A
Review by Linda Barth
This original, made-for-HBO
movie concerns itself with the issues of power and the ways that
force can be used to manipulate and control the American public.
The major players are the U.S. government at both the Federal and
state levels and the medium of televised news.
Given the unsubtle
tone of the movie, the latter quickly emerges as the most rational
and farsighted voice and makes an effective, if somewhat disheartening,
case for itself in the next election. Maybe Walter Cronkite will
consider coming out of retirement to run for public office. According
to "The Second Civil War," we should be so lucky.
Although it deals
with an important and thought-provoking issue, I found this movie
disappointing and tedious. It was directed in a style that could
have been effective in its varying depictions of behind-the-scenes
dealings and televised news reports, but the frequent cutting from
one to the other creates a disoriented, disjointed perspective in
the viewer, rather than a sense of escalating tension and unsettling
awareness. I recently saw a production of "The Three Sisters" where
it seemed as if the actresses portraying Olga, Masha, and Anya each
had a different director. At first it was something of an enjoyable
challenge to try and figure out what was going on, but, as with
"The Second Civil War," after a while I simply didn't care anymore.
This is a movie that
never seems to find its voice. Is it a parody or a satire or a dark
comedy? At times it is all of these. Look at the exaggerated characterizations
and the absurd situations: The dim-witted President who can't make
even the simplest statement or decision without turning to his slate
of advisors, each of whom has his own, often bizarre agenda; or
the lascivious governor, nearly foaming at the mouth with emotional
overflow, who is more concerned with the state of his extra-marital
affairs than with the affairs of state. These broadly painted characters
present wonderful images with which to make a satirical point, but
they ultimately become simply unappealing and tedious rather than
darkly humorous and disturbing.
As the movie unfolds,
we meet characters who are eager to indulge themselves on the playground
of a very effective, humorous and witty satire; but just when we
begin to think that's what we're watching, this movie turns us in
an altogether different direction, and suddenly we're in the midst
of a morality tale where the world of light and truth is represented
by, of all things, a network television news studio. At first I
thought perhaps this was yet another aspect of the satire the movie
might turn out to be, but if that is the case, then it takes itself
far too seriously in its scenes of the earnestly hard-working, clear-thinking
news staff. There is little of the requisite humor here, and the
characters are too likable, too well-intentioned to laugh at and
disdain. The misuse of power in the newsroom scenes does not effectively
parallel that of the government, and suddenly we're face-to-face
not with more members of the enemy force but instead with a host
of heroes. In a satire of this sort, the viewer and perhaps one
or two characters should fill this role; to have so many rambling
about is confusing and superfluous, and the desired-for effects
are diluted. As with everything else in this movie, the scenes are
heavy-handed and too overdone even within a style that is inherently
exaggerated.
The newsroom personnel
find themselves caught up in the drama and, in turn, use their own
various means of power to try to direct the world out of chaos and
into enlightenment. Here we have the gruff but fatherly director
who inspires and guides his staff; the hotheaded, act first-think
later reporter who is nonetheless well-meaning; the voice of reason
and hope in a world of escalating chaos (portrayed by Ron Perlman)
who, in tones that vary from incredulous to despairing, expresses
eternal optimism for the quavering fate of the human race; and the
world-weary omniscient presence who saw it all coming but was powerless
to effect change, as played by James Earl Jones, complete with occasional,
stirringly resonant voice-overs reminiscent of his character in
another film. Too bad that's where the resemblance ends.
"The Second Civil
War" is a movie that could have been many things, but, instead of
deciding which identity to take on, it unfortunately opted to give
them all a try. This results in occasional moments of effective
cinematic story-telling which are nearly lost within a jumble of
disparate voices. However, the movie itself is not of principle
concern within our fandom community. What we're far more interested
in is Ron Perlman.
And there's good news
on that front! In this movie, Ron is not in heavy, face-concealing
make-up; he doesn't portray an individual who is overly neurotic,
clinically depressed, clearly psychotic, or otherwise emotionally
disfigured; and - believe it or not - he's actually still alive
at the end of the story! He looks and sounds fabulous and is on
camera for at least two-thirds of the movie. Ron is a wonderful
actor, and he does a great job with this role, but no one can carry
a movie like this on his own. Yet despite the fact that "The Second
Civil War" is a second-rate film, it's a first class chance to see
one of our favorite actors at work, and on that basis it should
not be missed.
Linda
Barth, October 29, 1997.
* * *
Additional reviews
Filmthreat.com
Movie-vault.com