C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America (2004) User Reviews

Interesting viewpoint

[jeff-b-2 · 7/10 · 9 March 2006]

The movie is pretty interesting, it shows what it could be like if the south won the civil war and slavery still persisted today. The modern-day commercials like the 'Slave Selling Network' and other products that put black people in their minstrel-like places was pretty poignant. The end of the movie showed that some of those commercials that were portrayed were actually REAL products, some used into the 50s.

However, from a 'what if' standpoint, the history is pretty unrealistic. The movie shows the South taking over all of the North, something that would have been impossible, and something the South never intended on doing. They just wanted to secede from the US and form their own country - they did not have the manpower or resources to occupy and conquer all of the North. If you want to read a more probable history of what may have happened if the South had won the war, check out Harry Turtledove's series of books. North and South remain enemies, fight each other in the 1880s, in WWI, WWII, etc. This makes European history pretty different as well, since you didn't have a united America aiding the Allies in the World Wars. The South under exceeding worldwide pressure from its allies ends up ending slavery, but laws are in place to be sure to keep the black man down in such a way that they are not much better off. More realistic I think.

Still, a pretty good movie.

A Disturbing Alternate History

[Benjamin999 · 7/10 · 15 March 2009]

Had one failed diplomatic initiative during the Civil War succeeded, could it have changed all of history? Perhaps. Kevin Willmott's chilling and somewhat plausible alternate history of America was so well produced that even its exceedingly unlikely and prejudiced retelling of the 20th century passes with a bit of artistic license. It assumes, wrongly, that America is a country completely without any virtue, a view to be rejected outright. Assumptions about a Confederate Empire, chattel slavery spread unimpeded and unchallenged throughout the Americas, a ridiculous notion of a "Cotton Curtain" cold war with Canada just don't add up. It could not have evolved that way. Nonetheless, the alternate 19th century history is utterly fascinating. Had Confederate Secretary of State Judah P. Benjamin succeeded in getting European powers to fight for the Confederacy, what would America look like today?

Even with its terribly cynical and often unfair view of America, I admit I couldn't stop thinking about this film.

The Brutal Satire Works Much Better Than The Alternative History

[Theo Robertson · 7/10 · 9 November 2012]

The writer/director of CSA Kevin Wilmott is black . I thought I'd point this out to guard my back . I also thought I'd mention that I seeked out this film because it received a rave review on Richard Schieb's Sci-Fi movie review page which can be accessed on the external reviews of this page . I feel the deep need to do this simply because CSA is a film of such biting , brutal bleak and brilliant satire featuring an America that still enforces slavery that it'd be very easy to be picked up wrongly by saying I laughed outloud at a great many scenes . Often it was nervous laughter and this was no doubts Wilmott's intention . I did feel very foolish at the end credit scenes . Again this was no doubt Wilmott's intention

The premise involves the South winning the American Civil war and Abraham Lincoln being jailed as a war criminal . With great credit Lincoln is portrayed as an opportunist who wanted to get his hands on the South's cotton fields and one suspects Spilebergs upcoming bio-pic starring Daniel Day Lewis might just miss out this very important detail . As it stands history takes a diverted path where the USA become The Confederate States of America ( CSA ) and all the fall out this involves . The biggest divergence being that slavery is not abolished

The story is told as a mockumentary by the " British Broadcasting Service " which hints as how unsubtle CSA is . Credit to the makers because at the outset we're shown a public information film called Why We Fought which does give a rather Eurocentric view of America then we start the documentary proper and everyone will be jumping on the outrage bus at one point . Try suggesting a scenario where " Union forces flee in the face of British and French fire " and you'll get the impression red necks aren't going to enjoy this as much as they were hoping . Of course African Americans will take the brunt of the outrage via stereotypical portrayals but if you've seen BIRTH OF A NATION then you'll realise this is an attack on moral climates of early 20th Century America . And it's the Hollywood sections that are the most scathing and unsubtle which is not a criticism . Quite the reverse because these are the most identifiable parts of the mockumentary to an international audience - Hollywood where men are men , where myths are made and where Europeans with a brain shake their head . The mockumentary is cut with advert breaks and trailers for spoof TV shows such as " Runaway " a send up of COPS complete with banjo music . This type of brutal and scathing satire outdoes the ones seen in the ROBOCOP movies

