On Captain America Civil War

For years superheroes have, without regard for the unseen public, caused mayhem in major cities, without doubt causing untold numbers of dead that are never seen or acknowledged. Out of sight, out of mind seems to be the Marvel mantra when it comes to collateral damage. There may be the occasional question put to a Superman or Batman or Iron Man about the lives lost because of their actions, but these are quickly forgotten in time for the bombastic final third. 

It is with regard to this issue that Captain America Civil War becomes one of the more interesting superhero films. And that is perhaps no surprise as Captain America remains the most interesting character Marvel has; a man out of time with an ideology that rubs aggressively against the neoliberal one he finds himself living in. The driving narrative behind Civil War is the approach to the restrictions and limitations that are being imposed on the growing number of 'enhanced' humans. The reason for this being two fold. Firstly, the risk posed to America by having these men and women 'free'. As someone comments, America wouldn't allow a nuclear weapon to be in the country without knowing where it is, why would they allow a witch to be the same? Secondly, the accountability for the lives lost during their jingoist actions. 

The argument is set up well, with solid reasoning on both sides making this less a battle between good and evil and more a regrettable falling out between friends. This brings emotion and humour to the action that is so often missing from these films. Civil War is about characters, not about CGI monsters fighting CGI robots, or whatever form the computer deems they take, and it is this that is the failing of so many blockbusters, from both Avengers (2012 & 2015) films to all Transformers (2007 - ) films. How do you expect an audience to care about a mash of computer generated imagery battling it out. Civil War is a smart move towards more adult storytelling, although of course it contains enough to keep its key audience entertained. The action is never far away and, despite being too shaky at times, shows creativity in choreography. There is also an annoying arrogance to the 'heroes'  that seems to appear as standard these days - apparently cockiness and heroism go hand in hand (with the exception of Captain America, another reason to like him). 

While Civil War seeks to address issues of morality and accountability, it does so with a hammer, rather than the light touch of say, Eye in the Sky (2016). There is no room for subtlety in the Marvel universe. Therefore, while the older audience may appreciate the more adult storyline, placating them with the verbal equivalent of flash cards may annoy after a while. Claiming that Civil War is one of the best of the superhero canon sounds like a roaring endorsement, and although it is entertaining and doesn't feel its length, the competition in the genre isn't exactly strong. 

On a Very Modern War Film with Eye in the Sky

There have been war films that have explored the contemporary nature of war. Philosophically, of course, but technologically, too. In Bigelow’s Zero Dark Thirty (2012) we saw the gadgets and the drone footage involved in capturing Bin Laden and comedies such as Grimsby (2016) display the comedy that can be found in drone warfare. However, Eye in the Sky maybe the first truly 21^st Century war film in its detailed investigation of drone conflict. And, in doing so, it shows us the horror and the farce of unmanned killing machines.

Gavin Hood has crafted a thriller of immense skill that balances its many spinning plates like an episode of Game of Thrones (2011- ). In short, the editing here is exemplary. We are exposed to several different rooms around the world and one exterior setting as we follow the decision making involving one drone, one house and two missiles. Guy Hibbert’s screenplay is superb. It does so much, while seeming effortless. It flows beautifully, covering drone pilots, diplomats, politicians, terrorists and bureaucracy without ever appearing crowded or rushed. Equally, this is a script that is morally challenging. Whatever your beliefs about drone warfare, Eye in the Sky will ask you to question them and if you had no beliefs, you’ll leave baffled at the state of modern warfare and ease with which killing can take place.

Hood’s mise-en-scene is quietly mocking as his characters, sat in comfortable rooms or in exotic locations are dressed in military clothing, playing ping pong or sipping tea. His distaste for the politics of death by remote is clear, but not stuffed down our throats. The humour is subtle, but has terrifying undertones as Alan Rickman’s Lieutenant performs mundane tasks at the same time as encouraging (convincingly) collateral damage. This is an intelligent, balanced film that benefits from Hood’s light touch and Hibbert’s well research script.