop star). Except one scene involves a sexual assault. It’s completely fake. And gets interrupted several times for adjustments. The other actor is really nice. But it still gets under her skin. The scene ends with this blinding white light. After that, she starts having intense hallucinations of the idol version of herself. And that blinding white light keeps repeating as a motif whenever fame/delusion comes up. No one ever points out the light or explains the light. Its meaning is derived only from context clues.
I don’t think Civil War has anything like that that reinforces a division in ideology between Lee and Joel and Jessie’s pull to either side. If that makes you feel any better lol.
In terms of that scene where Joel hits on Jessie and wanting an answer about it…
Putting my novelist hat on for a second. Scenes in narratives tend to advance the story, or provide exposition, or develop thematics. Or 2 of those at once. Or all 3 at once. Most narrative artists focus on story and exposition, with some thematic stuff put at the beginning, middle, and end. The more high brow you go, the more emphasis placed on theme.
So compare The Da Vinci Code to To the Lighthouse. Almost every scene in Lighthouse weaves together story, exposition, and theme. Whereas Dan Brown’s novel barely fucks with themes. Same with Harry Potter.
That’s not a bad thing. You can write without theme in mind and still tell a great story that moves people. And even great novelists like Cormac McCarthy or Roberto Bolano, didn’t focus on theme all the time.
In my experience, Garland tends to be an action/exposition guy with some thematic stuff that’s more about the concept than it is the details. I don’t think there’s much thematic nuance to Ex Machina or Annihilation. Or Civil War.
Tar is an example of a movie where most scenes have thematic subtext to them. Like the scene where Lydia argued with the student about teaching conductors who were bad people. It advances the story but also does a lot of thematic work and foreshadowing.
I would say Garland just wanted to develop the characters a bit and eliminate the idea of romance in the film. It provides exposition in that Joel didn’t just invite a random girl with them out of the kindness of his heart but did have some interest in her, but he’s a good enough pursue to hear no once and let that be it. It also characterizes Jessie and shows how serious she is. So it’s not like the scene doesn’t do any work. Especially when we later see Jessie kind of flirting with Lee at the clothing store in the one town. It has more nuance because Jessie had rejected Joel.
Don’t know if that provides closure. But, in my “professional” opinion, I wouldn’t think too much about it.
Thanks for the write up, and I guess that makes sense. Not only does it eliminate a potential romance between Jessie and Joel, but also between Joel and Lee as well.
Its hard to really nail down a movie after a single viewing, but if thats the case then I would probably criticize that scene and say it should have ended up on the cutting room floor. Its really random and seems kind of out of no where, and then is pretty much ignored the rest of the story. If you took it out, no one would notice and I dont think eliminating romance is something that was really required
Quick question from the beginning of that analysis. Their take on the final scene has this:
Does Joel say “Yeah, that’ll do” or “Yeah, they all do,” referencing Sammy’s point about how these dictators are always lesser men and always disappoint when face to face? I thought it was the latter.
I personally heard "that'll"
It may have been. But in that moment, I definitely got the impression that he was having the same recognition that Sammy did, and realizing his old friend was right and there wasn’t anything profound to be found in the man, as opposed to actually thinking he had something satisfying on its own.
EDIT: Apologies if this interpretation is offensive.
I also heard "They all do".
He says “That’ll do” as in “That’ll do for a quote”. Found the film online and replayed that moment a bunch
But in that moment, I definitely got the impression that he was having the same recognition that Sammy did, and realizing his old friend was right and there wasn’t anything profound to be found in the man, as opposed to actually thinking he had something satisfying on its own.
So I wouldn’t finish that quote as “That’ll do for a quote,” but something more like, “That’ll do, you’ve shown who you are and Sammy was fucking right.”
EDIT: Another way of putting it is that I felt that moment was more about character, and Joel’s relationship with Sammy, than about journalism and Joel doing the job.
