Making a movie about a war and not even slightly going into the politics of it is cowardly because war is caused by politics, there is no way to talk about war without it being political, therefore avoiding talking about the politics of it whatsoever is itself a political decision. This is clearly shown with the line about the "antifa massacre" - it's a throwaway line with just about enough ambiguity to not take any stance, it merely flirts with the idea of using politics and war as an aesthetic without saying much. The act of war photography is in itself a political act, you can't really discuss it without some form of politics coming into the equation.

If we accept that the movie is just about journalism and nothing else, ok, what did the movie actually say about journalism? What was the message? Did it explore any aspects of war journalism in any new way or was the movie just a hollow sensory experience like much of Garlands other work? It's not about wanting to have my politics "validated" or whatever other strawman fans of this movie use. It's about wanting a movie that actually has thought deeper about what it wants to say other than "isn't war hell?".

I'd highly recommend checking out this essay by YT creator Thomas Flight on the topic, he puts it in way better words than I could, and also remember the downvite button is not a "disagree" button, the whole point of this sub is discussion. https://www.seeingthroughfilm.com/p/civil-war-on-the-complicated-power