Review : 'CSA: The Confederate States of America'

The docudrama bus rolls on apace with the release of Kevin Wilmott’s ‘CSA: Confederate States Of America’ – a film which attempts to examine American society from a fresh perspective by constructing an alternate timeline in which the South won the civil war.

After British and French intervention at the Battle of Gettysburg secures victory for the Confederate Army, southern institutions, businesses and families come to dominate American politics in the following years. After the slave economy is reinstalled in the northern states, the American government, in league with Hitler’s Germany, begins an imperialist campaign throughout the countries of South America. The Civil Rights movement is crushed following the assassination of JFK, leading to a popular uprising going into the 1990’s.

The most striking thing about this film is its style. It’s convincingly shot as a PBS documentary, complete with serious voice over, mock footage, phoney experts and ad breaks. It’s these moments, when products ranging from toothpaste to the latest shackles are peddled, which provide the most effective satire. The “Slave Shopping Network”, with its smiling presenters, streaming offers and product demonstrations seems lifted straight out of real life. CSA is infused with such moments to great effect. Unfortunately the rest of the film is not so sharp.

At times Wilmott’s manipulation of history is extremely clumsy. To take one example, America’s “new imperialism” is portrayed as a singular consequence of the confederate victory in the civil war – the fact that the antebellum government made a bid on Cuba in the years leading up to the war is not mentioned. More fundamentally, the notion of “cause and effect” upon which the story is based is highly questionable and often at odds with the abundant use of historical figures within the narrative. Why would the southern army rampage through the northern cities after their victory? Is it plausible that Henry David Thoreau would elect to live under a monarchy? Does the Elvis phenomenon make sense when not set against the backdrop of post-war America? And how can the presence of Jack Kennedy be explained when in actual fact the black vote was crucial to his 1960 election victory? The film feels very unhistorical, and for me that proved enough for its strong points to be somewhat undermined.

But then, I must remember that this is a film not about the past, but a film about America today. And indeed, in an age when absolutist morals are back on the political agenda, it made for eye-opening, sometimes chilling viewing. In this world, the NAACP is an organisation which, with echoes of fox news punditry, is described by one of the film’s central characters as “terrorists, pure and simple”. There are other allusions to controversial aspects of America under the present administration, including the Mexican border wall and the war in Iraq. There’s plenty to entertain the Bush basher here, and for many that will be enough.

Unfortunately for the viewer, the film increasingly tubthumps whilst failing to persuade, so that by the end we’re buried beneath a pile of stale sentiment. It’s a shame, because the idea is such an interesting one and the attempt is made with some style, but ultimately, a lack of substance makes what should have been an important, great film into a moment of passing interest.