A disconcerting movie zooms in on war reporting

The movie “Civil War” gives little backstory, leaving viewers to experience war in the moment, the way the reporters in the film cover it.

The movie’s bold title “Civil War” had me hooked from the start. I’ve become a bit obsessed with reading articles and books out there that illustrate or explain the political extremes plaguing my native United States.

Now it’s been made into a film, with actors, violence and an ending reviewers mostly don’t give away. I had to see it as soon as it opened here in Paris, and it did just a week after it hit the movies back home.

Once the lights went down and the film started, though, a different film unfolded. Brutal violence quickly filled the screen, but little explanation was given.

The sketchy details offered — that California and Texas had formed the secessionist “Western Forces” and launched an assault on Washington, D.C. — seemed to contradict all the political logic I’d seen in print. There’s some vague talk about a Florida Alliance, too, but little light is shed on its role in the story.

It slowly dawned on me there was no use in trying to figure out the politics in this movie. There is no rhyme or reason for this unexplained story. It’s not about politics.

Rather, the film focuses on the four journalists covering this breakdown of society we’re watching.

Depictions of war reporters old and young

Three of them are old pros, one is a rookie. Along with scenes of drinking, smoking and swapping stories with colleagues, there’s a lot of practical advice for a newbie to this tough world. Figure out the story and go after it ruthlessly. Know your opposition. Catch sleep when you can. Keep close to the action.

There was one thing that was missing, though — context. I’ve covered several wars in Europe and Asia. One of the biggest challenges was just making sense of the story. That “nut graph” high up and occasional background here and there were essential parts of any report.

“Civil War” provides a little more context about the journalists’ lives than it gives for the chaos they’re covering. Lee is a war photographer with a career launched by her famous shot of the “Antifa massacre” — the film doesn’t tell us when and where this happened or whether these “anti-fascist” protesters killed or were killed.

Joel is a quote-chasing reporter in it for the thrill, although we only actually see him interviewing someone at the end of the film. Jessie is the wannabe war photographer learning frightening lessons on the job. 

The only one with any distance is Sammy, an overweight older veteran still writing for a fading daily newspaper. In a tense scene as the others face looming execution, he suddenly swoops in with a gutsy move and saves them.

These four seem to stand for different types of reporters, none of which does justice to the challenges they face.

War reporting takes a toll

Lee has grown tough and weary from all she’s seen, with none of the original idealism that made her want to show war to warn against it. She has given up trying to explain things, telling Jessie: “We take pictures so others can ask these questions.”

Joel probably never wondered about the “why” in any conflict, just about trashing the opposition by getting the scoop. He’s all action, gets his money quote and will soon be on to the next big story.

Jessie grows bolder and better with the camera as the film goes on, leaving the impression she’ll one day be as tough and war-weary as her mentor Lee. It’s too early to say how she’ll react to it.

We see some photos but never the stories that Joel and Sammy may have sent. There’s no way of knowing whether they put into words what was happening and what it meant.

War reporting attracts all kinds — gung-ho reporters, nostalgic soldiers, correspondents sucked into the chaos (that’s me). If you can put up with the violence, it’s a good film to see. And to venture some answers that the film doesn’t give.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER:

1. What is the role of a war correspondent?
2. Do you agree that journalists who cover war should simply report rather than question?
3. Do you think you would be a good war reporter?

Tom Heneghan was a correspondent, bureau chief, regional news editor and global religion editor during his 40 years at Reuters, with postings in Vienna, Geneva, Islamabad, Bangkok, Hong Kong, Bonn and Paris. He covered the Soviet-Afghan war, two papal elections and Germany’s reunification, which he analyzed in his book “Unchained Eagle: Germany After The Wall”. Based in Paris, he now writes regularly for The Tablet in London and Religion News Service in Washington.

Read more News Decoder articles about journalism: