Episode Transcript
Transcripts are displayed as originally observed. Some content, including advertisements may have changed.
Use Ctrl + F to search
0:00
I don't know if you knew this,
0:02
but the world of podcasting is massive.
0:04
Hi, I'm Leah. I'm the host of
0:06
CBC's Podcast Playlist. There is
0:08
such a constant avalanche of new releases it can
0:10
be hard to keep up. Luckily, Podcast
0:13
Playlist can help. Every week we deep
0:15
dive into the podcast world to find
0:17
the most compelling stories. And every month,
0:19
we'll give you a sneak peek into
0:21
the hottest new releases so you can
0:23
stay ahead. Tune in to
0:25
Podcast Playlist on CBC Listen and everywhere
0:28
you get your podcasts. This
0:31
is a CBC Podcast. This
0:38
new Kristen Dunst movie, Civil War, was the
0:40
number one movie in the box office
0:42
this past weekend. I think it's a
0:45
compelling and sometimes frustrating movie that poses
0:47
a lot of challenging questions. Then
0:49
on the podcast, we'll get into what Civil
0:51
War tells you about this moment right
0:53
now. I'm
0:58
El-Amin Abdul-Mahmoud.
1:04
This is Comotion. I've been waiting for
1:07
this conversation all week. I want to
1:09
get into Alex Garland's new film, Civil
1:11
War. This is a movie that
1:13
is set in the near future. It imagines what
1:15
a new Civil War in the United States might
1:17
look like. And then what the movie does is
1:20
it puts you in the position of shadowing a
1:22
group of journalists as they make their way through
1:24
a bunch of war-torn states. Here's a
1:26
bit of the trailer. Okay,
1:30
so here's the thing about Civil War.
1:46
It does a bunch of interesting things, but
1:49
one of the most interesting things about it
1:51
is you never find out the why. You
1:53
never find out why this war is happening.
1:55
There are sometimes I think some vague details
1:57
here and there, like the president, for example,
1:59
played by Nate Nick Offerman has disbanded the
2:01
FBI. We end up finding
2:03
out that California and Texas have formed an
2:05
alliance, which is quite an unlikely alliance. Then
2:07
otherwise, what you're doing is you're just following
2:10
this veteran war photographer, played by Kirsten Dunst,
2:12
whose own politics and feelings kind of remain
2:14
a bit of a mystery throughout the movie.
2:16
I spoke to Omar El-Ekad and Rad-Sabbin-Pillay about
2:19
civil war, and I started by asking Omar
2:21
to describe this version of America that we
2:23
find ourselves in. Yeah,
2:25
I thought it was a really clever trick to
2:29
avoid getting bogged down in the kind of
2:31
fight that this movie intends to
2:33
want to pick, but then actually doesn't want to pick
2:35
at all. So, for
2:37
example, you have these Western forces, and I
2:39
suspect, I'll never be able to prove, but
2:42
I suspect that California and Texas is
2:45
a very deliberate choice because even
2:47
though if you go to the Inland Empire in
2:49
California, you'll know that parts of California are incredibly
2:51
right-wing, California is still
2:53
shorthand for left-wing in American political
2:55
discourse, whereas Texas is the exact
2:58
opposite. And if you couple them together in
3:00
this patently nonsensical,
3:03
non-realistic way, you get
3:05
to avoid having a conversation about who
3:07
the extremists are or who the
3:10
resistance is. And you see
3:12
this sort of repeatedly throughout the movie. They
3:15
go to a camp for internally displaced people,
3:18
and the people running the camp
3:20
are from the World Relief
3:22
Program, something so vague. Global Relief World
3:24
or something, yes. Yeah, exactly, right? Like
3:26
the fact that you and I could
3:28
sit here for 20 minutes and just
3:30
come up with various permutations of those
3:32
three words is exactly what's intended,
3:34
right? I think it's a movie that is barging
3:37
in through the door, trying to be
3:40
very loud and provocative, but when it comes down
3:42
to the specific details, does not
3:44
want to get bogged down in a conversation about
3:47
who's in the right or who's in the wrong. It
3:49
wants to say extremism is bad and then kind of
3:51
move on. Yeah, my read on
3:53
this is that it's definitely a movie
3:55
that wants to play on the conversations
3:57
that everybody's having about political polarization. Without
4:00
you know preventing a certain set of
4:02
the audience from coming into the theater
4:04
But rad, I'm gonna start
4:06
with the positives from you. What what about