As much as I can praise CSA in its witty satire where it fails very badly is in its alternative history aspect . For example if a scenario is created it can be clumsily forgotten about as in America creating a South American empire but later on we're told the rest of the world has brought in sanctions against the CSA because of its attitude to slavery which means the government has to bring in rationing ? In reality America is more than self sufficient in food and raw materials and widening this to South America means more food supplies so why introduce rationing ? There's also illogical ridiculous aspects such as women never having a vote in this alternative America and at the same time an America crippled by sanctions and citizens on rations this alternative America can still fight wars in Vietnam and lead Operation Desert Storm and land men on the moon

In summary CSA is a very memorable mockumentary . It's unsurprising that there's a lot of mixed reviews on this page . Some people will have seeked it out on the grounds that it's an alternative history documentary and they'll be slightly disappointed in it . I certainly enjoyed the satirical aspects of it only to feel foolish when at the end when the " satire " was slightly closer to home than I thought it was . I will point out that I do realise that the photos of dead native Americans and lynched blacks are in fact real photographs and that William Wilburforce deserves to be remembered more than Abraham Lincoln

Funny, satirical look at parallel US

[Venkman78 · 16 February 2004]

I was able to catch CSA at the TRUE/FALSE Film Festival in Columbia, MO (great fest, kudos to all involved). The Producer and Director of CSA were there to briefly discuss the film. Sadly, it was held at the Blue Note, which is a fantastic venue for watching bands, but not for screening films. Anyway, on to the review.

Told like a Ken Burns Civil War documentary, CSA really gives a great look at what "might have been." From Jefferson Davis as the President of the United States and his exile of Abraham Lincoln to Canada, to The President meeting with Chancellor Hitler to discuss enslaving the Jewish race as opposed to destroying it to JFK's assasination because of his wanting to end slavery, the film touched on many of the United States' milestone moments told through this alternate universe. The span of American history is so vast that, unfortunately the film raises more questions than could possibly be answered.

The director spoke after the film and said he made this film to bring the subject of race to the forfront and to open discussion about it. As far as a spark for discussion, it works well. I just wish it could have delved deeper into the social, economical and political issues it raises (would there be protests toward slavery as now there are protests against the Bush administration's unilateral attack on Iraq? Interesting topic...).

The one thing that completely blew me away was that all the products advertised in the "commercial breaks" were real. I knew of one or two, but not all of them. That was a very interesting twist that stood out in a film filled with interesting and satirical twists.

O Canada!...Here I come!

[thesar-2 · 6/10 · 15 September 2010]

Thank God, the North won.

The enormously original and somewhat frightening CSA: The Confederate States of America is worth a shot to see "what would've happened" had the South triumphed over the North in the Civil War. And anyone who thinks the (real) U.S.A. of today is a bad place, watch this…as it's pretty and, unfortunately, plausible (had the South won, that is.)

Creator Kevin Willmott, took the idea of making a Mockumentary of the North's defeat one step further, making this all the more original: he didn't just film a faux pas documentary, he made it from this alternate universe's British TV's point of view and threw in – spoiler – practically real commercials.

And as authentic as this all seems – it's scary that facts can be skewed in such a realistic, though fictional format…SEE: political campaign ads – unfortunately, the movie runs out of steam about half way through to the finale. Even at only 89 minutes, it certainly wore out its welcome by its climax. Even the often hilarious, albeit frightening, commercials started to get downright ugly with its racism messages.

The movie opens with a fake "History Channel"/type station broadcasting a CSA (Confederate States of America) documentary that cleverly put a disclaimer that this presentation is the British's POV and is not endorsed by the station. It then begins where the Civil War was, in fiction, decided by the North surrendering and Lincoln becoming "black" and fleeing to Canada.

