I typically don't like mocumentaries but this one wasn't bad. I give it a tepid recommendation. You may want to wait until it goes to DVD but I give the director kudos for giving it the old college try. The film is shown as if it is Ken Burns type documentary on commercial TV so in between the fake history segments, you get fake TV commercials hawking products that might exist in 2006 if slavery was still being practiced in the US.
Did Spike Lee direct this film? How much is he actually involved in this project? I've seen some of his movies and am interested by his social/political views. Likewise Mr. Moore.
I admit that I liked/appreciated "Malcolm X", "Do the Right Thing", "Fahrenheit 911" and "Bowling at Columbine" as I felt they presented some viewpoints outside the mainstream of Hollywood. While watching them though I did feel that they were fairly biased films.
In a counter-factual history (the C.S.A. winning the civil war) I think that slavery would have continued for a longer period of course. The notion though that it could continue to exist in the 21st century (even had the C.S.A. won) strikes me as ridiculous.
I get that it is meant as a mocumentary . . . but to what purpose?
I concur, I love (well done) alternate-reality present worlds. From what I perceived from the trailer, it's some sort of self-depricating commentary. However, slavery? In the 20th century? In the 21st? Pul-ease.
Now I have taken a shitload of classes and attended a lot of seminars, and the sad fact is, there IS still slavery running rampant - but only in the 3rd world.
Quite frankly, slavery is just something I cannot get my mind around. I mean, it just sounds so horrifically wrong. Yes, yes, I sound like the wannabe smart girl in the AP History class, but it's such an antiquated notion now, yes?
Personally, the quick clips from the trailer showing what happened to Lincoln would have been a far better film. Lincoln convicted on war crimes? I'd see that.
Eh, the only truly decent counter-factual film I thought was pretty good, was an HBO movie called, 'Fatherland', which depicted the world in the 1960s if the Nazis had won WWII. That one is tough to find, but I recommend it.
I've seen Fatherland & I agree that that scenario was somewhat believable. At least more so than the one suggested by the trailer for C.S.A.
I think plausibility is important. It is why Red Dawn was a cheesy outdated movie when it was made whereas White Man's Burden: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114928/ isn't.
From the trailer, website etc. the C.S.A. movie doesn't look as though it was done on the cheap like some other mocumentaries.
I'm interested in knowing why this movie was made in the first place. I'd be interested in a documentary of the mocumentary, kind of like Hearts of Darkness went into detail about how Apocalypse Now was made: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102015/
From what I can tell, Spike Lee didn't have much to do with the film. He was not listed under any of the creative credits. My guess is that his company had something to do with the distribution.
The director is British if I recall correctly.
As for the film itself, imagine if the US Industrial Revolution had been powered by slave labor instead of child labor & cheap immigrant labor. Were the US Indian Wars of the 2nd half of 19th century any less racially motivated than the Confederacy's fight to maintain slavery? The difference is not so great. Imagine if Hitler's Aryan superiority theories had occurred when slavery was widely practiced in the US. Imagine if the most economically powerful nation in the world practiced slavery. Would the rest of the world boycott US products or would they turn a blind eye or would they adopt US slavery practices to remain competitive? The director does a good job of presenting this alternative scenario. The plot premise is rich with possibility. My tepid response is because the director lacks subtlety in how he presents it.
Those commercials I mentioned are based on actual racist products from the early 20th century. Two popular products that still exist are Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben.
When you think slavery, you probably think plantations but if slavery existed today, it would probably take the form of domestic help, sweatshops, factory workers, etc. Basically, the role of illegal immigrants would be supplanted by slaves.
This message has been edited by scalias on Mar 3, 2006 1:43 AM This message has been edited by scalias on Mar 3, 2006 1:42 AM
That's an impressive report and certainly some of the case studies I perused are terrible but that kind of slavery is "not as bad" as what occured in the US until 1860's. The difference is that these modern day cases of slavery are illegal in the US and the victims have legal recourse.
Slavery was endorsed and protected in the Southern states up until the Civil War. If they escaped to states where slavery was illegal, slaves were extradited back to the masters or in some cases, slave catchers would kidnap them off the streets of Northern cities.
Anyway, that report confuses the issue that is presented in the movie. From one table I read, about half of the cases of current day slavery are sex related. That is no less detestable and antebellum slave masters would sexually abuse their female slaves but illegally holding people for forced servitude is not the same magnitude as having the full power of the federal, state, and local governments in supporting and promoting slavery. One man killing another man based on ethnicity is murder and a hate crime. A government program to kill a group of people based on their race is genocide.
I think you misunderstood my post. You said "if slavery existed today, it would probably take the form of domestic help, sweatshops, factory workers, etc. Basically, the role of illegal immigrants would be supplanted by slaves." I was giving supporting documentation.
The slavery referred to in the PDF is not the same kind of slavery practiced in CSA. One is basically a form of kidnapping & illegal. The other is state sponsored & institutional. I am also saying that modern day "slavery" is different (and not as degrading) as that practiced in the US until 1865. Slavery as a word, has a different meaning today as opposed to 1860. Furthermore, I think it is demeaning to all parties to call the modern events described in that report as slavery, at least when making a side-by-side comparison. One is a crime and the other was not. The fact that it was not a crime makes it more contemptible. I don't consider the events described in the report as "slavery." Obvious caveat is IMO.
