329:question:329--week_10_questions_comments
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| 329:question:329--week_10_questions_comments [2016/11/04 20:46] – [Class Discussion] cmorgan4 | 329:question:329--week_10_questions_comments [2016/11/08 14:22] (current) – jmcclurken | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| Danny was not a real person nor was Joe Kenehan. Racial unity was already an idea in the area, not a new idea brought in by someone like Joe Kenehan. The process was also not quite as linear as presented, with just a slow biol leading up to a large conflict. Though it was a historic moment, things were much more chaotic than the movie portrays. --Julia Peterson | Danny was not a real person nor was Joe Kenehan. Racial unity was already an idea in the area, not a new idea brought in by someone like Joe Kenehan. The process was also not quite as linear as presented, with just a slow biol leading up to a large conflict. Though it was a historic moment, things were much more chaotic than the movie portrays. --Julia Peterson | ||
| + | |||
| ====== 2 Things the Movie got right ====== | ====== 2 Things the Movie got right ====== | ||
| It is accurate that the mining company would own stores and living places for their employees in order to gain more control over them. **The film shows the unfair prices that company would be imposed and that they would use their own form of currency so that they could not buy any items from the other stores in the town. It highlights the corruption that mining companies would impose on their employees to make sure that they stayed rich while the employees remained poor.** | It is accurate that the mining company would own stores and living places for their employees in order to gain more control over them. **The film shows the unfair prices that company would be imposed and that they would use their own form of currency so that they could not buy any items from the other stores in the town. It highlights the corruption that mining companies would impose on their employees to make sure that they stayed rich while the employees remained poor.** | ||
| Line 33: | Line 34: | ||
| The movie accurately showed how dangerous and how unhealthy the conditions were for coal miners. The film was one of the more accurate ones we have watched so far. As others have said, the filmmakers did not avoid showing a very complicated and unpleasant situation. | The movie accurately showed how dangerous and how unhealthy the conditions were for coal miners. The film was one of the more accurate ones we have watched so far. As others have said, the filmmakers did not avoid showing a very complicated and unpleasant situation. | ||
| --- // | --- // | ||
| + | |||
| + | One of the most frustrating aspects of studying the historical relationship between unions, workers, and owners is how hopeless and helpless the workers were to the demands of their bosses and owners. Every aspect of their lives was controlled by the company and so the company had rights to intervene or intrude whenever and wherever they felt like. The film Matewan is successful at conveying just how helpless the workers were prior to taking matters into their own hands. Their homes were subject to forced lodging and inspection, they were forced to give up their money when on strike as it was considered property of the company. The representatives from the company are so genuinely unlikeable and the union members seem like martyrs in their own right which is a fair depiction of how the different groups were understood at the time. --- // | ||
| ====== 3 Questions about interpretation ====== | ====== 3 Questions about interpretation ====== | ||
| **The union recruitment scenes are important because it shows the conflict and division that was a reality in trying to form unions. It highlights the racial disputes between coal miners as well as the foreigner and nativist conflict.**The movie does a good job of making the conflict between these groups evident. It does not gloss over these relationships and the strain between groups which is very important to understanding the difficulties present in creating coal miner unions. It also tries to give an idea of the different types of people that made up mine workers by including the different groups. --- // | **The union recruitment scenes are important because it shows the conflict and division that was a reality in trying to form unions. It highlights the racial disputes between coal miners as well as the foreigner and nativist conflict.**The movie does a good job of making the conflict between these groups evident. It does not gloss over these relationships and the strain between groups which is very important to understanding the difficulties present in creating coal miner unions. It also tries to give an idea of the different types of people that made up mine workers by including the different groups. --- // | ||
| Line 86: | Line 89: | ||
| I didn't think Testerman was a wimp, though he certainly didn't fit the personality of a politician as we know them today. | I didn't think Testerman was a wimp, though he certainly didn't fit the personality of a politician as we know them today. | ||
| + | I believe the two were portrayed pretty accurately. It seemed like the actual Hatfield and Testerman were men who cared more about their town and what was right than dirty money from the mine company. This is how they are portrayed in the film. --- // | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | In every movie there are going to be small areas where there are going to be inaccuracies. For the most part, Sid Hatfield and and Cabell Testerman, were portrayed accurately. There are always going to be embellishments for dramatic impact, but for the most part I believe that Matewan portrayed both men accurately. | ||
| **How were unions seen in the 1980s versus the 1920s Progressive Era?** --- // | **How were unions seen in the 1980s versus the 1920s Progressive Era?** --- // | ||
| Line 91: | Line 98: | ||
| I think unions were viewed a lot more positively in the 1980s because the film portrays these strikers as victims (rightfully so in my opinion) unlike in the 1920s where government would always protect the owners and punish the workers. | I think unions were viewed a lot more positively in the 1980s because the film portrays these strikers as victims (rightfully so in my opinion) unlike in the 1920s where government would always protect the owners and punish the workers. | ||
