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 [2016/11/08 02:05] – khaynes3 | 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 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. --- // | 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 109: | Line 112: | ||
| 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 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 143: | 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. | 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. | ||
| - | **Did you notice any additional conceptual subplots within | + | 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' |
| + | --- //[[dhawkins@umw.edu|Hawkins Daniel C.]] 2016/11/07 23:38// | ||
| + | **Did you notice any additional conceptual subplots within the film?** --- // | ||
329/question/329--week_10_questions_comments.1478570756.txt.gz · Last modified: 2016/11/08 02:05 by khaynes3