 |
| Posted: Thu Sep 15th, 2005 01:12 pm |
|
1st Post |
javal1
Grumpy Geezer
|
We've been following this movie since it premiered at Sundance a couple years ago. Now the motion picture is being released. Should raise a firestorm in some circles I would think ....
Film satirizes Southern victory in Civil War
Spike Lee is an executive producer of a new film which just premiered here at the Cordova Malco. Lee describes "CSA: Confederate States of America" as eye opening and jaw dropping. Keep that in mind as we preview of a unique look at the confederacy.
It's a mock-u-mentary, that poses the question, what if the South had won the civil war.
Film Director Kevin Wilmott is in Memphis to premier his film "CSA: The Confederate States of America."
The film is a PBS-style satire and is told from the point of view of confederate television commercials and all. There's even a slave trading home shopping network.
"If it would have continued it would have been normalized it would have not been a shocking thing to have the slave shopping network it would have been okay," Wilmott said.
Wilmott's production has the seal of approval from the National Civil Rights museum in fact its one of the sponsors of the world wide premier being held in Memphis this week
"We were hoping to create a healthy dialogue not just about the confederate states flag or confederate parks issue but about race relations," said Gwen Harmon of the National Civil Rights Museum.
That's why Wilmott thought Memphis and his movie would be a natural fit.
"But I think Memphis is open to these issues and I think we can come here and start this dialogue," said Wilmott.
Wilmott says his film is not meant to be an attack on the South. He says, in a lot of ways the South did win the civil war. CSA hits theatres nationwide October 7th.
http://www.wmcstations.com/Global/story.asp?S=3852494
Last edited on Thu Sep 15th, 2005 01:13 pm by javal1
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 25th, 2005 03:02 pm |
|
2nd Post |
kj3553
Born in the wrong century
|
Sounds intriguing...and I suspect that more than a few feathers will be ruffled.
~KJ
Last edited on Sun Sep 25th, 2005 03:03 pm by kj3553
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore ks. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Tue Sep 27th, 2005 05:42 pm |
|
3rd Post |
ks
Guest
|
Absolutely! But I hope those with the ruffled feathers will listen to what Wilmott is saying about why the film was made and what he hopes it will bring about. Check out the many film clips, reviews and NEWS at the official website:
CSA, the Movie <--I don't know how that will work for you. Sometimes in order to get a link in the posts to work I must right click and then elect to "Open in new window".
If you come up with an "eslave" (parody of eBay) page with ads sponsored by the Coon Chicken Inn...you're in the right place. Click on anything and it will take you into the movie website.
I'd be interested in reactions to the website. I saw the film at a small film festival in KS in February of 2004. It had already been at Sundance and Spike Lee had signed on at that time. Independence Community College's William Inge Film Festival got a copy because Kevin had made the agreement with them prior to Sundance and the attention CSA drew there. Audience response at ICC was at first shocked laughter then moved to embarassed laughter and eventually to riveted silence. Much discussion followed. And that's exactly what Kevin Wilmott hoped to have as a response.
Best regards.
Pat
P.S. BTW the Coon Chicken Inn logo and the canister of Nigger Hair Tobacco shown on the eslave page weren't made up for the film. Real restaurant, real product dating into the 1950s IIRC.
Last edited on Tue Sep 27th, 2005 05:45 pm by
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 27th, 2005 04:41 pm |
|
4th Post |
MAubrecht
Member
|
To be honest, I have not watched the film (yet), but I have followed the promotion closely, and from what I can gather, the entire pretense of this movie is almost comical. (Except that it's not funny.) Although the film's website is VERY well done, this movie, and the disturbing insight behind it, really makes me angry. It serves absolutely no purpose other than to help spread historical ignorance, rekindle the flames of racial division, and tarnish any reputable histories of the Confederacy in the eyes of the common public.
The film's so-called "historical perspective" is founded on total speculation (filled with serious satirical and offensive content) and I would liken it to taking one of Spike Lee's favorite historical figures and rewriting imaginary history simply to ignite a flame. IE: What if his hero Malcolm X would not have been killed, the Nation of Islam becomes a major political body, and Islam becomes the national religion pushing the U.S. into the same crisis experienced now in the Middle East. Sounds absurd right? That is the exact type of "philosophy" and extremism behind this film.
Plus (as an example of the lack of accuracy) it appears that they are only using the C.S.A. battle flag (where applicable) in place of the correct Confederate flag. I assume they did this as most people (in the general public) don't know the difference. Now I'm all for free speech and artistic expression, and Spike Lee has made some good films in the past, but I cannot see anything constructive in this project other than to tick off both blacks and whites with one person's skewed perception of history and futurism.