| + | The distinct difference seen throughout history and its growth in the acceptance of Labor Unions has an increasing positive correlation. From the time span of the 1920s to the 1980s is intense, with the introduction of work safety and the influx of workers influences at the work place we can see a distinct difference in the time the movie was made to portray and the time of production. --- // | ||
| + | I agree with Leah on her point about strikers being portrayed as victims. I believe that in the 1920’s unions were not seen as with the same respect that 1980’s unions were. Because there is such a great span of time and growth the unions of the 80’s are on a completely different level in society than the 1920’s unions. --- // | ||
| + | |||
| + | Depending on one's political leaning in the 1980s, certainly not everyone liked them, just as not everyone liked them in the 1920s. The Reagan presidency was arguably pretty anti-union, but the general national attitude had definitely shifted between the 1920s and 1980s. In the 1920s, as we can see, violence against unions on part of the government and private agencies sanctioned by the government was not at all uncommon, whereas by the 1980s the debate was more civil and certainly less violent. In the 1920s, unions were still seen as radical by many Americans, especially those in positions of economic and political power. | ||
| + | --- // | ||
| **How were people of color portrayed in this film? How did this portrayal differ from other films we've seen?** --- // | **How were people of color portrayed in this film? How did this portrayal differ from other films we've seen?** --- // | ||
| Line 97: | Line 109: | ||
| My first thought in that first scene was " | My first thought in that first scene was " | ||
| + | Okay, so to be honest I was confused throughout the whole movie about how the people of West Virginia actually felt about the black people coming in. From the start, there was hate then there was the ‘they aren’t the enemy, the companies are’ then back to hate. So in a way you can argue that they did a good join in portraying black people during this time because we did learn that although there was racism, there would be times that racism would be put somewhat aside for the better of the union. However, racism always found a way back. This portrayal differs from others movies that we have seen by showing that they weren’t the ones needing ‘rescued’. In Glory, Amistad, and unfortunately Gone with the Wind, we see whites being the sole leader rescuing ONLY black people. However in this movie, although they are technically still being saved, they aren’t the only ones. It is collectively the white, blacks, and Italians needing to be saved by the white union man. Hooray! | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think the film did a decent job on people of color. Do I wish there was more characters of color with names and parts than just “Few Clothes” Johnson, of course. I still really liked the character and I think Sayles did really well by him. What I thought was done really well was how Johnson came to the union on his own. He wasn’t given some big speech by a hero like most movies do to realize something is wrong, and he didn’t wait for one either. He saw right away they weren’t being treated fairly and went to go find a way to fix it. --- // | ||
| + | |||
| + | I agree with my classmates. The film was very good at portraying the people throughout the film. The goal of bringing black men was to stir up trouble. The goals and tactics were well researched, but I agree that there could have been a few more named people of color within the film. --- // | ||
| **Compared to other films we have seen, is this one of the more historically accurate? If so, why don't all directors strive for this level of authenticity when it is clearly possible?** --- // | **Compared to other films we have seen, is this one of the more historically accurate? If so, why don't all directors strive for this level of authenticity when it is clearly possible?** --- // | ||
| Line 103: | Line 120: | ||
| Yes, I do believe that this film is the most historically accurate compared to the other films in class which is refreshing. However, I do not believe most filmmakers strive for this level of accuracy because it would not appeal to many audiences. Like I stated earlier, this movie is the most historically accurate one we’ve seen, but this film was not the most exciting one. I think filmmakers make it a goal to make money off a film and that’s why they change the history. | Yes, I do believe that this film is the most historically accurate compared to the other films in class which is refreshing. However, I do not believe most filmmakers strive for this level of accuracy because it would not appeal to many audiences. Like I stated earlier, this movie is the most historically accurate one we’ve seen, but this film was not the most exciting one. I think filmmakers make it a goal to make money off a film and that’s why they change the history. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think the film was pretty accurate to the events of the actual Matewan Massacre. I think the reason the director was really set on being accurate was because it was a virtually unknown story, whereas a Civil War movie wouldn' | ||
| //As a film about conflict, race, and working class struggles, Matewan addresses a number of issues pertaining to the West Virginia coal wars. However, I noticed some consistent implications for social reform through the (fictional) character of Joe Kenehan (Chris Cooper).// | //As a film about conflict, race, and working class struggles, Matewan addresses a number of issues pertaining to the West Virginia coal wars. However, I noticed some consistent implications for social reform through the (fictional) character of Joe Kenehan (Chris Cooper).// | ||
| Line 109: | Line 128: | ||
| This film was definitely one of the most historically accurate that we've seen. There are many reasons why some directors don't strive for such historical accuracy but I think mainly the reason is money and the audience that the director is attempt to pull in. Adding fictional love stories, heroism, and extra explosions draw in crowds. --- // | This film was definitely one of the most historically accurate that we've seen. There are many reasons why some directors don't strive for such historical accuracy but I think mainly the reason is money and the audience that the director is attempt to pull in. Adding fictional love stories, heroism, and extra explosions draw in crowds. --- // | ||
| + | |||
| + | I would definitely argue that this film was the most historically accurate that we have watched thus far. Matewan is successful at conveying just how helpless the workers were prior to taking matters into their own hands. Their homes were subject to forced lodging and inspection, they were forced to give up their money when on strike as it was considered property of the company. The representatives from the company are so genuinely unlikeable and the union members seem like martyrs in their own right which is a fair depiction of how the different groups were understood at the time. Sayles worked to accurately depict the complications and complexities between the different races during strikes and unionization but the film also works to show how some unions focused on absolute unity between races and ethnicities in an effort to have a more effective force. In all this films accuracies, however, it is also one of the lesser known films that we have watched. Fewer students raised their hands when asked if they’ve seen it. I think that it further proves how people want the fame and the glam and the dramatic retellings of history, not films that accurately portray conflict between a small town in West Virginia and rich men from Company representatives. | ||
| + | |||
| + | As everyone has stated this film is incredibly accurate about the time and place that it represents. Sayles strives for historical accuracy and is immensely dedicated to achieve that accuracy. On the question why many directors do not do this I think it is a combined time, money, and dedication determents. In class we discussed how Sayles pays for his films from his own resources and spends ages researching and preparing for these films. In order for other directors to follow that it would probably also require them to use their own resources because there really is not a big mass market that only watches completely accurate historical films. Taking immense amounts of time, effort and personal resources for a film that may not even be a success takes a certain type of director and a high risk level. Therefore I think that really deters other directors from trying to be fully historically accurate when only partially accurate sells well at the box office. --- // | ||
| **Do you think Sayles is projecting socialist tendencies through Kenehan’s positive affirmations and/or the film’s overarching conflict between social classes? | **Do you think Sayles is projecting socialist tendencies through Kenehan’s positive affirmations and/or the film’s overarching conflict between social classes? | ||
| Line 114: | Line 137: | ||
| I don't know if Sayles is " | I don't know if Sayles is " | ||
| + | I agree with Callie. I think that the film’s portrayal of peacefully depicting a communist adds to the reality of the situation. While communists, or “reds” were typically depicted as barbaric, violent, drunken murderers, Kenehan brought an element of truth to their history. Had this film been from the beginning of the 20th century, Kenehan would not have been the protagonist. In fact, he was the most unwilling to violence, constantly being questioned as to his lack of a weapon, his refusal to participate in the war, and by joking about how he didn’t carry guns because communists ‘carried little bombs.’ That moment between Few Clothes Johnson and Kenehan symbolized communist ideologies being generally welcomed among the working class. I think that Sayles is projecting communist tendencies because that was how it was perceived at the time in the conflict between overly powerful and invasive company owners and representatives and their workers. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think that Sayles depiction of Kenehan is another example of just how much he strove to make the film historically accurate. While Kenehan is technically a fictional character he represents a very real person. As Lauren brings up he gives a more rounded portrayal of a communist and more accurately portrays the reality of what it meant to be “red” for those working for unions. Since this portrayal runs so counter to the narrative audiences are used to seeing I think it is inevitable that many might read it as socialist or communist tendencies. Especially when read through the lens that it is the “red” who is the only one to peacefully transcend and get along with all the different miner groups. --- // | ||
| + | |||
| + | I do not believe that Sayles had political ideas that showed through in this film. Many union organizers such as Kenehan had socialist views and a lot of them identified openly with the socialist party. There was even known to be quite a bit of socialist activity in West Virginia. Some major socialist newspapers were based in West Virginia. | ||
| **Do you think there is any underlying significance between Kenehan’s opposition to violence in conjunction with his violent death?** --- // | **Do you think there is any underlying significance between Kenehan’s opposition to violence in conjunction with his violent death?** --- // | ||
| There are quite a few films I've seen where characters do all they can to prevent violent situations only to have them happen regardless of their efforts. | There are quite a few films I've seen where characters do all they can to prevent violent situations only to have them happen regardless of their efforts. | ||
| - | **Did you notice any additional conceptual subplots within | + | Absolutely. I think that the fact that Kenehan was a fictional character gave Sayles the room to create a martyr for a cause. He was the symbol for communist/ working-class ideology and as a catalyst for the unions. I think that in his death, Sayles was able to convey that everything Kenehan stood for was not realistic to the times but even further, I think that the death of his character makes the audience question everything that they have been taught about communists and labor unions of the time. He was peaceful and was looking out for the rights and well-being of the oppressed and for that he was killed. |
| + | I agree that creating a fictional character was a better way to create a martyr to fit in the narrative of the film. Much like Mel Gibson' | ||
| + | --- // | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Did you notice any additional conceptual subplots within the film?** --- // | ||
329/question/329--week_10_questions_comments.1478292375.txt.gz · Last modified: 2016/11/04 20:46 by cmorgan4