4:09
this movie worked for you? I
4:11
mean, I think there's actually quite a bit
4:14
that worked for me because like Alex Garland
4:16
He's a filmmaker who knows how to concoct
4:18
some really stunning images and moments Yeah You
4:20
know like and I would say like it
4:22
like I think he's a great collector of
4:24
images and moments without necessarily building them into
4:26
a Satisfying whole and I feel that way
4:29
even about ex machina and and annihilation and
4:31
which are is to yeah, right? So in
4:33
this movie, I mean you think of like
4:35
the image of like when when Christmas Dunsons
4:37
character is watching the the news and you
4:39
see a map of the United States reflected
4:41
on her window And there's an explosion that
4:44
rocks the window and that map shakes like
4:46
that's a cool image Yeah, okay when they're
4:48
when they're driving through embers It's a very
4:50
apocalypse now image when Jesse Plemons his face
4:52
is an apocalyptic image Like whether he's asking
4:54
you about Frito-Lay or what kind of American
4:56
you are right? Like like you've got a
4:58
lot of and I think my favorite scene
5:00
in this movie and the scene that almost
5:02
sold the movie for me is When
5:05
they when they arrive at the small town and
5:07
they're like and the people in this small town
5:09
are like oh We just stay out of it.
5:12
They're like we stay completely This is a war
5:14
never touched their town like that the word never
5:16
touched their town Yeah, and then it then the
5:18
camera pans up and you see all these shooters
5:20
on their rooftops protecting the town So it's like
5:22
oh, yeah Yeah, we stay out of it at
5:25
gunpoint right and there's so much to kind of
5:27
pull out of that Is that it I mean
5:29
it to you the easy and like the easy
5:31
kind of I guess Relevance that scene is like,
5:33
okay This is like America itself that says that
5:35
it's staying out of other people's conflicts But then
5:38
it's doing so at gunpoint is because it's armed
5:40
to the teeth But it's also I wonder the
5:43
generous reading of that Is that is
5:45
that Alex Garland kind of pointing out
5:47
that this neutrality that he romanticizes all
5:49
bull? I yeah, first of
5:51
all, this is the idea of images that stick
5:53
with you Like this movie is just chock full
5:56
of them from beginning to the end the
5:59
mood that the The image that I keep returning
6:01
to is like the shot of two of the
6:03
main characters, a shot like
6:05
behind this helicopter that has been, you know,
6:07
felled in a daily penny parking lot. And
6:10
it just like it look is visually, genuinely
6:12
just visually stunning. But
6:14
you're right about the idea of like, here are
6:17
a bunch of images and here's what they amount
6:19
to in terms of what they actually want to
6:21
say. And those are two different conversations. Because I
6:23
feel like Alex Garland's ability as a technical director
6:26
is astonishing and is at work in this movie.
6:28
But in terms of his commentary, that's
6:30
the stuff that people have been fighting about. The
6:32
glass of stuff that I've seen the internet sort
6:35
of torn apart about whether, you know, this movie
6:37
is really trying to say something about America in
6:39
this moment. Or is this movie actually
6:41
like not interested in that particular question is just
6:43
kind of interested in the mechanics of, you know,
6:45
a road trip movie that also is going through
6:47
a civil war. Omer, when you
6:49
when you first watched the trailer for this film, you know,
6:51
you thought it looked in your words, incredibly trite. And
6:54
then you actually watched the movie. How did the movie
6:56
turn out for you? I
6:59
don't think it was a bad film. I
7:01
think it was an incredibly instructive movie, whether
7:03
it wanted to be or not on
7:06
the state of American political discourse as
7:08
it exists right now. Yeah. Where if
7:11
you're living in this country, hell, if you're living in the
7:13
West in general, you are
7:15
watching right wing political parties
7:18
essentially obliterate the mechanics
7:20
of democracy. You're
7:22
watching a slaughter on the other side of
7:25
the planet that's paid for with your tax
7:27
dollars. You're watching these incredibly violent things
7:30
that are not just things in of themselves, but
7:32
are projections of what's coming. But
7:35
you also might have to go
7:37
to dinner parties with people who support those things.
7:39
And so one of the sort
7:41
of central talking points
7:44
and avenues of rhetorical safety that
7:46
a lot of people have retreated
7:48
into is this notion that there's
7:50
bad things happening on all sides and
7:52
extremists on all sides are bad and bad things are bad
7:54
and so on and so forth. And I think this movie,
7:57
whether it wants to or not, is
7:59
such a thin. Fantastic distillation of that. I
8:02
agree completely the imagery is stunning and
8:05
not just the imagery but the the
8:07
soundtrack choices Which are incredibly adventurous. There's
8:10
a lot of technical really marvelous stuff
8:12
happening. Kirsten Dunst is doing an amazing
8:14
job. Yeah Fundamentally,
8:17
I think it's a political movie by virtue
8:19
of its negative space where you have this
8:21
film that is desperately wanting
8:24
for the moral righteousness
8:26
of resistance But also the
8:28
comfort and stability of Empire and
8:31
those are two fundamentally Opposing
8:33
things and what you end up with is a
8:35
kind of mush. Mm-hmm. It's very very loud very
8:37
provocative Not really seeming to
8:39
say very much at all Yeah, let
8:41
me let me give you let me give people who are
8:43
listening some of the examples of this Attempts
8:46
to avoid this pinning down of the politics
8:48
in the movie, you know For example
8:50
when we first meet Kristen Dunst and
8:53
Jesse the young journalist who really
8:55
adores her character Lee Says
8:58
to her. Oh you made your name
9:00
during the Antifa massacre It doesn't say
9:02
whether it's Antifa committing the massacre or
9:04
whether it was Antifa who were being
9:07
massacred It's got like well this sort
9:09
of vague political event is the thing that happened It
9:12
wants to terribly avoid any kind of commitment
9:14
to say like hey extremists on the right
9:17
or bad extremists on the left Or are
9:19
also also bad in the same way Where
9:22
like the last 10 years
9:24
of American? news cycles sort
9:27
of confirmed with people that Extremism
9:29
on the right has gone particularly violent
9:31
and like there's really one political party
9:33
that is interested in the mechanics of
9:35
insurrection For example, do you think this
9:37
movie actually commits to an apolitical frame?
9:40
Or do you see it as as Omer
9:42
says which is to say through avoiding answering
9:44
these questions? That's its own answer in its
9:46
own way This is
9:48
why Alex Garland makes it most so difficult, right?
9:50
Yeah, it's not like this. It's not to say
9:52
that this movie is a political I feel like
9:54
we're using the long range wrong language and we're
9:57
saying it's not a political movie because of course
9:59
there's gestures towards everything you're talking about,
10:01
right? Like Nick Offerman, there are shades of Trump
10:03
in him. Sometimes I get
10:05
the feeling that people want this to be a
10:07
movie that lambast Trump because we're going into an
10:09
election year and he's up for election. And I
10:11
don't need that from this. In
10:14
terms of complicating the politics so that
10:16
we can't really suss out what
10:18
this movie is trying to say, I
10:20
do think that's a cop out, right? Because
10:22
I do think what you're doing here is
10:25
you are making a movie that is
10:27
cosplaying as a serious film. As
10:29
a provocative film that is coming out in the middle
10:31
of, called Civil War, coming out in
10:34
the election year, the most you can say is
10:36
that well, fascism is harmful. Nationalism
10:38
is harmful. Which is true. It's
10:40
true, yeah. Not exactly. That's
10:42
not a factor, man. It's the same
10:44
point in Batman versus Superman. So if
10:46
you can't one up Zack Snyder in
10:48
your movie Politics, what's happening here? Like
10:51
I mean, I think for me, where it really loses
10:53
out is that you
10:56
don't have any conversation about any kind of
10:58
ideological tension expressed through these characters, because again,
11:00
you're romanticizing the neutrality of these characters. And
11:02
what you end up doing is just short-thrifting
11:04
your characters as well. Okay, I have a
11:07
lot of thoughts about where this movie wants
11:09
to go in terms of what it has
11:11
to say about journalists and their role right
11:13
now, but we're gonna take a quick break.
11:16
Think of your favorite one-hit wonder. Or
11:18
that overpriced toy your parents would never
11:20
let you have. Or that TV show
11:22
that no one else remembers because it was
11:24
canceled way too soon. Now what if
11:26
we could fix it? I'm Francesca Ramsey.
11:28
And I'm Delon Grant. And after 20
11:31
years of friendship, we are now hosting
11:33
a new nostalgia podcast called Let Me
11:35
Fix It. Each episode we'll dig into
11:37
our favorite celebrities, shows, and brands of yesteryear,
11:39
and then imagine what it would take to
11:41
repackage them for relevance today. Think of our
11:43
show as an intervention, but with way
11:45
less stakes. So subscribe to Let Me
11:48
Fix It wherever you get your favorite podcasts. We'll
11:50
be back in just a second. Thank you. Alright,
12:05
we're back. My name is Alameen Abdul-Mahmoud and this
12:07
is Commotion. Let's get back to it. I'm talking
12:09
to Omar Alakhed and Radtime and Pelay and we're
12:12
talking about this new movie, Civil War. The
12:14
director Alex Garland, by the way, was on cue with
12:16
Tom Power recently and I recommend going out to check
12:18
back conversation wherever you get your podcasts, but I just
12:21
want to play you guys a quick clip from that
12:23
interview. Let's hear it. And the film
12:25
is trying to function like a reporter itself.
12:28
So it's trying to remove its own bias
12:30
and just showing you a sequence of events
12:32
in the way a journalist would. When
12:34
I told people I was going to
12:36
make a film, particularly guy in the film industry,
12:38
I said, I want to make a film where
12:40
journalists and the heroes are the heroes. And they
12:42
said, don't do that. Everybody hates journalists and it
12:45
freaked me out. Absolutely freaked me out because journalists
12:49
are like doctors. You do need
12:51
them. I would say right
12:53
now there are problems of exactly
12:55
the sort that journalism is required
12:57
to fix. So I
12:59
get not exactly conspiracy theorists, but
13:01
I start to look at who
13:04
is undermining trust in journalism and
13:06
why. There is a lot
13:08
going on and everything that Alex Garland just said, but Rad, let
13:10
me just give you a reaction. What do you make of what
13:12
he just said? I mean, look like, okay,
13:14
so on the one hand, I don't know
13:16
that he's wrong because yes, there is this
13:19
sentiment of fake news and Trump is certainly
13:21
feeding into that. And like in the era
13:23
of social media complicating what we know is
13:25
real. Like, yes, there is this distrust that
13:28
is contributing. This is trust of journalism that
13:30
is contributing to the divisiveness of it. Right.
13:33
Like, look, if this is the conversation you
13:36
want to have the conversation about how people
13:38
view journalism and neutrality and journalism or objective
13:40
truth and stuff, then let's have that conversation.
13:42
Like, let's actually have it. Not just
13:44
like going to romanticize this kind of
13:47
ideal that you believe journalism is because
13:49
right now what we're seeing is
13:51
more objective truth coming from on the
13:53
ground in Gaza with people using social
13:55
media than we are from the, you
13:58
know, establishments that are so-called. professional
14:00
journalists, right? We are seeing that there are
14:02
certain agendas being served. There's certain kowtowing going
14:04
on in places like the New York Times,
14:06
right? So this idea, you know, and those
14:09
are like, you know, meanwhile, like the people
14:11
who are like, you know, people like CNN,
14:13
for example, in order to embed with the
14:15
IDF inside of Gaza, they have to sort
14:17
of follow a certain set of rules that
14:19
the idea sort of lays out. So certainly
14:23
news organizations are abiding by certain
14:25
rules that are laid out by
14:27
particularly interested parties. Sorry, sorry to
14:30
cut you off. But no, but that's the
14:32
thing. It's like to then believe that these
14:34
individual journalists don't have any kind of biases
14:36
are not informed by the people they might
14:39
be working for and whatnot. I
14:41
think that is naive. And for you
14:43
to use that as your shield to
14:45
not actually have any real conversations is
14:47
just I mean, I think that that's
14:49
where, you know, your your whole movie
14:52
falls apart. Well, certainly, Omar, when you
14:54
watch this movie, you go, actually, I'm
14:56
not really sure that you're making a
14:58
good case for the neutrality of journalism.
15:00
Like I don't I don't I don't think you
15:02
watch this movie and go, yeah, this is the
15:05
best model of journalism that will serve people for
15:07
for for the journalists to completely disappear themselves and
15:09
not at all appear anywhere on the camera. What
15:11
would you make of the stuff that Alex Garland
15:14
was just saying? So
15:16
this notion that everybody hates journalists. Well, I
15:18
mean, that can't be entirely true. You still
15:20
have a show or not everybody. So
15:23
let's name them. In spite of some people's, you
15:25
know, in spite of my repeated letters to the
15:28
CBC, which they will not return. There's
15:32
there's a believing Republican candidate
15:34
for president has repeatedly called journalists enemies
15:37
of the people. Right. There's
15:39
a lot of the center right, including the
15:41
Democratic Party in the United States who
15:43
hate Palestinian journalists because they are presenting
15:45
a version of events that directly makes
15:48
a grotesque career out of the the image
15:50
that these folks are trying to sell. Now,
15:53
whether you agree or disagree with anything I've just
15:55
said, at least I've said something right.
15:58
And this goes back to the. The way
16:00
that the journalism is presented in this movie
16:02
I don't think is factually incorrect. I think
16:04
there's parts that are hyperbolic for sure, But
16:06
that movie making. On. It
16:09
goes back to the idea of. The
16:12
fundamental purpose of journalism. Which.
16:15
Is a name for thing to
16:17
say. What happened weight. And.
16:21
You can try and lean on the
16:23
suppose neutrality and objectivity of journalism, which
16:25
has never been there from the beginning.
16:27
You can't be a journalist and be
16:29
completely objective. A neutral. On.
16:32
You have to want to make things better on
16:34
some level. But. Also,
16:36
this is journalism within the context of a piece
16:38
of art that you chose to make. Still, it
16:40
could have gone and done journalism right. I'm sure
16:43
he has the resources as to go to any
16:45
part of the world that needs desperately journalism or
16:47
now to try and do it. but you chose
16:49
to make a work of art and a work
16:52
of overtly political aren't. You.
16:54
Can't send selectively. Hide.
16:57
Behind the suppose it impartiality of
16:59
journalism. In the way that the
17:01
movie quite literally does. when things get too
17:03
intense, suddenly we get a bunch of still
17:05
shots about is happening on. You
17:08
can't keep doing that. And sort of
17:10
have your cake and eat it too. I don't think that
17:12
was a bad movie, but I do think it's a movie
17:14
that has i'm fine shoves. Ejector seat buttons
17:16
aren't listen, you've been and real war zones
17:18
as a journalist and then you have to
17:21
sit down and a movie theater and now
17:23
and then Nicole Kidman come on the screen
17:25
she has become to this place for magic.
17:27
And you have a popcorn and a drink
17:29
in front of the on the you watch
17:31
this movie. That's gotta be a bit of
17:33
a distance between the reality of being a
17:36
journalist in a war zone and then you
17:38
know that fictionalized you know and interpretation of
17:40
it did last movie sort of Palmer real
17:42
threads of what it's like to report in
17:44
war zones. I
17:47
think a lot away the did become. like
17:49
I said earlier, it's sort of. There's areas
17:51
that are particularly hyperbolic. Is sort
17:53
of. Adrenalin Rush. I
17:55
think I'm. Forever. the guy
17:58
as the traveling around with kirsten dunst i think turns
18:00
it up to 11 a little bit too much. When there
18:02
more, yes. I've seen people sort
18:04
of do their versions of this. And I
18:06
stuck around towards the end of the credits
18:08
to see who their consultants were, because I
18:10
strongly suspect that a lot of these
18:12
actors were sent to Hazardous Environment Training, which is
18:14
what the insurance companies force newspapers
18:16
and media outlets to send their journalists to
18:19
before they go to the war
18:21
zones. And so
18:23
things like, for example, when the older reporter
18:27
who's with them for part of that movie tells
18:30
the younger one to get sleep whenever she can.
18:32
That's the thing that every one of the soldiers
18:35
who teaches these Hazardous Environment Training courses will tell
18:37
you to get sleep whenever you can. It's that
18:40
line verbatim I heard when I
18:42
was doing that training. The
18:45
difficulty, I think, where, and I
18:47
don't blame the movie for this because it's very hard to
18:49
do, the difficulty in having any
18:51
more accurate and assessment of journalism than what is
18:53
presented in this movie is that so
18:55
much of journalism is not
18:57
only very boring, but
19:00
also difficult to describe in a clean
19:02
narrative sense that still allows you to
19:04
root for a hero. So
19:06
on the former front, if you went to the
19:09
NATO airfield when we were stationed there and you
19:11
went into the Canadian media tent, most
19:13
of the time all you would see is four
19:15
people sitting at their computers clacking away, getting
19:18
rejections for their freedom of information. That's not
19:20
that sexy, Omer. I was totally. Incredibly
19:23
unsexy. It's deeply
19:25
unsexy, right? The other part of it is
19:27
that a lot of your
19:29
favorite war reporters, a lot
19:31
of the stuff you read every day from
19:33
these correspondents wasn't found out by them. It
19:36
was a fixer. It was a local. And Afghanistan, one
19:38
of the most effective fixers was a
19:41
guy who used to be a surgeon, an Afghanistan
19:43
guy who made more money running
19:45
around to dangerous parts of the country and
19:48
filing stories for these reporters that they would
19:50
then later throw their names on or
19:52
grabbing information for them. He
19:54
made more money doing that than practicing medicine. How
19:57
the hell do you put that into a movie and still have the
19:59
person? getting the fixtures reports and translating
20:02
them into a story and putting his name on it
20:04
how do you make that person look like the hero?
20:06
There's a difficulty there right? But otherwise
20:08
I thought they did a fairly admirable
20:10
job. Rad, just before we wrap
20:13
up here we should say this is a movie that comes from
20:15
A24. They put a lot of money into
20:17
this thing. They grossed over 25 million dollars.
20:20
It won the box office. It
20:22
had their best ever opening weekend
20:24
for A24. What do you
20:26
make of this strategy for A24
20:28
to do this with Civil
20:30
War and Alex Garland? This
20:33
is actually really fascinating because it's
20:35
a fascinating transition for A24 because
20:37
as anyone who's familiar with A24
20:39
we are talking
20:41
about a boutique indie distributor. They made
20:43
their name
20:47
on Spring Breakers and then Moonlight. They
20:50
are more of an art how they
20:52
are a distributor and a label that
20:54
prides themselves on investing in O'Tours. They
20:57
are a filmmakers brand. Lately
21:00
they've had to shift
21:02
gears and make more commercial cinema
21:05
because the math wasn't mathing especially after
21:07
they poured way too much money on
21:09
Bo is afraid. Between that and then
21:11
also David Lowry's
21:16
Green Knight, the idea of throwing money at
21:18
O'Tours to make whatever they want, they set
21:20
themselves up in their own Heaven's Gate scenario.
21:22
It's not paying out. Now they want to
21:24
make more commercial cinema. Civil War is now
21:26
you got the director of Ex Machina. They
21:28
gave him 50 million dollars to make. I'll
21:31
be a spectacle but look we've been talking about
21:33
it for almost half an hour now. So that's
21:35
a spectacle that is still O'Tourist. I'll
21:39
be a spectacle but look we've been talking about
21:41
it for almost half an hour now. So that's
21:43
a spectacle that is still O'Tourist. Or
21:46
the populist idea of O'Tourist. So I'm
21:49
digging this. If you know if a studio
21:52
out there wants to
21:55
throw money at directors And
21:57
find a viable way, a commercially viable
21:59
way, The to make auteurs you know still
22:01
exists and give their ideas else. I'm all
22:03
for it. I think the danger is that
22:06
even when a Twenty Four was sort of
22:08
doing is cool all look. We got Lady
22:10
Bird with a critical or weeks they were
22:12
kind of falling into certain formula. The elevated
22:14
for trend started falling into certain formula Day
22:16
Twenty Four brand started having it's own kind
22:18
of familiarity in the way that Marvel as
22:21
the was almost like indeed cinema answered Marvel.