From there, the Mockumentary shows the turbulent rise of the Confederate States of America whereas slavery is not only still accepted, but endorsed and used to "rebuild" the union for the economy as well as political gains. Throw in the "station's" commercials – make sure you stay through to the end to get the background on these horrendous statements – the movie actually feels…"real." Sadly enough.

If nothing else, this movie makes you appreciate what we have here, because I would want nothing else but to migrate to the "celebrated land of Canada" – the real hero of this story. It's absolutely disgusting what's portrayed and unhappily, a lot of this is very true of our past, and probably our present.

One major problem I had with the film, is that, as wildly original as it is, I have a small, but sure doubt this could happen – good always seems to find its way to the surface, I feel, and I truly believe enough actual human beings would rally against this abomination of mankind, whether black, Native American or homosexual. Still, there are nations in existence today, in real life, that are just despicable – regrettably, women are still stoned for the most minute of offenses, so, I do flip flop on this movie's practicality.

Though the movie's very well shot, one-of-a-kind and looks genuine, it doesn't demand repeat viewings, and since its 100% false, it can only be taken as a "what if" or "thank God we dodged that bullet" kind of entertainment. It should make you think and regret our past while making even the toughest atheist pray for mankind's future.

Warning though: this movie is enormously racist – on purpose, of course. But, that doesn't excuse that it's very hard to watch at times. Yep, I know racism still exists – FOR SHAME: incredibly, I hear it almost daily and certainly NOT by choice – but this movie concentrates a great deal of it in less than an hour and a half. Just be warned; this is a tough pill to swallow.

"CSA" takes broad swipes at the South

[Solipsisticblog · 7/10 · 4 July 2006]

In the faux documentary "CSA," we learn what the twentieth century would have been like if the South had won the Civil War. The Confederate States of America became a nation teeming with racism and misogyny.

As a Southerner, I found the film pretty offensive. It perpetuates the myth that racism is a uniquely Southern commodity and that the South is the birth place of ignorance. A Southern victory, apparently, would have permanently snuffed out any progressive movement in the United States. This would lead to wives being encouraged to let their husbands beat them and televised executions. The South's barbarism and ignorance would have overcome the goodwill and progressive impulses of the enlightened North.

I ain't buying it. It's a simplistic view of history and a damaging caricature of the South that still persists. I have been greeted by a great deal of ignorance outside of the South by folks who still believe today's South is that of "Eyes on the Prize." The LA riots, reaction to the OJ verdict, the Matthew Shepherd murder, etc. reveal that ignorance, hatred, and racism are national problems.

The movie was impressively put together, especially considering its limited budget. It's very compelling, but I found its vision of the South to be ignorant.

Read more at http://solipsisticblog.blogspot.com/.

revisionist history gone wild!

[postmanwhoalwaysringstwice · 7/10 · 1 October 2006]

"C.S.A. - The Confederate States of America" is a very intriguing film from writer/director Kevin Willmott. In a sense it's a mockumentary, but with less of the self-conscious nature of a Christopher Guest ("Best in Show"), and more of the spot-on feel of an actual documentary previously done to perfection by Woody Allen ("Zelig"). This choice of genre is quite possibly the only manner in which this material could be presented. The film offers up the instantly jarring and highly eerie "what if" account of America for the 140 years following the Civil War (referred to here as the Conflict of North Aggression, or some such).

It is told so insistently from a parallel universe that "C.S.A." is actually a British Documentary shown on a Confederate Network TV station, complete with "present-day" commercials. There's an unsettling nature to the entire piece, most prominently the commercial breaks which have the look and feel of an SNL or Mad TV skit, but with extreme racist overtones. These moments are so over the top, they almost feel like they are playing for laughs, but the content is so upsetting that the reaction is instead sickness.

The film is very consistent, and pulls off a full ninety minute neo-history lesson, frequently to the point of inducing history class-like boredom. It was a well-made and well-intentioned piece of work that spends a lot more of it's time exposing the racial injustices throughout our actual history, as the "lecture" hits on many of the U.S.A.'s key historical moments, as if much of American history would have gone unchanged (like John F. Kennedy's presidency, and a presence in Vietnam, for example) with such a major alteration to that same history.

In the end you're left to wonder whether the real point of the movie was that all Southern whites are racist by their nature and the Civil War was the first step toward keeping that at bay. It's an uncomfortable question, but one that feels appropriate since the movie almost numbed the viewer to heavy doses of racial slurs, epithets, and exploitation.

I wanted it to be great, but it misses...

[immagic-1 · 3/10 · 25 October 2004]

A group of us had such high hopes for this movie as we stood in line at the Hamptons Film Festival....together we were a varied group....from History Teacher, Realtor, teenagers, etc......sadly such a great promises just misses .... many people felt the same way as movie goer after movie goer got up and left during the showing...what does that tell you when ever 5 minutes another couple walked out........ calling Abe Lincoln a "darky" in a silent picture??? and the angle of documentary just fell flat....oh well can't win them all....perhaps next time the directors will drop his private agenda and concentrate on making a film exciting and interesting to the viewer....the commercials thrown in were something only worthy of a SNL skit and implying slaves as property in a insurance commercial might get a cheap laugh but doesn't make this movie worth seeing....honestly my teenagers have put better commercials together in their class....really a shame...the idea was great but the movie just falls flat

Brilliant idea, quite well done

[peterell-1 · 9/10 · 20 August 2005]

This is an extremely thought-provoking, humorous and sometimes disturbing movie. The performances of some of the actors could be better and the low budget sometimes shows through, but it is such a unique idea and the discussions it causes are so enlightening, that the filmmaker should be given an award just for bravery. I don't know what the nay-sayers were thinking when they wrote some of these comments. They must have seen a different film, this is not Saturday night live satire, it is much darker. Think Dr. Strangelove in blackface!

The fact that it is all based on real plans of the confederacy and real products that have existed in the united states makes it even more frightening. I strongly recommend it.

-Peter

Fantasy, Comic and Bitter

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 8 January 2008]

What would have happened if France and Britain had intervened on the part of the South in the battle of Gettysburg? According to this fantasy, the South would have taken Washington, Lincoln would have tried to escape to Canada in blackface with the help of Harriet Tubman, abolitionists would likewise have moved north, slavery would have become perfectly legal in the North and the South, and then things would have gotten REALLY twisted.

The movie purports to be a history of the Confederate States of America and, whimsical and funny as it often is, has enough resonance with history and current events to take some of the wind out of that laughter. In 1960, Nixon is the Democratic candidate and John F. Kennedy the Republican who is looking for a reason to free the slaves. JFK is assassinated anyway. The current president, John Ambrose Fauntroy, is accused of having Negro blood because one of his ancestors of mixed race was adopted into his family. Fauntroy argues, "I tell you, my great-great-granddaddy did not have relations with that woman!"

Hitler becomes the conqueror of Europe and a close family friend of the Fauntroys, although the CSA did not manage to talk him out of his attempt to exterminate Jews in Europe because they would be more valuable as live slaves. Japan was a different matter because they were small, treacherous, and non-white, so the CSA Pearl Harbored them.

There are satires of historical movies, showing the sentimental Northern attachment to "the lost cause." And an excerpt from a movie during the CSA's war to conquer the continent of "Southern America" and convert the countries into vast slave plantations. The featured character here is "Sergeant Striker," the name of John Wayne's character in "Sands of Iwo Jima." In this scene, the CSA is losing the war for Southern America because there are so many enemies. Amost weeping with frustration, Striker shouts, "Is everybody black, brown, red, or yellow? Let's kill 'em all and let God sort them out!" Canada, with its multitude of anti-slavery people, becomes an enemy during the Cold War and a Cotton Curtain is built across the CSA's northern border.

There are phony "commercials" interpolated, advertising such products as The Slave Shopping Network, Better Homes and Plantations, Jigaboo Toothpaste, and others that had better not be mentioned.

It's an inexpensive film. Much of the effort seems to have gone into the writing because there are times when the script is hilarious. But the hilarity has a sharp and angry edge to it. The film is about one half-step away from being anti-American. The USA has often been a subject of some ridicule and a source of a good many jokes, but the jibes have almost always been good-natured, with the USA pictured as bumbling perhaps, naive, vulgar, puritanical, but fundamentally decent and well-intentioned. This is a different kind of joke. It's unfortunate that at this late stage of the game, it may be as much educational as entertaining.

Satire is usually intelligent...

[dpflanagan · 1/10 · 1 August 2007]

The very fundamental premise of this mockumentary makes no sense. Anyone who knows anything about history should know that the CSA intended only to withdraw from the Union, not conquer it.

Yes, the South invaded the north in 1863, leading to the Battle of Gettysburg, but they did this only to force a cessation of hostilities. They wanted to be left alone.

I'm not trying to defend the idiots who wanted to keep the practice of slavery alive, what I'm saying is that this film is not even intelligent, much less funny. Real comedy takes kernels of truth and builds on them so that what you see ultimately in the film is both funny and cutting. Chris Rock's skit on how not to get beaten up by the police is a perfect example of this.

In terms of movies with this approach, "Borat" did a superb job of exposing real prejudices in real people in a way that was hilarious. Borat played the part of the idiot, but it was American culture which ultimately looked foolish.

Unfortunately, there is nothing funny, or intelligent, or accurate, or even worthwhile in this movie. And I think the box office numbers for this film underscores my point.

Art house satire that occasionally stings and bites

[mozli · 8/10 · 16 August 2009]

A welcome addition to the Spike Lee family of films and the growing number of films that don't pander to the lowest common denominator for African-Americans: Daughters of the Dust/ Native Son/ Magic Love/The Spook who sat by the Door.

No stunt casting like P.Diddy in Raisin in the Sun.

The concept of alternate universe storytelling is radical for black filmmakers. That they found so much material to support the imaginary world they were creating was astonishing. My only real complaint is the level of acting on display. Some of it is passable but much of it was amateurish, community theater level. Ultimately, the audience for this film will grow over the years and will be discovered by all kinds of movie fans and film buffs.

Subject is intriguing but direction is dull

[BigMan-12 · 6/10 · 1 April 2006]

The idea of a story set in an alternate universe where the CSA won the Civil War is very interesting to me. But this film takes the approach of a second-rate BBC-Ken Burns-knockoff TV special. As a result, I felt like I was watching a TV show rather than a movie. This movie is Tivo-worthy, but it's not that great as a stand-alone film. Still, it's more interesting and risk-taking than your average Hollywood or art-house film.

I was bored by the conceit of a PBS-type special, but the ideas behind the film were quite interesting. The commercials for various products are first-rate satire...although, sadly, they are probably too close to reality to count as satire. The film is good information for most Americans, people who never stopped to consider just whose aunt was Aunt Jemima, or whose uncle was Uncle Ben.

A cardinal sin of reviewing movies is to review a movie you wished you saw rather than the one you actually saw. Still, I would have preferred to see a movie focused on a single character or group of characters living in the CSA. This film is a little too didactic for me to enjoy. I'd say: definitely catch it on cable. If you see it in the theater, you are paying for the concept rather than the actual entertainment value.

Fatally unfunny attempt at mockumentary

[phoenixlau · 1/10 · 12 April 2006]

What if the Confederacy won the Civil War? Sounds like a interesting premise for a sharp satirical mockumentary about an alternate American history, right? Unfortunately, as promising as the concept looks on paper, in reality "CSA: The Confederate States of America" is massively disappointing and unfulfilling. I can't even call it a valiant effort hampered by some weaknesses, because that would be too generous.

In fact, throughout the entire movie, there was not one scene that elicited any kind of positive reaction from me. The movie could not even produce a single laugh or smile. Even the worst of the worst comedies ("Date Movie", "Failure to Launch", "The Benchwarmers"), as horrible as they are, were able to make me chuckle at least ONCE. One laugh: is that too much to ask?

Here I just sat there, feeling the movie literally suck the life out of me with its colossal non-entertainingness. When your mind wanders to ponder the intricacies of this year's income tax forms, you know the movie you are watching is bad, bad, bad.

Product Placement...