Does anyone (deep down) actually believe that if the South had won the war, we would be watching the "Slave-Shopping Network" and surfing "E-Slave" in 2005? Would we not have righted the wrongs of the past by the times of today's modern and more civilized society? I like to think so. Regardless, this is not what I would call good, debate generating entertainment or remotely educational in any form. (JMO)
Also - I don't want to make it sound as if this topic isn't worth exploring - just that this appears as an extremely one-sided, sensationalized, and profit-driven way to do it. Look out for more "hurt" than "help" thanks to this one. I have always respected Spike Lee's work, but this project has left me questioning his motives. I will not be spending one cent on a ticket at the theater, but I will probably rent it on video and revisit this topic at a later date. Last edited on Thu Oct 27th, 2005 05:38 pm by MAubrecht
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 27th, 2005 04:42 pm |
|
5th Post |
MAubrecht
Member
|
Also - I don't want to make it sound as if this topic isn't worth exploring - just that this is a sensationalized and profit-driven and misguided (IMO) way to do it.
Look out for more "hurt" than "help" thanks to this one.
Last edited on Thu Oct 27th, 2005 04:43 pm by MAubrecht
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 27th, 2005 05:15 pm |
|
6th Post |
javal1
Grumpy Geezer
|
Does anyone (deep down) actually believe that if the South had won the war, we would be watching the "Slave-Shopping Network" and surfing "E-Slave" in 2005? Would we not have righted the wrongs of the past by the times of today's modern and more civilized society?
Not the answer you want to hear I suppose but...
It wasn't until the 1960's that this country saw fit to pass a Civil Rights bill - a full 100 years after the war. Even then, many representatives of the South fought it tooth and nail. Remember Wallace, Helms, etc.? And all of this was under a government that supposedly was in favor of equality.
Now you want to know whether a government which (hypothetically) had it's roots fighting, at least in part, to preserve slavery and "seperate and unequal" would have righted the wrongs by now. With no disrespect intended.... I think not. As you said, just MHO.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 27th, 2005 05:43 pm |
|
7th Post |
MAubrecht
Member
|
I can't argue with that point - but this apparently takes place in today's time and I find it hard to believe that in 2005 we would have this issue.
Either way - the preview (to me) is offensive, the premise is laughable, and the history behind this looks to be presented with less-than-accurate information.
A potentially good idea - poorly executed - and way over the top. Maybe I'm biased sitting down here in the Old Dominion, but I bet I'm in the majority when it comes to predicting more negative repercussions - than good ones - no matter what their intentions are.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 28th, 2005 03:02 pm |
|
8th Post |
MAubrecht
Member
|
I put some thought into this discussion last night when coincidentally, I stumbled upon Spike Lee making an appearance as part of the discussion panel on Bill Marr's (sp?) HBO show. I wanted to see if he had any insights that may sway my feelings in regards to this movie, but all he did was argue over-and-over that the U.S. Government intentionally planted explosives in order to blow-up the levees in New Orleans to drown poor, black people. I can't take anything he says seriously anymore.
Clearly he is bitter (although he has been blessed with great fame and fortune and has more money than any white person I know) and instead of making intelligent statements (based on facts and/or actual evidence) and spending his time writing checks to financially HELP those affected by the hurricanes - he appears more interested in making a documentary that deals with conspiracy theories and the spread of discontent.
Sorry, I tried to open my mind a little on this one, but he keeps shutting it with his irresponsible accusations and hostility. He is extremely talented, but that talent is slowly being eroded by political fanaticism.Last edited on Fri Oct 28th, 2005 03:13 pm by MAubrecht
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 28th, 2005 05:43 pm |
|
9th Post |
David White
Member
|
MAubrecht:
Actually I see nothing wrong with movies like this and "A Day without Mexicans." I won't see them in the theaters and probably won't even see them on DVD but the subjects provoke reflection and thought on the subjects. Yes Spike Lee is nuts if he thinks the govenrment destroyed the levee in NO but that doesn't discount everything he says and does. To theorize what would and wouldn't happen today based on modern society's so-called enlightenment doesn't hold up in my opinion because in many ways we are less enlightened then the southern slave culture and things go on today that are more outrageous than even slavery.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 28th, 2005 06:00 pm |
|
10th Post |
MAubrecht
Member
|
David, If I may ask (and I don't want to turn this into a big political debate) what do you mean by "we are less enlightened then the southern slave culture and things go on today that are more outrageous than even slavery." Can you explain?
My experience in the South is that it has always been more conservative, traditional, old fashioned, religious, and ultimately simpler than the rest of the country - a trait that I personally love. I do not support slavery or the oppression of any race - in any capacity - and I do not want to sound like a southern apologist - I am very aware (and ashamed as a white man in some regards) of the sins of the past - but the South has worked very hard in a lot of ways to hold on to that romantic period of "family, faith and farms." I think this is a good thing.