I like the spirit of what you’re saying. But Joel tells the soldiers to wait because he needs to get a quote. The flow of action goes:
-Soldiers about to shoot
-Joel tells them to wait because he needs a quote
-President begs for his life
-Joel then lets them shoot
He lets the soldiers shoot because he got the quote he needed. And he acknowledges that with “That’ll do”. If you want to extend that to more thematic, literary, philosophical ends, you can. But I would stress that Joel’s acknowledging his satisfaction with the quote.
It's definitely the former. But it drives home the same point. Like, of course that's all you have to say for yourself after everything.
I couple things that really got to me: if the film had been about a family trying to make it out of an area that suddenly erupted into this divided civil war style landscape I would get a lot of their actions.
But these are supposed to be war hardened, seasoned journalists. when they encounter Plemmons’ monster of a character it’s staggering at their failure to read the room so to speak.
First, when Jessie chillingly asks “What KIND of Americans are you?” They look bewildered at his riddle of a question. Shouldn’t they above anyone in all of America know the answer to this question? Like even to just get themselves out of harms way? Shouldn’t they have prepared for this type of scenario? Instead they appear shocked and taken by total surprise.
Second it’s clear their compatriot was not a US national so you would think they would have some kind of security detail being that it’s an absolute given that would be be in imminent danger if seen or detected given it’s what - at least in part this entire civil war is about?
It’d be like sending a black reporter into a race riot to ask questions. It just nakedly doesn’t jibe.
Look I get it’s all parable but I would have loved more of a meditation upon how extremism begats an even worse more warped extremism. Like if the president had laid out a bunch of staunch beliefs only for us to find out from plenmons that they have evolved those beliefs much further into something else almost entirely.
I don’t think they failed to read Plemons’ character at all. They just felt they had no choice but to engage, because he already had two of their people, one being a child that they couldn’t abandon. If they had just come across Plemons and his men terrorizing two unknown people, they probably would have stayed hidden and documented from a safe distance.
Lee points out that the soldiers clearly don’t want to be seen doing what they’re doing, and Sammy even explicitly tells them that the whole thing reeks of death. They go in because they have to and adopt a casual manner because they hope it will help them. They’re hoping that being press will still save them.
EDIT: Fixed weird autocorrect.
Also interesting that this might be the only significant news that they actually uncovered yet they didn't take a single picture of it!
The “organization” of factions (not really mentioned but alluded to) and the amount of time that has taken place (seems to be weeks before this) make everything a mess in terms of who’s who. This is referred to in the sniper scene as both sides don’t know who is shooting, rather just that they’re shooting.
Plemons isn’t a for or against the main faction in the movie. He seems to be of the other ones, and even then, more of an opportunist. They’re dumping random bodies. You can guess right out what the right answer would be but it would be a guess. He’s not wearing a badge or anything. It’s a civil war where people may just fight their neighbors
As for the press, the security detail probably gets them shot on site by someone. Notice they don’t even carry guns themselves? That way they can be neutral in every facet no matter who they encounter. Not to mention, they seemed to be in the right place at the right time. They’re in NYC and need to go over like three states to get to DC. If they were a reporter in California it would be a non-start. They’re working with what they got.
I'll just remark that it was an amazing scene that has sparked some good debates.
Agreed!
I have the desire to see it a second time because in some ways, this film is very nuanced. I've only been to the theater twice this year and this was the most well-attended film of the two. It was absolute silence in the theater, no one talked about the film, I'm thinking that some were a bit shocked.
There is no evidence that the war is about anything related to race or immigration. It is very plausible that Plemmons is a rogue evil element taking advantage of the chaos.
There's no evidence that the war is or isn't about anything.
Not true at all. We know the president violated the constitution and refused to leave office and disbanded the FBI, and now people are trying to kill him.
I don't see why we should indict Joel's thrillseeking and obvious biases vs. Lee's centrism and forced political "neutrality" and emotional detachment she sees as a function of her job. Because we don't know what this conflict is actually about, maybe Joel has good reason to be more sympathetic to thew WF. The WF clearly seems way more invested in protecting the lives of the journalists than the other side did. So since we don't know what the conflict is about, a strategic move by Garland, he doesn't get to judge Joel for bias. Because we can just say the President's forces could have been throwing people "like Joel" into camps and handwave that away.