[azathothpwiggins · 12 October 2019]

C.S.A.: THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA is a blistering satire / nightmare vision of an alternate America, in which the south won the Civil War. Presented as a "documentary", CSA uses the same, basic structure as a Ken Burns production to great effect. The "history" is shown through "interviews" with "experts", "archival" footage, and "re-enactments".

Intentionally offensive and anything but politically correct, this movie hearkens back to the acidic humor of the NATIONAL LAMPOON magazine, during its early 1970's heyday. The main feature is interrupted by "commercials", reminiscent of films like THE KENTUCKY FRIED MOVIE, THE GROOVE TUBE, or TUNNEL VISION (also from the '70's). The products / services advertised are extremely racist by design, many being explained at the end of the film.

At once hilarious and jaw-dropping, due to its sledgehammer approach, it's obviously not meant to be taken seriously, not even remotely. In spite of this, the message is clear and direct. Recommended for lovers of controversial comedy, this movie gets extra points for audacity!...

Good Premise, but leaves you wanting

[nickjpittman · 6/10 · 27 December 2012]

Heres the thing, it's a really solid premise that's lent itself to numerous books, movies, sci-fi, etc. What if the Confederacy actually turned the tables and won the Civil War? From the viewpoint of a British documentary, the film covers how the altered outcome shaped the economical, cultural, and political development of the nation throughout the 20th century.

There are two main issues here. The first is that the film suffers from what appears to be a smaller budget. I can't fault the filmmakers for this one, they did a solid job with what they had. It just becomes obvious at some points that cuts were made in production, so don't expect something too extravagant. At times it almost looks cheesy (not sure if that was the intention).

The bigger issue is that it's almost too much to cover in 90 minutes. They try to focus on key points, but some things are completely glossed over and given little/no mention (sports, pop culture, scientific developments). This is definitely a premise that would be better served by a several part miniseries with episodes focused on various aspects of the Confederate culture. Worth a watch though.

Very promising, brilliant idea, so-so execution

[jonathan_zai · 7/10 · 9 December 2006]

This movie probably has had the most potential of any movie I've ever seen. They didn't flop, but they didn't manage to blow me away with it. I was on the lookout the entire time to see how accurate they were, and at the start I thought I was going to be amazed by the end. The opening scene with the slave described as property hooked me for the entire movie. I instantly thought of the Dredd Scott Case, and thought they would do a near perfect analysis. Unfortunately, that was just beginners luck. The writers seemed to think adding little "in" jokes would be a better idea than actual research. "Seperate and certainly not equal" as opposed to what really happened "seperate but equal", "my great-grandfather did not have sexual relations with that woman", etc. The analysis was promising at first, but sort of tapered off. The South had an attitude of "leave us be" in the war. Had they won, they would have wanted to split off from the north and done as they pleased without opposition. Second, Jefferson Davis fought along with Lincoln in the Black Hawk War, he would never have sought him out or tried him for war crimes. Third, The majority of Native American tribes joined with the Confederacy during the Civil War (the enemy of my enemy is my friend concept), so they wouldn't have been harassing them after the war. And lastly, why did it follow the basic course of US History anyway? It's completely ridiculous to think that the South winning wouldn't radically alter history as we know it.

Clever but very flawed

[mike-hanlon · 6/10 · 14 August 2006]

As a big fan of what-ifs I was looking forward to C.S.A. greatly. And, superficially, this is a very impressive film. With an almost fastidious attention to detail we are given the horror story of what would have happened if the South had won the US Civil War. Not only would slavery not have been abolished in the 1860s, it would be going on right now. In fact the whole history of the planet would have been different. South America under CSA rule. No American involvement in WW2. Canada the cultural capital of North America. But there are huge problems with this thesis. The main one is economic. Slavery only 'works', in an economic sense, when you have a largely agrarian economy, with a small population of wealthy landowners and a massive labour shortage. But we are led to believe that after the largely rustic South conquered the industrial North they could impose the same system - of free labour - on the cities and factories of the old Union. Think about it: Detroit - Motown - with slave labour. The great industrial combines of the Midwest staffed by slaves. Slaves in the Pittsburgh steel mills, slaves in the meatpacking plants of Chicago. See the problem? The problem would be catastrophic unemployment levels among the white working (and middle) classes, economic meltdown and certain revolution. Trying to impose slavery on a high-population, industrialised country would wreck the place in a decade or less. The CSA would effectively be saying to every blue-collar worker in the land, 'you're out of a job because here's someone who does it for free'. Of course the CSA could have stayed with cotton and tobacco, and missed out on the Industrial Revolution altogether. But then the country would soon plunge into a Third World morass. It would also have been nice to know what happened to the USSR in this alternate Universe, what the position of Europe was (we only got to her, rather tiresomely, about Canada) and how the Americans managed to build the Atomic Bomb without the help of German-Jewish refugee scientists. Still, a nice idea, excellent production values and the 'genuine' commercial breaks were painful to watch.

likely to offend anyone

[redkern · 1/10 · 12 March 2006]

I'm from Chicago and go to school in Michigan and found this movie offensive. Although not from the South, I thought this film was very unsympathetic to and caricatured Southern culture and history. It's also very questionable that history would look anything like they're portraying it if the South had in fact won. I don't think world agriculture or sentiment would have made slavery viable for more than another 50-70 years even if the South had won its independence or conquered the northern states. Also, this movie was simply poorly made. Its actors, commercials, and PBS-style program all seem to be aimed more at making fun of the South than at providing a realistic attempt at an actual documentary and commercials on what would be modern Confederate television.

A Great Companion Piece Which Should Be Seen Alongside "Manderlay"

[nycritic · 10/10 · 31 March 2006]

In an alternate universe, Jefferson Davis became president, the Confederates won the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln was not shot and killed but becomes an escapee in blackface and dies in disgrace in Canada (not before recording his last words in 1905 -- a little anachronistic since sound in films did not occur until the 1920s), and slavery is alive and well and becoming one with technology. Subversive enough? You'll have to watch this mockumentary to believe it. Nothing is sacred here, and it works so well because it looks as if these events truly took place. It could be a documentary shown on A & E from its meticulous attention to detail to make it look authentic, and its segues into "commercial breaks" are fantastic -- you laugh, but you cringe. And this is exactly what director Kevin Willmott and producer Spike Lee want you to feel.

...with liberty and justice for all white people, Amen.

[lastliberal · 6/10 · 11 October 2008]

I really didn't know what to expect when watching this film. I thought it was going to be more of a dramedy, not a mocumentary in the style of Ken Burns.

I can say that I did not find it funny in the least, if that was the intent. I sat through the entire thing with my mouth handing open, except for the "commercials." They were so offensive that I almost turned it off.

I have to say that I was surprised and shocked after the movie ended and certain facts were shown. Yes, we still have Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben, but it was certainly much worse as this film shows.

An awful & stupid film.

[akagi_2 · 1/10 · 17 August 2006]

The acting was bad, the writing was worse. It looked like something from a high school drama team--and this is being unkind to high school drama teams.

Willmott seems to have a dim understanding of the Confederacy, its ideology, the Civil War or US history in general. He gives us no explanation why the United Kingdom or France would come to the aid of the CSA in the spring of 1863 when the CSA was in serious trouble--i.e. Grant--Vicksburg. Nor does he explain how the Confederacy, a nation only 1/3 of the Union could annex the states of the Union--even if it had a desire to do so. This is the same problem later with the "Tropical Empire" section of the film--again how could such a tiny state--one that was bankrupted by the war--occupy all of Latin America? In the Davis Plan where slavery is reintroduced to the north via taxation where are the slaves going to come from? The Confederate Constitution bans the importation of slaves from abroad and most Confederate states banned the interstate slave trade as well--e.g. Mississippi would not have allowed its slaves to be sent to New York, etc.

Then there is the WWII section. The CSA allies with Germany but attacks Germany's chief ally Japan--as well as a number of other bizarre assertions dealing with both Germany and Japan.

The film continues piling more and more surreal experiences until finally the horrible experiment is over. Don't waste your time. It is not funny, it is not edgy, it is simply garbage. Not the worse film ever made for sure, but not worth the nearly 90-minutes of your life either. If I were to grade this film as part of a class project I'd give it a generous C-.