My life, (and the lives of all of my children) has been so much easier and simpler, and less stressful (IMO) than the fast-paced hustle-and-bustle of anyone I know up north. I lived in PA for my first 22 years and in VA for the last 11 - AND I will (hopefully) never leave VA as it is a postcard life that I have come to treasure.
Let's put it this way, I crave living in the 19th Century (as far as having a much simpler and safer time - as opposed to today's fallen world), and this (Fredericksburg, VA) is probably the closest I will ever get.
Last edited on Fri Oct 28th, 2005 07:50 pm by MAubrecht
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 28th, 2005 06:13 pm |
|
11th Post |
David White
Member
|
MAubrecht:
You're right, going down that path would turn this into a political debate but let's just say that denying an innocent person's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is more egregious than just denying them their liberty and pursuit of happiness.
I definitely agree with what you are saying about the south, it's why I love it too, especially my Lone Star State-- perceived warts and real warts.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 28th, 2005 07:48 pm |
|
12th Post |
| Posted: Sat Oct 29th, 2005 04:32 am |
|
13th Post |
GenHood
Member
|
I've not seen the film, but did visit the website on more than one occasion. I found it interesting (disturbing) that the historical timeline based the entire change of the course of history on the fact that, with the aid of British and French troops a Confederate victory at Gettysburg (July 1-3, 1863 the actual dates) turns the tide of the war, resulting in a Federal surrender on the same dates and in the same place as the actual Confederate surrender at Appomattox. I am a firm believer that if even one small component of history were different, a multitude of changes would have occurred. So if the South wins at Gettysburg, everything else is the same except for the result? I don't buy that for a second, and the filmmakers assumption that the European powers would have recognized a slaveholding government ( if I'm not mistaken England refused to recognize the C.S.A. BECAUSE of slavery) is a complete historical "oversight" and sloppy research. If for no other reason, and I do have other issues w/ this film and its "message", its historical misrepresentation will keep me away from it. Just my two cents.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore ks. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Sun Oct 30th, 2005 06:26 pm |
|
14th Post |
ks
Guest
|
Michael & all:
I won't disagree with anything you say about Spike Lee, but I'd like to remind you that that he didn't make this movie. It's been Kevin Wilmott's baby for a long time. Spike Lee told Kevin (after the first version of the film was complete and had gotten a lot of attention at the Sundance Film Festival) that he'd sign on as a producer if it would help get the film some attention. After that Kevin did go back and redo some of the film. Some clips seem more over the top than what I remember seeing when we viewed the film at Independence, KS. And for what it's worth the audience seeing the flm that day was primarily faculty, administration and students at the community college. People weren't angry after seeing the film. They were very animated in discussing perceived racial inequalities in THIS time period.
As for comments about there being any sloppy historical research I'll point out that the same seems to be said of any films made that deal with history. I've seen Gettysburg criticized and "Gods and Generals" lambasted (still HUGELY disappointed with that movie). I bet you can add the names of many other movies that have taken the heat for the portrayal of history. People seem to forget that these are MOVIES, not history lessons. They're made to entertain, some to inspire, some to promote discussion, etc. And the version of C.S.A that I saw at Indy certainly succeeded in bringing about a lot of serious discussion. Kevin's pleased. So were the college instructors present, so was I for that matter---pleased to see so many people of different backgrounds (and skin color for that matter) taking part in some very open and civil discussion.
Best regards.
Pat
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31st, 2005 01:45 am |
|
15th Post |
GenHood
Member
|
I'll certainly agree that any film based on historical events contains inaccuracies. However, the website for this film linked to a "timeline" that I considered to support the actual theme of the film, which is to portray this country as it would be had the Civil War been a Southern victory. So as opposed to "Gettysburg" or "Gods and Generals" which were based on actual events, this film appears to take a premise and twist historical "what might have beens" around it. I certainly don't oppose the premise of the film (I actually find it intriguing), I do oppose the supposition that had the South won Gettysburg everything else would have happened as it actually did, with the exception of the abolition of slavery.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31st, 2005 01:45 pm |
|
16th Post |
MAubrecht
Member
|
Good points one and all. I have a question and was hoping you could give me some insights.
It seems that people either love or hate the film God's and Generals. As I wrote two books that focused specifically on the religious lives of Jackson and Stuart (a similar approach) - and as the majority of the film takes place right here in my town (and I am very familiar with the events and places) - I wonder what the problem is that people have with it? I can't seem to figure it out. Just curious as it seems to be a divided topic. Thanks.
Last edited on Mon Oct 31st, 2005 01:45 pm by MAubrecht
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore ks. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31st, 2005 03:53 pm |
|
17th Post |
ks
Guest
|
For me the high point of Gods & Generals was the opening with the flags flapping and the music. After that it was all downhill. And this comes from a person who loved "Gettysburg" and who was very excited about the new film from Maxwell. My major problem with the film is that I've read the Shaara book, and it doesn't follow it at all IMO. I expected to see a relationship between the book and the film (as there was with GETTYSBURG). The movie came off to me as more like exceprts from the Robertson book than the novel by Shaara. To me it was all about Stonewall and preachification to the MAX. I have numerous copies (VHS, DVD and special editions in both formats) of GETTYSBURG and can obnoxiously participate in a "quote fest" as the occasions arise. I have one copy of Gods & Generals given to me (unrequested btw) at Christmas and which remains unopened.
Believe it or not, Michael, I'm not even one to typically have harsh criticism of a film. Gods & Generals was something I waited and watched for with great anticipation. My son was working in a movie theater at the time of its release and managed to get the film trailers for me as mementos as well as the large movie posters. And then I saw the movie...
Best regards.
Pat
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31st, 2005 06:26 pm |
|
18th Post |
MAubrecht
Member
|
I know we've discussed this in further detail in the chat room ks - so I won't add much to this specific discussion on G&G. I understand how the general public may feel that it was too-Stonewall and/or too pro-southern focused. I guess I didn't realize that as it "catered" to my particular interests, but I can certainly see the "other-side" of the argument. Sharra's book was not really "mirrored" on the screen.
If you think about it, Gettysburg was northern-focused (Chamberlain, Buford, etc.) but still spent time on Longstreet, Pickett, Armistead, and Lee. G&G really only incorporated Chamberlain and Hancock into the storyline.
As I type, this actually makes me think about "allegiances" - maybe not the right word - "favoritism" that historians have that obviously influence their tastes. I am only a 4th-generation American (on both sides) so I did not grow up with any particular "favorite" (I'm orig. from Pennsylvania) in regards to the Civil War. I never really felt that I had the "right" as I have zero blood-ancestors that participated in it. My father's family were Catholics from Austria and my mother's family were Welch Presbyterians (picture that wedding) who both came over in the early 1900's.
However, as I grew into my adulthood (as both a man and as a writer) in Fredericksburg, Virginia - I could not help but be influenced by where I have lived for so long and what transpired here. Obviously I have a much better interest, grasp (and relation) to the southern perspective - even as a "transplant". My sister married into a southern family in Charlotte, N.C. and now shares the same last name as the nearby plantation and the road that they live off of. I am sure they have an entirely different perspective too as they (her in-laws' people) were active participants in the conflict.
I guess what I'm trying to communicate is that all books and movies are ultimately influenced (in part) by the experiences, locations and family histories of the people that write/produce them. In that regards, its virtually impossible to please everybody - all of the time. In the end, I guess that I just love being able to watch a 5 hour movie on the Civil War with a favorite Christian Soldier of mine dominating the "camera-time".
Last edited on Mon Oct 31st, 2005 08:44 pm by MAubrecht
|
|
Back To Top
|
Basecat
Member
|
Michael,
For what it is worth, my main problem with "Gods and Generals" had nothing to do with the religious overtones, or that it's main focus was on Stonewall. Problem I had here, is that Ron Maxwell, somehow made the story of the Civil War boring, and his screenplay for the movie sucked.
As ks has mentioned, this movie had nothing to do with what Jeff Shaara had written in his book, and to say that film was based on his novel is a lie. How can a filmmaker lie to the audience who wanted to see the film? That's where he failed, and for him to rail about the bad publicity and bad reviews he got, all he should have done is look in the mirror, and realize he made a crappy movie. No anti Southern feelings here at all, and far from it.
Still cringe here when I see Jeff Daniels's monologue about Hail Ceasar right before the Battle of Fredericksburg, and had that occurred during the battle, and if I was a member of the 20th Maine, I would have shot him just to make him shut up..
Will leave you with this. I saw the movie here in NJ with Jim the Night Owl and a friend of his, and they both asked me what I thought when it was over. My exact quote was, "What the Hell was that?" Pained me to have that reaction, but just thought, and still think Maxwell did a horrible job with that movie.
Not sure if you have ever seen Ang Lee's "Ride With The Devil", and if not, get a copy and watch that, as that is the best CW movie since "Glory" came out, and done by a director who was not even born in the USA!!
Regards from the Garden State,
Steve Basic
|
|
Back To Top
|
MAubrecht
Member
|
I understand basecat. I posted a reply over in the chatroom as ks had posted something similar. I don't want to take up space double-posting things - so please check the logs if you want. I think this comes down to tastes and interests. Thanks.
|
|
Back To Top
|
Current time is 01:31 pm | Page: 1 2   |
|
|
|