This doesn't track. Lee was there for the exact same reason as Joel and Jessie. If Lee hadn't died, she also would have gotten the picture. Lee wanted the picture. Lee is having a full on breakdown in the third act and then immediately turns it off when she realizes the President wasn't in the limo. She has the cognizance to get them to go to the WH to finish what they came for. I'm not sure how the WH siege is supposed to create a dichotomy between Lee and Joel.
The president is in his third term, disbanded the FBI, used missiles against civilians and in dialogue is compared to Mussolini and Gaddafi. Pretty sure the movie was clear about what started the conflict. The president is a fascist.
Its not about whether Joel had good reason or not, but neutrality and checking biases is one of the most important aspects of journalism. Of course we all have biases, its literally impossible to not form opinions regarding subjects you learn about, but being subjective and reporting truth in an unbiased way is one of the most noble aspects of being a reporter.
I get your second point, I def need to rewatch for a more serious analysis. Maybe Lee abandoning her detachment to save Jessie was her downfall, otherwise she would have lived and she would have gotten the infamous shot of the President's death.
I need to rewatch for a better analysis, but overall I think this film was very well acted and directed. Its pure atmosphere and really moved me in a way I did not expect. I was really sucked in from beginning to end, its interesting seeing it be so controversial (though, how could it not be?)
No, "neutrality" is absolutely not one of the most important aspects of journalism. Objectivity is but that has nothing to do with being neutral. I promise you, that the Palestinian journalists getting bombed on and risking their lives in Gaza right now are not "neutral" when it comes to the Israel/Palestine conflict but they're still doing good work.
And to be clear, I really liked this film. I loved it. But I also found it almost incoherent. I'm coming across more that I didn't like it because I have these gripes, but I still think the film was excellent.
You should absolutely be seeking neutrality for the journalism you consume, the fact that we don't value that and even detest it is an indictment of our culture and values IMO. Its not a new thing by any means, but when it comes to discussions on domestic issues specifically the internet and social media has really driven the "intentionally divisive scoop" level of reporting to a new level. We can't really blame reporters, we are the ones who seem to enjoy it and want to consume it, while the public also continues to show less and less trust towards our news. I think its somewhat exemplified in this movie, I really dont think we are supposed to take Joel's comments or opinions at face value as truth and its implied there's a lot more to it than "WF = good, Loyalists = bad"
I think this is one of those movies that really needs a second viewing, we all had some kind of expectation going into it and I think most people were surprised as to what it actually was. I was pleasantly surprised, but I'm gonna go on a limb here and say that everyone discussing it has only seen it once like myself. I think its probably going to improve once you're more familiar with what it is (rhetorical "you're", not you specifically). I'm really looking forward to seeing it again, myself
No. You literally didn't address my point. Do you think the Palestinian journalists, on the ground, covering what's happening in Gaza are "neutral" in this conflict? You know they aren't. So you now have to admit that you don't listen to them or care about what they have to say and that I shouldn't care about what they say, and my caring about what they say is a a moral indictment on me.
Miss me with the cute, fanciful grandstanding on what we, as a society, should or shouldn't be doing and put your holier than thou ideals to the the test. Are you saying that the Palestinian journalists in Gaza are bad journalists because they aren't neutral?
You're confusing neutrality and objectivity as the other poster refers to. Neutrality in your words is simply bothsidesism which is a scourge in modern journalism as if both sides are equal. Its false balance.
The funniest part of this discourse to me is that in almost every post the character is referred to as Joel. I’m not crazy, right? His name’s Joe!
The whole movie is very reminiscent of The Last of Us so I’m assuming wires are just getting crossed.
Nope, if you look up IMDB his name is Joel, but it is a funny coincidence
That’s crazy they very clearly say Joe in the movie 😨
Me and my wife must need our hearing checked.