View source for 329-2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments

== Things the movie got right ==


COMPANY TOWN

'''Some of what the movie portrayed well was the monopoly that the coal companies had on the entire town, including the houses in which the miners lived.''' Then, there was the '''depiction of the coal companies raising the prices at the company general store the very same day that the price of coal had decreased.''' There was also the representation of danger around every corner that existed within the coal mining industry.  - Mike E.

I agree with Mike E. about the way the film potrayed just how strong of a hold the coal company had on the town. '''It seemed like every single aspect of the people's lives was controlled by the company. The scene with the creepy preacher showed the general malevolence that a community could have towards a union.''' -- Celia


The movie definitely got '''the dependence of the miners on the company right throughout the film'''. Hickey mentions several times that the company owns all of the housing, which we know would have been true. Additionally, when the scab workers are first touring the town with and learning about how they will be working, Few Clothes Johnson brings up the point that since everyone who mines in the town is paid in company scrip, the company store can jack up the prices whenever they want. This is echoed in the union meeting, when the men describe the wage cuts and increased prices. --Meagan P.

I found the introduction to the company scene to be almost frightening in how calculating the company workers could be. Every cost had to be deducted from next month's pay, and every expense (including train tickets to get there) must be accounted. And the discussions about the company store as pay is spot on. '''You definitely get the sense of hopelessness that the miners would feel having nothing but the company to rely on for food and clothing items, tough luck that they are crooked and not interested in the miners.''' --[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 17:48, 27 October 2010 (MDT)

'''One of the things that the movie portrayed well was the contempt that the Company's people had for the miners. Well, contempt might be too strong of a word... more of "you are no more than dirt beneath my shoe" kind of feeling.''' (I can't think of the word right now)  They really didn't care about the miner's family situations, or lifestyle in general. Because in their eyes they were just bodies to be replaced. This really emphasized the tensions that formed and had been forming for awhile. - Jenn


BALDWIN-FELTS

'''The movie accurately portrays the eviction of the coal miners' families from company-owned houses by the Baldwin-Felts lackeys. The police chief, Sid Hatfield, also accurately defends these families and demands that the proper paperwork must be shown in order to evict a family out of their home.''' The movie also shows how these evicted families and the union men were forced to live in tents out in the woods. '''I also love that Mufasa/Darth Vader is in this movie!!! I kept hoping that he would say "Remember who you are..."''' --Erin L.  -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byDN8aoR4TI [1:35 in to the clip] ***whoever added this is the best!


I agree with Erin that the film accurately portrays the eviction from company-owned homes, especially the scene where the Baldwin-Felts crew is seen taking families furniture and belongings outside of a home. Another striking '''point the movie made, which we learned in class, was the role of spies and how the spies served as double agents such as C.E. Lively (played by Bob Gunton). In all honesty I thought he was a good person in the beginning of the film and once I saw his truecolors when he spoke with Bridey thought he was an asshole saving his own neck.''' The film did show how difficult life in a union was but how important a union could be in bringing together ALL workers for a common cause. -Megan W.

'''Kevin Tighe (aka John Locke's kidney-stealing father on "Lost") was unbelievably easy to hate as Hickey, the Baldwin-Felts man that Elma blew away with a shotgun.''' He captured the utter lack of sympathy that it seems those men had for the miners. I would have to disagree with Megan W. about trusting Bob Gunton as C.E. Lively at the beginning of the film - Bob Gunton is always evil. Never trust Bob Gunton. - Celia

However '''what struck me was the portrayal of violence, or at least potential violence on the part of company representatives. Throughout the film, they are armed with a rifle and watching the mines.''' Even though Kenehan is a pacifist and always looking for peaceful ways to mediate problems, the company does not even pretend to hide its willingness to defend company territory.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 17:48, 27 October 2010 (MDT)



HISTORICAL FIGURES

Then there was the portrayal of '''Police Chief Hatfield''', who did not want to receive bribes and was opposed to the eviction of the miner's families from company houses. - Mike E.