Brilliant Satire

[sanford_junk · 9/10 · 13 March 2006]

This movie danced along the edge of impropriety, but brilliantly. The premise is good and the execution is genius. Depicting this as a standard 'Ken Burns style' documentary is the perfect way to convey the sweep of history in a short time. The interviews, voice overs, and lingering camera shots of a still photograph were all spot-on.

My favorite part was the multiple level satire of films from the early 20th century showing events from the 19th: a silent movie about Lincoln's capture, a 50s school educational film about the superiority of whites, and a Hollywood war epic about the CSA's wars in South America. Depicting the fictional events through a lens of contemporary attitudes of what would have been the 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s... it made my head swim.

The commercials that another reviewer mentioned were humorous breaks in the action, but they didn't go much further than any normal commercial parody. The note at the end from the movie creators about the sources for some of these (I won't give it away) made me twinge with guilt for laughing, which I think is the response they wanted.

Overall, if you are a student of history, a lover of satire, a thinking person, or (god forbid) all 3 - you should see this move.

Mostly A Sophisticated and Imaginative Satire

[noralee · 7/10 · 27 April 2006]

"C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America" is an effective satire of History Channel-type documentaries.

To illustrate an alternative reality of the past hundred years as if the Confederacy had won the U.S. Civil War (with foreign help) through a faux British TV documentary, writer/director Kevin Willmott makes excellent use of detailed research and archival footage to seamlessly create dead-on parodies of decades of movie styles (D.W. Griffith here makes "The Yankee" instead of "The Clansman", to a 1930's style hagiographic bio pic of Jefferson Davis, to a World War II-style movie here set in a war to take over South America as the Confederates dreamed to do, etc.).

Particularly chilling throughout this supposed televised presentation are the "commercials" of racist products and horrifically cheerful slave controls, where ads for reruns of the old sit com "Beaulah" fit in comfortably (the syndicator may now pull this one just as CBS keeps "Amos and Andy" in the vault as she sure does look like a mammy). The footnote coda chillingly demonstrates that representations making use of the most exaggerated stereotypes were not fictional but were actual racist artifacts or activities, though producer Spike Lee also used them in his parallel "Bamboozled" of a satirical TV minstrel show taken at face value. (A recent episode of "Nip/Tuck" also had a pleasant extremist mom have an Aunt Jemima collection.)

Some of the historical imaginings are creatively scabrous, such as exporting slaves to get the U.S. out of the Depression, and raises intriguing issues of slavery in an industrial economy. The film is particularly nasty about "traditional values" and Christian hypocrisy. While there are many "Daily Show"-type jokes, there is plenty that can't be laughed at.

The script's imagination falls flat and finally trails off as it imagines how a CSA would fare in world affairs, spreading its racist gospel to the Japanese and the Africans, less thought out than Philip Roth's take on allying with the Nazis and what the U.S. actually did to Japanese-Americans was worse than described here. But it's not always clear what this CSA's foreign policy would have been, other than "Red Canada" where the talking head black scholars can lash out from the safety of Montreal.

A story-telling mechanism of the film that falters into personalities as it heads into the 1970's is focusing on a fictional first family of the Confederacy who is meant to be the Adamses or Kennedys in public service, with plenty of borrowings from the life of Dixecrat Senator Strom Thurmond.

Until it fades off, this is a very sophisticated and imaginative satire.

Ignocumentary

[revolution-7 · 1/10 · 17 September 2007]

A mockumentary with an alternative history twist. Great idea, but the execution was incredibly poor and lazy.

The acting was simply horrible, probably among the worst ever seen outside 50's B horror movies. I kid you not.

The pacing was awkward, if this was a real documentary, nobody would go through its painfully boring parts.

Whoever wrote this has absolutely no knowledge about history. Sure, the message is valid... but the movie doesn't seem convincing at all. A lot of the events are so poorly thought-out, they only become annoying.

All the major events in US history are there, only with a little twist, sadly, the 'twist' has no grounds in reality ( even alternative reality ).

Final verdict: 2/10, only because the idea was good.