22:23
So there's a risk that danger of them
22:25
kind of slipping into their own formulas by
22:27
pursuing this direction. But I am all for
22:29
any company. That still want to throw it? Throw
22:31
even more money at Filmmakers before it's over a
22:33
with you. The last word on this: What does
22:35
it say to you that there's so much appetite
22:38
for this movie that he does the number one
22:40
movie the box office after it opens In this
22:42
moment. I think you're going to or more the
22:44
some sort of. In the near
22:46
future. It. Was driving home from a rating
22:48
where trump I teach at in and with a
22:50
program on here and we do this thing in
22:52
the close to your driving drunk driving back of
22:54
my students. And. For.
22:57
Reasons that are in explicable to me. I swear I
22:59
did not bring the said. She decided to
23:01
talk to me about was born and good. It
23:04
felt like she was trying out opinions on
23:06
me to that she thought might work to
23:09
satisfy everyone in the car and enough room
23:11
generally. And. Is kept coming back to
23:13
this notion of. It's also complicated
23:15
and their about things being done on
23:17
all sides. And I could
23:20
see the relief and her voice to she was trying
23:22
out this opinion. Because. It was
23:24
a way to. Pretend. Like
23:26
you're not looking away from something horrible, but also
23:28
not say something that was going to get you
23:30
in trouble or get someone offended. It's
23:33
just such a compelling. Position.
23:35
To take comfort in feels like you're saying
23:37
something. When you're actively not
23:40
and and it's dangerous because. Fascists,
23:43
Know what to do with that? kind of central isn't.
23:46
You. Just move a little further towards Fascism. In
23:48
the Centrist has to move along with you because
23:50
their main position is to be in the center
23:52
of things. So. I think it's. A
23:55
kind of i'm. Projection.
23:58
Of what we're going to see in the
24:00
next few years where it's going to sound
24:02
provocative to say that there's extremist on all
24:04
sides. And. You're.
24:06
Going to get Civil War
24:08
type productions. I don't know that
24:10
that's a particularly good thing, but I think it's
24:13
going to be a very popular thing. are I?
24:15
I prefer you. Been here. I pretty always be
24:17
provocative pal. Thanks Arena Don't know I keep having
24:19
me back but officials have cars rather than play.
24:21
Ah, this is the first time with close to
24:23
agreed on anything so it's been a delight. Figures
24:26
Always forever be your friend. They.
24:29
They take her for Brigid be and
24:31
as that are such elevated can't. Type
24:34
the as are the best! Thank you so much. Thank you.
24:37
Are like at is a former Globe and
24:39
Mail journalist and author of the novels American
24:41
War and What's Strange Paradise He was in
24:43
Oregon, read Salmon Fillet, the freelance film critic
24:45
and regular here and commotion he was in
24:47
Toronto. You can listen to that interview by
24:49
the way with the Director of Civil War
24:52
Alex Garland Osu with Tom Power Wherever. I
25:03
gotta tell you another great thing about this
25:06
movie by Civil War is got a great
25:08
soundtrack. This is from that movie that's a
25:10
little bit of a song. Dream baby Dream
25:12
by Suicide Sir John Simpson shows up on
25:14
the soundtrack. Della Soul is on the soundtrack.
25:17
Civil War is playing and select Feeders right
25:19
now and that is over the shout. Remember
25:21
you can find us on Instagram we are
25:23
at Commotion Cbc. my name is Ellen Me
25:25
after my mood tomorrow.
Podchaser is the ultimate destination for podcast data, search, and discovery. Learn More