The movie accuratly depicted '''Few Clothes''' the huge black guy who became unionists. I did not understand that first seen when the white people were attacking the black people who were told to get out of the train. I makes a lot more sense when in class we were told they were strike breakers. They did a good job showing the evicting of people in company homes and the way the company owned the shops where they could ger supplies. The scene where Few Clothes asks what is to stop the company from jacking up the prices. It showed the monopoly the companies had over the towns. It also did a good job depicting how children were used in the mine despite the laws against it. The blond kind when asked if he was supposed to work in the mine said yeah and that there were lots of other kids younger then him who worked in them. - LeAnn

DISCUSSION OF HISTORICAL FIGURES/ACTORS GONE HORRIBLY WRONG....

In response to Megan W's comments about Bob Gunton's character, I have to say that I thought from the opening meeting that he was a spy. I couldn't stop thinking of his character in ''Shawshank Redemption'' everytime I saw him, he even had on exactly the same glasses. Sid Hatfield was BAMF throughout the whole movie. When everyone else in a position of power was caving to the coal companies he never backed down. He was the true hero of the film to me. He didn't have to stand up to the Baldwin-Felts men, but he knew what was right and would not budge.  - Michael G.

Yes, Michael G. I would just like to say that in my notes from watching this movie, you will find "David Strathairn (actor who played Sid Hatfield) is a BAMF". I also have "Darth Vader is a BAMF" - his BAMFness was perfectly executed in the scene where he says "You shut your mouth, peckerwood." In addition, Chris Cooper (Joe Kenehan) is one of the most consistently fantastic actors working today. His understated magnetism makes any Average Joe into the most interesting character onscreen. I would honestly watch him in anything. He could make a Quiznos commercial poignant. - Celia



RACIAL/ETHNIC DIVISIONS

'''The racial and ethnic prejudices that divided union men in real life were well-represented in this movie.'''  The African-Americans asked if they had to work with the Italians, and the whites complained about the Africa-Americans and the Italians.  Among the women, Hillard's mother accused the Italian lady of having "the evil eye" and was outraged when she "ruined corn meal" by making polenta, while the Italian lady was just as outraged about the West Virginia woman's "poison" food.  Dr. McClurken told us that the corporate officials used these racial and ethnic conflicts to "divide and conquer" the workers, to undermine solidarity. --- Debbi S.

A moment that really struck me as accurate, was when Kenehan was speaking to the leader of the Italian mine workers, and tells him that they need to join the union. He responds by saying, so either we get shot by the company, or we get shot by the other miners, and Kenehan agrees that he is basically right. James Earl Jones different reactions to being called a n***** and being called a scab was very enlightening. It showed how truly offensive the term scab was, he didn't seem to care if he was called a n*****, but that no one was allowed to call him a scab.   - Michael G.

It shows how the coal miners worked together to form a union and strike but also showed the other side, those that worked as "scabs." As I watched the movie, I saw a lot of intensity within the context of race relations. '''It all started when the Black coal miners were taken off the train so they would purposely be attacked by the whites. Did that really happen? Was the violence that intense towards African Americans?''' Also, while the miners on strike were meeting in secret and Few Clothes Johnson entered, it was clear he was not welcome. '''Did the coal miners hate African Americans because they were Black or because they were brought in to "replace" those miners who were on strike?''' Although Blacks were brought in to replace the striking miners, their desire to join the Union showed that they had the same goals in mind as the white miners... they wanted a job that brought them money but was also one that treated them fairly and not just as expendable resources. --- Alex M. 


CLASS ISSUES

'''There is definitely a gap between the wage earners and the employers.'''  Baldwin-Felts’ men drive around town in a fancy car (which some of the townspeople say is disturbing the hunting).  They dress in expensive suits and treat the people of Matewan with extreme haughtiness and disrespect.  Griggs and Hickey were especially disrespectful to Elma Radnor who was their host in town.  –Samantha W.

The film did a good job with the distinction between the producers and non-producers. At the beginning when Kenehan is at his first meeting with the union, he expresses the difference between those who work and those who don't. '''Continuously throughout the film, there is the reiteration of the mountain people and the city people, from both the miners and the "deputies" from the coal companies.''' They also did a good job in expressing the power the company had over every aspect of life. When the black miners were coming to work, the man was rattling off all the expenses due to the company for using their equipment, and the scripts only being good in company stores, the eviction of a family due to joining a union, and many other examples of how the company ran the life of the miners. '''As a viewer of this film, even if I didn't know the complete history behind towns like these, I felt oppressed for the miners due to the constant limitation expressed on the screen.''' It makes a person think about the rights that we have now that would never allow for such things and where they came from. - Victoria Y.

I thought the movie did a very good job of portraying the clear separation in wealth and class between the miners and the mining company.  They made it very clear that there were no personal feelings towards them and I think it was Kenehan who said that these people do not care about you and you are simply workers to them and are easily replaceable.  The movie captured the fear that the townspeople had of the mining industry and the men in the Baldwin-Felts’ agency and how it took so much to overcome this fear of unions and finally try to get something organized.  I like how the two agents came in and did not care who stood in their way and the movie did a good job of portraying their almost distaste for the workers. –afrisk

UNIONS

'''I really liked Joe Kenehan’s speech about unions when he said that there is no skilled or unskilled and race does not matter; that’s what a union is.'''  (It reminded me of the meeting in the beginning of The Patriot, especially since Chris Cooper was in that film as well.)  Though '''I did wonder what labor union Kenehan is a member of,''' I do not believe it is mentioned in the film.  Is he supposed to be a member of the UMWA?  The movie also accurately shows the use of company script for items at the company store and the housing that is provided by the company. One side note, the director, John Sayles, appears in the movie as well as a preacher.
–Samantha W.

Samantha, I think '''at one point Kenehan mentions that he was a member of the Wobblies.''' I don't know if UMWA was the other union he ended up joining. I think the movie accurately represented the ways in which the mining company "owned the town". In the movie, some of the people who represented the company, like the Hickey and Griggs, claimed that the company owned all the property in the town including the houses they were trying to evict the family from. In the beginning, a man was running down a list of things the company "provided" the new workers, however all the expenses for things like the train ride were deducted from their pay anyway. The workers and people who lived in the town were also expected to buy food and products from the company store yet they jacked up the prices so the people could barely afford to survive. Elma Radnor also mentions to Kenehan that fires in the mine caused by the coal dust could potentially be avoided if the company would pay to water down the walls, but she said the company wouldn't because it was too expensive.  -Amy Van Ness

'''The movie correctly depicts the fear of unionization at the time.''' During the first church scene, the preacher condemns unions, communists, and socialism as the devil's work. Despite the socialism and anarchist movements during the early 20th century, many remained skeptical, and the sentiment turned to outright fear with the Bolshevik rebellion in Russia. Another event that made Americans fearful of unionization was the Haymarket Square bombing, which was also conveniently tied to anarchists. It seems that since the preacher had never worked in a coal mine, he would be unaware of the horrible conditions these men were facing and of their slavery to the company. --Anna Holman

One of the things '''the movie got right was the fear of Socialism and Communism.''' The pastor preaches about it in his sermon and one of the men asked Joe if he was a “red,” meaning a communist. Although Eugene Debs was able to run for president it did not stop people from worrying about “the reds.” –Megan Mc

'''Another thing I feel the movie did a good job with was the impatience at the national union. They had to wait to act in their strike until they received word from the union.''' As a local union they probably wanted to strike sooner and have more of a say in what and when they did stuff. Kenehan said the union was a democracy, like the United States, but it’s more like a Republic, once again like the United States, not everyone gets a vote there are just representatives. –Megan Mc.

'''The movie accurately portrays the Wobblie mentality in that the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) were hoping to create one big union but as it was said in the movie, the Matewan folks only knew from their own holler.''' It also demonstrates that the IWW accepted all workers into the union whether they were immigrants or Americans, white or black, which was somewhat unique to this particular union in a climate or natives and racism. Sayles also aptly demonstrates the hold that the company had on the entire town, from owning the homes, to the goods, and eventually evicting the strikers from the land that they had lived on their entire life.  - Caryn

SETTING

'''They got the accents right. Nobody lapsed into "Southern."  And nobody sounded like a moron.  As a West Virginian, I'm grateful.''' --- Debbi S.

I also liked how there was '''very little romanticization of the miners' struggle.''' I think this had a lot to do with the '''very simple and authentic music'''. I think another point that the movie got across very well was the danger that men faced whether they joined the union or not - early in the film, one of the Italian miners said to Joe, "We join the union, they shoot us. We don't join the union, you shoot us." The filmmakers made it very clear that just because these men were in the union, it didn't necessarily mean that they were all noble, kind-hearted men. They were just as willing to use force as the company was.  - Celia


'''I like the ending of the movie and I think the director did a good job of portraying the little headway that many of these mining unions actually made.'''  The movie made me believe that some headway would be made against the mining company, but that is lost when we see Danny back in the mine at the end and this foreshadows the Unions inability to make new contracts with non-union mines later in the 1920’s. -afrisk

OVERALL EVALUATION OF MOVIE ACCURACY

'''I thought that this movie got a lot of things right.''' First were the racial and nativist tensions between the coal miners. When Sid Hatfield stands up to the Baldwin-Felts men and stops them from evicting the families from their homes. I also thought that the scene when the African-American miners show up and the Company man is telling them about the town and how the Company owns everything, they get paid in Company script etc. and it showed how the Company really did try and control the entire town.-Rachael A.


'''This movie seems to be pretty accurate.''' It shows how important the Coal Company is on their lives. Many of the people risked their lives to fight the Coal Company. It seemed like everyone wanted better situations, but not everyone agreed that forming a Union is the best thing to do. This movie showed well how the Coal Company affected everyone: the miners (old and young), mothers, people who lived in the town, and people who are not from the town. -- Justine R.

I agree with most of the people above that '''this movie is one of the more accurate it ones.'''  --- Alex M.

== Things the movie got wrong ==

BATTLE

Although the "big" battle scene was the most exciting moment in the entire movie, it wasn't completely accurate. Hatfield, the mayor, Testerman, and the sheriff, Fred Burgraff (who was not in the movie) actually confronted the Felts' brothers, Al and Lee (who were also not in the movie) and their goons outside the Chambers Hardware Store, not the Post Office. [http://www.wvculture.org/history/labor/matewan04.html]'''The movie assumes that Hatfield was the one who fired the first shot, however that has never been definitively proven. Also, the deaths that occurred on the coal miners' side was also exaggerated; only two of them died.''' [http://www.matewan.com/History/battle.htm]--Erin L.

JOE

'''A union organizer with Joe Kenehan's pacifism would not be an effective leader in fighting the coal companies.''' Also, that type of union organizer would have difficulty in establishing a union of mine workers. Union leaders who were effective in opposing the coal companies usually defended themselves in order to survive. (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj66/newsinger.htm) - A. Brudno

'''Also I think we go back to the whole problem of creating fictional characters for the purpose of what...easier to make films? Joe Kenehan is an interesting character, but is he honestly necessary? The movie shows a fictional character starting up the entire union at Matewan and therefore is just bad history.''' The real characters are almost put aside for characters that can say whatever the screen writer wants. It's harder to manipulate the real historical figures. I mean the sheriff and mayor show up in a handful of scenes and Few Clothes drops completely off of the movie at one point.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:00, 27 October 2010 (MDT)

It may be a minor detail, but '''I thought that when the union organizer Kenehan was making his speech and everyone came together that it was all a little too sudden and unrealistic.  Especially when they broke out in the solidarity song and everyone knew exactly the right tune to play and words to sing. ''' I also agree with everyone else discussing the lack of mining dangers and illnesses throughout the film which I though detracted from the film overall. -Melissa


FEW CLOTHES JOHNSON--BEST NAME IN A HISTORICAL FILM EVER?

'''Few Clothes Johnson was hardly portrayed as the leader of the scabs who converted to unionism. He seemed more like a minor character than at the forefront of the strike.''' Also, the Baldwin-Felts men had already evicted several families and were leaving to catch a train when the Matwewan shootout began. --Anna Holman

I agree with Anna about Few Clothes Johnson. I was definitely expecting him to come more to the forefront of the movie but he never did, which was disappointing. James Earl Jones could have been used much better. - Celia

DANNY

'''Though Danny served as a representation of the children who worked in the mines, there should have been more children shown in the film.''' --Meagan P.

HEALTHY MINERS

'''''We saw in the readings how they often got injured and sick working the mining jobs that no one else wanted, for very low wages, but that was not depicted in the movie.''' Also, I was surprised that '''none of the miners seemed to have any health problems that related to the years that they spent in the mines.''''' There was occasional coughing, but other than that, no depiction of the black lung that became so famous among miners, or even any real mining injuries. Showing these would have helped to represent the dangers of mining at the time, and the poor treatment of the men. I think that it would help the audience to understand why the miners wanted the union so much. --Meagan P.

I agree with Meagan about the lack of mining injuries and illnesses. The cave in that killed Danny's father is highlighted, but the movie definitely plays up the economic aspect of the drive for unionization. '''My great grandfather worked in a Pennsylvania mine around this same time period and lost parts of three of his fingers.''' Seems like many of the men would have had similar injuries, even if they had attained them years earlier while working as breaker boys themselves. -Mary Ann

I am not really surprised the there wasn't much about mine injuries or related-diseases. Once the characters decided to unionize the mine completely fell out of the picture. The director has you put all your attention on the conflicts, twists and turns of the company vs. the miners. --[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:00, 27 October 2010 (MDT)

I think they should have had more scenes about the terrible conditions in the coal mine. They did show it in the beginning and at the end, but they should have shown it more. Also they should have shown more children working in the mine. - Justine R.

Overall, I agree with the fact that illness and mine injury were not thoroughly expressed in the film, but''' at the same time, I agree with the point that the mine itself kind of falls out of the picture once they go on strike. It's more of a background image than the key point of the film.''' And while the miners did speak of poverty and worried about feeding their families, '''I really didn't think that the severity of poverty some of the families faced was portrayed well enough.''' - Victoria Y.


BIBLICAL ERRORS?

'''The kid preacher totally, if I remember right,totally got the story of Joseph wrong.''' He did not die at the hands of Potiphar and his men, it was this false accusation of rape that got Joseph noticed by Pharaoh for Joe's ability to interpret dreams[http://www.essortment.com/all/genesisjoseph_rrwi.htm]. Now I know this isn't detrimental to the historical accuracy of the film, but it kind of hurts the plot. A church full of strong Christians would be more likely to get angry and correct him rather than be like "Oh my god! He's being meta!"-Isaac Whaeln

I agree with Mary Ann, Sayles did narrow his focus on the socio-economy  of the town but left out the impact that the injuries and dangers of the mines truly had on the town at this time. Though it is mentioned that Danny’s father died in the mines, but the men who worked in the mines in Sayles’ Matewan seemed to be in great health and perfectly intact. Isaac you are totally correct, Joseph was imprisoned after being falsely accused of rape and languished their somewhat forgotten until he began to interpret Pharaohs’ dreams.  http://www.gcfweb.org/institute/genesis/week10.php – Caryn

LANGUAGE ISSUES

I did not realize that some of the women could understand Italian. -afrisk

== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==

A 1987 New York Times article, “Film: John Sayles's 'Matewan'”, by Vincent Canby, http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/28/movies/film-john-sayles-s-matewan.html states, '''“The characters are either good or evil. They're the idealized figures portrayed in the Government-sponsored murals that, during the Depression, were painted in post offices and other public buildings from one end of the country to the other.”'''  Canby also describes the character of Kenehan as “a figure of mythic proportions, part Joe Hill, part Jesus Christ. His task: to give direction to the miners' negotiations and to prevent the kind of sabotage and violence that would give the company an excuse to bring in their goons. That he must fail is the film's distantly heard, mournful theme.”  John Sayles wanted to portray the hardships the miners endured and give insight to the harsh realities faced by union members.  '''So in this film, it is permissible to create a fictional character in order to convey the director’s message while attempting to stay as historically accurate as possible.''' –Samantha W.

'''During the 1980s the US economy was experiencing all sorts of upheavals. The country was shifting away from the heavy industries like mining, and union membership was slipping. At the same time, while the US overall was getting wealthier, the gap between the rich and poor was widening all while more women and new groups of immigrants were seeking entry to the workforce. As good a time as any to make a movie about the challenges of American capitalism and US labor relations?''' -Mary Ann

I am going to throw out one and say that '''since the Cold War isn't quite over yet that Matewan is some pretty serious pro-Communist revolution. To me, it's rare for American films to depict communists as anything other than bad people.''' Even in the film Few Clothes Johnson jokes about Joe Kenehan being a communist and not having a gun. While I know historically non-capitalist ideas were not all the uncommon in the States, but for a film to be okay with the idea of a Red doing good, productive stuff for communities is big.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:06, 27 October 2010 (MDT)

While the previous point does make a good statement that the movie has a pro-Communist revolution feel to it '''I must disagree that this is the main drive of the film. To me the film makes a plethora (always a good word) of statements about America and its labor force.''' Firstly, in regards to unions, this film seems to say that true American economy is based on unions; the only way to fight corrupt business is with unions. Also, while Kenehan's communist views are put in a positive light there are other periods were he himself says that unions are a democracy, further strengthening the connection between America and unions. So rather than this film being a pro-communism film I would say its more like a film that wants total equality for all, what some would call a "true democracy."-Isaac Whalen

p.s. '''this film felt like a reworked Western. A single man comes into a corrupt town to save the people and inspire them to a better life. Did I just describe <em> My Darling Clementine </em> or <em> Matewan </em>?'''

The joke by Few Clothes Johnson is clearly referring to the fact that all Communists fight with hammers and sickles, not guns. - Michael G.

Just another film about the underdog magically showing up and making wrong into right and bad into good. '''The idea of the American fight for rights always seems to be headed by a mild natured, good mannered gentleman. Another example, I think, of why people were unsettled with the portrayal of Shaw in Glory because he just didn't fit our standard American hero.''' - Victoria Y.

== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==

LAST LETTERS & FAITH
'''Talking about the mine collapse that killed her husband, Elma Radnor, the boarding house lady, told Joe Kenehan that there was blood on the walls from where men tried to dig themselves out.  It reminded me of the last letters written by the Tennessee coal miners trapped by an explosion''': "Oh, God, for one more breath," wrote one.  Those letters were also filled with remarks about the miners' belief in God and heaven, an aspect of their lives that the movie portrayed well by setting so many key scenes in church. --- Debbi S.

The letters from the men trapped in the mine, referencing future reunions in heaven, convey how important religion was to the miners and their families. '''The movie, while also using Danny's preaching as a plot device, definitely shows how much the community relied on a faith in God to keep them going in the face of such poverty and desperation. The Protestants and the Catholic Italians all found comfort in their faith. Faith was one of the few things the company couldn't take away from the mining towns.''' -Mary Ann

This movie showed the terrible conditions in the mine just like readings showed. '''Even though the movie did not focus on the conditions of the mine, it did begin and end with those scenes which made them important and remembered.''' The readings were very shocking and it was difficult to read some of them because the explained terrible conditions and they were sad - like the Tennessee Coal Miners' Last Words. - Justine R.

One of the things that struck me about the movie was the influence of Religion. It was also brought up in the readings, with the letters from the miners that were stranded in a collapsed mine. All of the letters told their families to be good and to trust that they will meet again in heaven. '''I assume that because this was such a dangerous job the people had to have a strong faith to get them through the day. It is also interesting to note that in one of the final letters a father writes to his son's to not become miners. So even they recognize that there are better alternatives.''' - Jenn

The film did a good job in reflecting the personal relationships the miners and the community had with religion. Like Jenn stated, many of the letters both openly talk about religion as well as just reference to it in subtle ways. '''In the film, the enthusiasm the community has at the church (even if it's not that believeable) expressed the importance of it in their lives.''' - Victoria Y.

From the movie it is made clear that socialism and communism are not good. '''In fact, the scene before the young boy preaches to the church, the older reverend claims that socialism and communism are "Beelzebub."''' This assertion that these socialism and communism are the devil is also mentioned in the assorted readings. '''More specifically, the reading about Eugene V. Debs claimed that our soldiers in the Philippines were "civilizing and Christianizing" the natives that were living under a non-capitalistic rule (p. 6). Thus, they were living in the midst of evil, or maybe that's a stretch.''' - Mike E.   


CHILDREN

One of the readings, '''"The Bitter Cry of Children", talked about children who worked in the mines along with the horrible working conditions they had to endure. Employers liked to hire children because they were inexpensive to employ;''' sometimes they were paid 50 or 60 cents a day. Danny Radnor was one such boy who thought about working in the mines and by the end of the movie he did. '''He was barely 15 but he mentioned that boys even younger than him were working in the mines already.''' -Amy Van Ness




TYRANNY OF COMPANY STORE

'''The movie reminded me of "The Tyranny of the Company Store". The miners were all reliant on the jacked up prices and lack of variety the store provided. They also were essentially poor once they went on strike and their company scrip became worthless.''' --Anna Holman

'''The film really depicted the "Tyranny of the Company Store".''' I couldn't believe that Hickey and his men came to the camp to take back food and supplies from the miners that they had earned with scrip. It was disgusting. Also, as Debbi S. said, I think '''the film did a very good job showing how much religion was a part of the miners' lives.''' - Celia

Just as Rachael mentioned, "The Tyranny of the Company Store" was accurately depicted in the movie. '''Many times, it was stated by some mine workers  about how the "prices would go up the same week that the tonnage rate went down." It was clear that the company store controlled the lives, but in a broader sense, the mining company to a certain extent "enslaved" the coal miners. In the reading, it stated, "To enslave and starve a man, or to drive him to desperation by actions the most uncharitable and unjust."''' Coal miners had very little freedom as we learned on Tuesday. Even in the movie, Eleanor told Joe Kinehan that if you're not with the company, there was no work. The coal miners were forced to be dependent on the company, although many did not want to be. -- Alex M.

The movie did a good job at portraying the overreaching and controlling Company that was described in "The Tyranny of the Company Store". They also talked about the dangers that mine workers faced, even if it wasn't directly shown on screen.-Rachael A.

OTHER 


'''The readings and movie both depicted the hardships of being a miner but also how the Miner's Union played a pivotal role in their lives. I thought the interview/reading was really important in showing how the miners felt about union activities, Ratliff said "it was the greatest thing he had ever heard in his life," and was eager to share the joy of the union but in the movie not all the men were eager to share such "joy".''' I wonder if ''mixed feelings about the Union were felt all over or did some states/specific mines favor it?'' -Megan W.

The film briefly showed the violence that black miners faced. '''In "Platform Adopted by the National Negro Committee," members of the National Negro Committee were concerned about the attempt by whites of both North and South to use violence in denying blacks of their working rights.''' As a result, the Committee wanted to end that type of racial violence. - A. Brudno

== Questions asked in class ==

I just have a question about the way Danny was the one who stole the coal and blew up the mine. Would they have had children do such things? - 
LeAnn