kirsten dunst – El Sabanero X

If you have seen or read a little about the current extremely polarized political landscape of the United States, you surely know that there are two states that are diametrically opposed in terms of political ideology. Those two states are California and Texas.

California is an extremely liberal blue (liberal) state, which promotes the integration of minorities and immigrants, the rights of the LGTBI+ community, establishment of measures that promote equality, minimum wages, labor rights, and essentially a bunch of state and federal protections on the population – whether or not they contribute to society.

Texas, on the other hand, is a heavily red (conservative) state, which promotes individual freedoms, the carrying of weapons, the American identity, the traditional family, hard work and free market as the only means to obtain benefits and income, and behind all that, the central idea that each individual is on his own, which means that everyone is obliged to contribute to social development, well if he does not want to starve to death.

Now, how is it that two states with such different ideologies are on the same side in the A24 studio film, Civil War? The answer is quite interesting.

To begin with, director Alex Garland has implied that the conflict involves the actions of the President (Nick Offerman) against the Constitution and the citizens of the United States, one can deduce that he attacks specifically against Texas and California. Let’s read what he said literally:

There is a fascist president who smashed the Constitution and attacked [American] citizens. And that is a very clear, answered statement. If you want to think about why Texas and California might be allied, and put aside their political differences, the answer would be implicit in that. –Alex Garland

If there is one freedom, guaranteed in the Constitution, that the citizens of Texas and California make wide use of, it is their freedom of speech. And it is also striking that there are many States that remain loyal to the U.S. Government. The issue could involve some type of Executive Order issued by the President against extremist activism, whether from Democrats or Republicans, in which basically all the civil liberties of these individuals can be restricted in a very Guantanamish way. Now, the fact that the film mentions that fire was opened on civilians seems to support this theory.

In that scenario, it would be illegal, both for the recalcitrant activists of San Francisco (California), and for the armed rednecks in Amarillo (Texas), to say anything that could be understood as proselytizing for their causes, and surely after seeing that the President was not playing, by condemning several of his ideological colleagues to imprisonment, without trial, the situation could certainly get out of control. Now, the fact that several states have simply declared themselves neutral, such as the Florida Alliance, and those of the New People’s Army, only indicates that they are going to be on the winning side, because the United States is not even 1/3 of what it is, without those 2 states precisely.

If we have several imprisonments of activists who promoted extremist positions (at least from the point of view of the President’s Executive Order), it is quite likely that there have been riots and chaos in Texas and California, to the point of becoming unmanageable. Most likely under the pretext of protecting the life and honor of the population, President enforce his own Executive Order to open fire on the civilians. Now, imagine the reaction of ordinary individuals in California and Texas when their country’s army invades their territory and murders civilians.

This would undoubtedly force the governors of California and Texas to 1) ally in a strategic plan to safeguard themselves from a deeply unpopular government in their states, 2) occupy the positions of the U.S. military in their territories, including its arsenal, and 3 ) declare itself as two independent republics banded together. And this is how when the film begins, they have been so successful that they are 200 kilometers from D.C.

In any case, it would not be the first time that violent extremism ultimately ends in war. So, what do you think?

Todos recordamos a Kirsten Dunst por sus papeles en Entrevista con el Vampiro y La Sonrisa de Mona Lisa, pero indiscutiblemente su personaje más icónico ha sido el de Mary Jane Watson en la trilogía de películas del Hombre Araña dirigida por Sam Raimi. Así que no fue ninguna sorpresa que en una entrevista con la revista femenina Marie Claire, se le preguntara sobre las más recientes versiones del trepamuros, la primera protagonizada por Andrew Garfield y Emma Stone y la segunda, protagonizada por Tom Holland y Zendaya. Lo que sí sorprendió fue su respuesta.

La respuesta de Kirsten Dunst a la pregunta de qué opinaba de estas nuevas versiones de Spider-man fue clara y precisa: Continúa leyendo Lo que dijo Kirsten Dunst sobre Spiderman: Homecoming.