Annihilation (2018) -- Natalie Portman, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Oscar Isaac, Tessa Thompson, dir. Alex Garland, based on Jeff VanderMeer's book

The California-Texas alliance, the president who's coded as a mixture of Biden and Trump, the reference to an "Antifa massacre" without a clarification on whether Antifa was massacred or committed the massacre, the strict avoidance of actual political ideology throughout the film, the general anxiety over partisanship/political tensions without ever taking a side... I do think of this movie as profoundly politically unserious in a particularly American liberal way. It's trying so hard to avoid angering any viewers that it ties itself into incoherent knots. NPR brained is right.

― OneSecondBefore, Friday, April 19, 2024 11:22 AM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

lol ok u beat me to it

i saw this today with my dad and my sister in east tennessee. there were i think 5 other people in the movie theater. it was a matinee. pretty crazy fuckin film. i'm surprised no one's mentioned how well it's made. the photography, the sound. it's amazing. the choppers overhead felt real.

re how the movie assiduously refuses any mapping of current party politics onto the different military forces it's the right choice imo because otherwise we'd be cheering on one side when they blow the shit out of the other, or vice versa, at least a little bit, and the movie doesn't want to let you get that comfortable

xpost the president is clearly trumpian for the reasons i think akm spells out above - but the various secessionary forces all disagree with each other (i think sammy says they'll all tear each other apart when d.c. falls)

the plemons character has enough bullshit racist nativist political ideology to fill the rosebowl and the movie's not exactly subtle about it

you can say that if you were making this movie you'd have a Texas-Missouri alliance instead or something, but in this movie, the one you actually saw, it's a Texas-California alliance. why? because the filmmakers are mush-brained NPR centrists who don't want to offend anyone? i really don't think that's why.

people are rioting for water in new york city which is about as water-secure as a major metropolis gets iirc - something Very Big has torn society apart and one of the consequences is no water. maybe the Texas-California alliance is about getting access to water. Maybe one of the other factions has blocked it and the trumpy guy won't step in. idk. none of that is important for the story this movie is telling

I saw "dude takes 3rd term, is obvious scumbag for bombing 'his' civilians" within the first 3rd of the movie and that was enough to put aside any claims of 'political' cowardness. They're clear good guys and bad guys inferred by this movie, and they're not very controversial claims of whose on which side. The parallels of what Yahu's doing in Gaza and how journalists are being treated by that kind of government.... you know, I really didn't think this film was being subtle about its politics when it chooses to address politics (like, 2% of the movie, thankfully).

Maybe Andrew should have set the movie in Australia so Americans could enjoy it

*Alex. Brainfart

I think this movie will grow in appreciation as years go on, however the future of the country goes

The Texas-California alliance sounds implausible if the movie is meant to take place in the world we live in now. But one thing we know is that Kirsten Dunst's character built her reputation on photos of "the Antifa Massacre" that she took when she was in college. Assuming the character is the same age as Dunst (41), this event happened roughly 20 years before the events of the movie.

So the movie is either set at least 20 years in the future, enough time for political realities to shift (less than 30 years ago, states like Louisiana, Kentucky, Missouri, and West Virginia voted Democratic in a presidential election). Or it's set in an alternate-reality present or near future that doesn't neatly map onto the real world.

It doesn't really matter because Garland isn't really interested in worldbuilding. But, as Max points out, that doesn't mean that the movie can't still work effectively as a pulp thriller:

"Ultimately the movie seems much less concerned with making a particular political or moral statement (or even exploring the politics or morals of its fictional scenario) than it does with efficiently and energetically moving its truck of adrenaline junkies from one suspenseful action set-piece to the next. It’s like finding a 1967 alternate-history novel published by Del Rey with the tagline 'They Crossed a War Zone Between New York and D.C.--to Photograph the President’s Murder!""

https://maxread.substack.com/p/what-is-the-civil-war-in-civil-war

Del Rey Books was established in 1977, but ok.

Not familiar with that publisher; I was imagining a mass-market paperback published by Bantam or Signet.

Other than that, I thought the essay was fine. Still not sure if I'll see the movie.

i think it probably works a lot better if you don’t know much about it before going in but i guess you’re past that point

it’s a very intense experience

my only knock on it is that the last 20 minutes play out a little like a videogame fantasy.. i was also confused about what seemed like suicide on lee’s part. why does she stay up like that? clearly something has changed in her, but it feels out of character even so

Tracer OTM. This film isn't trying to be a satire about current US politics. It could jist as well have been set in Australia or any other country and ultimately been the same

I agree, it's an incredibly well produced film. Every helicopter, round of ammo, explosion, feels real. And when Dunst melts down towards the end, I felt it. Enjoyed the characters and the acting a lot too

i recall that scene Tracer alludes to as being in slow motion, so I don't think she's staying up for very long. i could be wrong

the way they filmed it it felt deliberate to me. if they'd wanted to show her getting clipped by a bullet as she tumbled on top of jessie, like an accidental consequence of her action, they could have, but she really just sways there for a second, looking down. it was like once jessie was safe she had no reason to keep living? she had nothing left to accomplish? idk

Don't forget, there had to be enough time for Jessie to take a few photos of the occasion, for character development reasons

The Symmetry must be obeyed

(I guess that actor is Brazillian but since the character was from Florida I assumed he was Cuban)

― I? not I! He! He! HIM! (akm), Monday, April 15, 2024 8:09 PM (one week ago) bookmarkflaglink

lol he sounded Venezuelan to me

The politics for all the reasons Neanderthal and Tracer Hand mentioned are....explicit. The Texas-California alliance is the odd one, but we've seen any number of convenient political alliances in the last century. When the film does go into equivalences is showing the barbarism of the WF soldiers (is Plemons and his unit one of them? I couldn't tell. I may have missed it). Maybe the anti-faux-Trump forces realized they needed to get as dirty as he did?

I thought that pulp book line was going to be about this book my mom's old boss co-wrote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Texas-Israeli_War:_1999

When the film does go into equivalences is showing the barbarism of the WF soldiers (is Plemons and his unit one of them? I couldn't tell. I may have missed it).

no, I think they were simply a militia, who may or may not have supported the President, but were absolutely happy to use the resultant chaos to further their own awful goals.

I thought one of the most interesting scenes was the one with the house and the invisible sniper, and the guys they encountered hunkered down. it's completely unclear, and maybe irrelevant, who is who. When asked what's going on, the answer was "that guy is shooting at us. we are shooting at him".

Ah, makes sense.

Yeah, that sniper shot (blurring him was a shrewd touch) creeped me out.

I thought for a moment that the shot of the white woman, Latin American man, and Hong Kong reporter in front of Plemons' militia was on-the-nose, but the NPR affiliate reporters I know are a diverse lot.

Stephen McKinley was best in show as he almost always is.

xposts yeah the movie couldn’t really make it clearer that that line of interrogation is not what it’s about

Stephen McKinley is getting a lot of work these days!

I thought that pulp book line was going to be about this book my mom's old boss co-wrote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Texas-Israeli_War:_1999

So, I watched this thing at my local AMC theater today at 2:35 in one of the smaller screening rooms: 50 seats at most. I'd say it was half-full. It impressed me -- I can count on five people at most on a Monday afternoon.

Not Waldrop, Saunders - he gave me a copy when I was 11 or 12 but I don't remember anything about it aside from the title (and later wondering if the guys from Lift to Experience read it). I think he and Waldrop ended up not on good terms over the years.

Quite fun to see nick offerman getting clipped

This movie was extremely intense in the watching, and a day or two later, but I’ve thought about it zero times since. It doesn’t have a conventional structure where the protagonist learns a lesson about themselves or whatever - it’s kind of a shaggy dog story, video-gamey - get from A to B. Or in a lot of ways like a turn-based role-playing game. These different obstacles and enemies, a band of travelers with different skills, various signs of impending dread. I think it is really valuable as a way of confronting war and how fucking horrible it is, and as an intense experience, but beyond that there’s not much to chew on tbh

That's what I went in expecting of this, since 28 Days Later is the only other Garland film I've seen and it gave me exactly that experience: intense and riveting in the moment, but I can barely remember a thing about it.

It also felt credible that war photographers, especially Stewart's character, would be less into taking sides or even figuring out factions, rather than capturing raw footage and letting other reporters sort it out.

As a big fan of Jon Lee Anderson's reportage (in recent years from the Central African Republic, Haiti, and elsewhere), setting a film through this POV especially drew me in.

This movie was extremely intense in the watching, and a day or two later, but I’ve thought about it zero times since. It doesn’t have a conventional structure where the protagonist learns a lesson about themselves or whatever - it’s kind of a shaggy dog story, video-gamey - get from A to B. Or in a lot of ways like a turn-based role-playing game. These different obstacles and enemies, a band of travelers with different skills, various signs of impending dread. I think it is really valuable as a way of confronting war and how fucking horrible it is, and as an intense experience, but beyond that there’s not much to chew on tbh

― Humanitarian Pause (Tracer Hand), Sunday, April 28, 2024 12:21 PM (ten hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

idk I think there's a lot there about how exposure to extreme violence quickly warps people's moral & ethical compasses ... its a movie about what its like to become inured to casual violence in a war zone, placed in a Familiar Western Context that forces the western subject to not distance themselves from it as something happening "over there"...It does a good job splitting the difference between the last decade of backsliding towards fascism that makes it feel both totally feasible, and showing something that is w/in recent history totally alien, something ppl envision happening 'way over there'... but the way that ppl are profoundly affected by exposure to extreme violence feels like its underlying theme to me...the way the idea of positioning oneself at some ethical remove seems insane and impossible once the safety nets have been removed from social society.... really smart movie imo

the other thing that's kept me engaged with it is the number of people i see w very stupid opinions about it. some of the most incredibly stupid takes a movie has inspired in years

Great post

showing something that is w/in recent history totally alien, something ppl envision happening 'way over there'

"It doesn’t have a conventional structure where the protagonist learns a lesson about themselves or whatever"

i cannot rly believe ppl still hold up this kind of screenwriter 101 template as something to be considered at all tbh

great revive

Saw this a couple of nights ago. I agree with most of the positive criticism, especially it being deliberately politically vague (though the subtext is clear) so, as Tracer says, you don't get too comfortable. I thought having the journalists as protagonists was very interesting, viewing the action that extra step removed somehow, paradoxically, made it seem more real - I guess because as a civilian it's easier to place yourself in their shoes than it would be if the main characters were combatants; and also being unarmed civilians they are much more vulnerable and it makes the danger much more apparent.

I think, though, the movie undercuts itself somewhat. It wants to show the horrors of war, and the danger and the moral complexity of war reporting. But it also wants to show how exciting it is, and the last section is basically a thrill ride where it's totally clear who we are rooting for.

What do we think about Jessie? It seems to me that from the very start to the very end she is, without exception, a dipshit and a shithead.

I thought she was just a kid

kids can be (or not be) dipshits and shitheads too.

That's true! Though I thought most of her dipshit/shitheadness was directly related to her youth (she's meant to be like 18 or something right? That's the impression I got). Didn't think she was any less or more of a shithead than her two companions. She just had inexperience tacked onto it

22 or 23 they said in the film. I agree she seemed younger but the actress is 25 or 6 and all young people seem like fresh faced babes in arms to me. She showed a complete inability to learn from experience and a complete recklessness and willingness to put herself *and others* in mortal danger.

It was also clear that Lee was motivated by a desire to bring the truth to light, Jessie was an adrenaline junkie (like Joel, to be fair) motivated by a desire to get good looking pictures.

Seemed to me like she was pretty adrenaline averse for all but the car chase + last scene! That was her development. Can't deal with any of the pressure/reality of what she's getting herself into, to then going overboard on the other side and putting everyone in danger because of it. She was a kid who had ideas of war, but had yet to actually meet it in the flesh. A foil to the worn and weary Joel + Lee.

Like yeah, total idiot, but I do think most of her idiocy can be reduced to youthful naivete and inexperience which is an inescapable period of life. She just decided to bring her youthful naivete and inexperience to literal war. But you can blame a drunk and horny Joel for that. I blame him as much as her

it's clear that Joel, Tony and Bohai are dipshits and shitheads too. And that those are not all that they are.

yeah i get all that. but her complete failure to learn from experience - and what she does after lee's death - indicate to me that she ain't going to change.

I can't believe no one has commented on how hot Wagner Moura is in this thing

i saw him described as a cut-price (or second-rate or whatever) pedro pascal on a twitter comment about this movie and i had to put the phone down and take a walk

"Wagner Moura" is such a quintessentially Brazilian name.

i had to put the phone down and take a walk

Words to live by