Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- 329:question:329--week_10_questions_comments [2016/11/07 23:55] – [Class Discussion] abrooks
+++ 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
 ====== 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.**  --- //[[lkacoyan@umw.edu|Kacoyanis, Leah F.]] 2016/11/01 18:35//
@@ Line 101: / Line 102: @@
 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. --- //[[abrooks6@umw.edu|Brooks Anna R.]] 2016/11/07 17:48//
+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.
+ --- //[[dhawkins@umw.edu|Hawkins Daniel C.]] 2016/11/07 23:40//
 **How were people of color portrayed in this film? How did this portrayal differ from other films we've seen?** --- //[[nhouff@umw.edu|Nicholas T. Houff]] 2016/11/03 10:31//
@@ Line 108: / Line 111: @@
 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!  --- //[[mmcmaken@mail.umw.edu|Mary-Margaret McMaken]] 2016/11/04 22:13//
+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.  --- //[[mlindse2@umw.edu|Lindsey, Megan E.]] 2016/11/07 19:09//
+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. --- //[[rpratt@mail.umw.edu|Robert Pratt]] 2016/11/07 20:22//
 **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?** --- //[[nhouff@umw.edu|Nicholas T. Houff]] 2016/11/03 10:34//
@@ Line 114: / 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.  --- //[[lkacoyan@umw.edu|Kacoyanis, Leah F.]] 2016/11/03 10:20//
+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't necessarily need to be as accurate because everyone knows how it turned out. The less the general population knows, the more important it is for the director to make the movie accurate. --- //[[khaynes3@umw.edu|Haynes, Kelly E.]] 2016/11/07 20:05//
 //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 140: / Line 148: @@
 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.  --- //[[lrainfor@umw.edu|Rainford, Lauren E.]] 2016/11/05 14:26//
-**Did you notice any additional conceptual subplots within the film?** --- //[[dblount@umw.edu|Blount, David M.]] 2016/11/03 11:33//
+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's protagonist in The Patriot, Kenehan's death gives more weight to the rest of the film and is meant to be emblematic of the other deaths that happened as a result of suppression of unions.
+ --- //[[dhawkins@umw.edu|Hawkins Daniel C.]] 2016/11/07 23:38//
+**Did you notice any additional conceptual subplots within the film?** --- //[[dblount@umw.edu|Blount, David M.]] 2016/11/03 11:33//