Difference between revisions of "329--Week 10 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
Wholcomb86 (Talk | contribs) (→2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time) |
(→6 Overall) |
||
| Line 156: | Line 156: | ||
I thoght the use of the church to tell parts of the story was a very well done and really moved it along.--matt | I thoght the use of the church to tell parts of the story was a very well done and really moved it along.--matt | ||
| + | |||
| + | This movie does a good job at recreating the rugged life of a union mineworker. Parts of the movie aid the historical accuracy in the film. The viewer gets an idea of how rough life was for mineworkers by observing their union meetings. Race relations are portrayed well by showing how the Africans and Italians resented each other, but in the end in order to strengthen the union they put their differences aside for the bigger picture. Earl Jones refers to once being a member of the wobblies, which adds context to other labor movements. Few Clothes Johnson as a strikebreaker turned union leader is accurate, along with the portrayal of hard life in coal mining towns. Communism is also mentioned. | ||
| + | The movie makes it seem like all mine workers took in some form on union, when only 1/3 were unionized and when 60% of coal came from non-union mines. Also, it would have been nice to have seen more resistance from the coal miners portrayed in the movie, such as more coal mine explosions, shootouts, and strikers that have signs with large anti corporal print. A scene portraying something similar to the 1921 10,000 man armed march on Logan WV would have added intensity. –James Drury | ||
I really do love this movie. I think it pretty much hit the nail on the historical head despite some of its issues. And really, do some of these issues matter too much in a general sense? How many people even knew about Matewan before this class? I had never heard of the town, and I certainly didn’t know about the strike. It wasn’t even a successful strike, and it didn’t really turn the tide either against or in favor of unions. On the subject of its pacing, I understand why some people might find it boring because it moves slowly and there isn’t always a lot of action, but I personally think that seeing character interactions and emotional responses make for stronger movies. This movie definitely did well in getting across the emotions of these people, and I think that’s why it’s so good. The great acting certainly helps too, and there were some really amazing performances here. I could feel their complete powerlessness, victimization, desperation, and bitter rage. Heck, it makes me want to join a union to combat corporate injustice! I do think that this is also a terrible movie in that it is so depressing. While there are certainly heroic “hell yeah!” moments where it makes you proud to be a member of the human race (the police chief Hatfield in general, Danny informing the crowd of Joe’s innocence through a sermon, Elma shooting the Baldwin-Felts jerk), there are a lot more “people are jerks, life sucks and you can’t do anything about it” parts (I think special mention goes to the murder of poor Hillard). At the very least, the movie makes it clear that whether unions are successful or not, they can provide a sense of hope and community among different people, which was maybe John Sayles’ message, as Matewan was made during the 1980s when union membership and political power was declining. --Taylor Brann | I really do love this movie. I think it pretty much hit the nail on the historical head despite some of its issues. And really, do some of these issues matter too much in a general sense? How many people even knew about Matewan before this class? I had never heard of the town, and I certainly didn’t know about the strike. It wasn’t even a successful strike, and it didn’t really turn the tide either against or in favor of unions. On the subject of its pacing, I understand why some people might find it boring because it moves slowly and there isn’t always a lot of action, but I personally think that seeing character interactions and emotional responses make for stronger movies. This movie definitely did well in getting across the emotions of these people, and I think that’s why it’s so good. The great acting certainly helps too, and there were some really amazing performances here. I could feel their complete powerlessness, victimization, desperation, and bitter rage. Heck, it makes me want to join a union to combat corporate injustice! I do think that this is also a terrible movie in that it is so depressing. While there are certainly heroic “hell yeah!” moments where it makes you proud to be a member of the human race (the police chief Hatfield in general, Danny informing the crowd of Joe’s innocence through a sermon, Elma shooting the Baldwin-Felts jerk), there are a lot more “people are jerks, life sucks and you can’t do anything about it” parts (I think special mention goes to the murder of poor Hillard). At the very least, the movie makes it clear that whether unions are successful or not, they can provide a sense of hope and community among different people, which was maybe John Sayles’ message, as Matewan was made during the 1980s when union membership and political power was declining. --Taylor Brann | ||
