| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| 329:question:329--week_10_questions_comments-2020 [2020/10/29 12:52] – [V. The "So, what?" question] 76.78.225.25 | 329:question:329--week_10_questions_comments-2020 [2020/10/29 13:01] (current) – [V. The "So, what?" question] 73.40.104.245 |
|---|
| |
| ====== IV. How does this movie work as a primary source about the time period in which it was made or the filmmakers? ====== | ====== IV. How does this movie work as a primary source about the time period in which it was made or the filmmakers? ====== |
| //Matewan// was released in 1987, six years after the PATCO strike in 1981 (source: https://www.npr.org/2006/08/03/5604656/1981-strike-leaves-legacy-for-american-workers). On August 3, 1981, the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) union, which had supported Ronald Reagan in the presidential election, rejected the government's pay raise offer. They sent 16,000 members out on strike to shut down commercial airlines. They also demanded a reduction in the workweek, from 40 to 32 hours, 40% pay raises, early retirement, and a $10,000 bonus. Due to federal law, such strikes were illegal. The strikers were given 48 hours to return to work, or else they would be fired and banned from ever again working in a federal capacity. One fourth of the strikers came back to work, but the rest did not and were fired.The strike collapsed. PATCO vanished in the aftermath, and the union movement as a whole suffered. It was a step backwards that accelerated the decline of membership across the board in the private sector. Afterwards, unions as a whole suffered a continual decline of power during the Reagan administration.Reagan himself had been a supporter of unions, but this event made him unpopular in their circles. It is possible that this event, which was a major loss to the Labor Movement, prompted a revival of its significance in the form of this film. -- Lyndsey Clark | //Matewan// was released in 1987, six years after the PATCO strike in 1981 (source: https://www.npr.org/2006/08/03/5604656/1981-strike-leaves-legacy-for-american-workers). On August 3, 1981, the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) union, which had supported Ronald Reagan in the presidential election, rejected the government's pay raise offer. They sent 16,000 members out on strike to shut down commercial airlines. They also demanded a reduction in the workweek, from 40 to 32 hours, 40% pay raises, early retirement, and a $10,000 bonus. Due to federal law, such strikes were illegal. The strikers were given 48 hours to return to work, or else they would be fired and banned from ever again working in a federal capacity. One fourth of the strikers came back to work, but the rest did not and were fired.The strike collapsed. PATCO vanished in the aftermath, and the union movement as a whole suffered. **It was a step backwards that accelerated the decline of membership across the board in the private sector. Afterwards, unions as a whole suffered a continual decline of power during the Reagan administration**.Reagan himself had been a supporter of unions, but this event made him unpopular in their circles. It is possible that this event, which was a major loss to the Labor Movement, prompted a revival of its significance in the form of this film. -- Lyndsey Clark |
| |
| This film can definitely be considered a primary source to John Sayles the director. A website/blog post I read about this film talked about how Sayles made a book about this film entitled Thinking in Pictures: The Making of the Movie Matewan which came out in 1987. Supposedly in the book Sayles talked about how in the late 1960s he hitchhiked through this region which led him to become interested in West Virginia’s coal-mining district, its people, and their traditions. From this experience, Sayles was exposed to the miner's world and the different music, regional accents, and numerous local characters incorporated into this film. http://www.films42.com/feature/november_feature.asp -Megan Williams | This film can definitely be considered a primary source to John Sayles the director. A website/blog post I read about this film talked about how Sayles made a book about this film entitled Thinking in Pictures: The Making of the Movie Matewan which came out in 1987. Supposedly in the book Sayles talked about how in the late 1960s he hitchhiked through this region which led him to become interested in West Virginia’s coal-mining district, its people, and their traditions. From this experience, Sayles was exposed to the miner's world and the different music, regional accents, and numerous local characters incorporated into this film. http://www.films42.com/feature/november_feature.asp -Megan Williams |
| -Morgan Gilbert | -Morgan Gilbert |
| |
| Matewan has been the least “Hollywoodized” film we have watched so far. The fault of using fictional characters can be justified for its purpose of making historical figures real people. The dialogue and ambiance are meant to be representative of the time period and puts you in the place rather than shows you. The film’s release date of 1987 would be interesting to study in comparison to the film’s creation. The era of Reagonomics and the effect of taxes on the working class and how viewers of this film at that time felt about it. -Janis Shurtleff | **Matewan has been the least “Hollywoodized” film we have watched so far.** The fault of using fictional characters can be justified for its purpose of making historical figures real people. The dialogue and ambiance are meant to be representative of the time period and puts you in the place rather than shows you. The film’s release date of 1987 would be interesting to study in comparison to the film’s creation. The era of Reagonomics and the effect of taxes on the working class and how viewers of this film at that time felt about it. -Janis Shurtleff |
| |
| I think this movie is a call to action against the government. Ronald Reagan became president in 1980, and his administration was severely anti-union. This movie was an attempt to show the way the government was trying to once again stop people from unionizing, and how big business was taking over. | I think this movie is a call to action against the government. Ronald Reagan became president in 1980, and his administration was severely anti-union. This movie was an attempt to show the way the government was trying to once again stop people from unionizing, and how big business was taking over. |
| --Cat Kinde | --Cat Kinde |
| |
| I believe this movie shows a lot about the 1980s under Regan. Regan was particularly hard on unregulated unions. During Regan's presidency, there was an aircraft controller strike, they demanded higher wages and shorter hours. Regan upheld the idea that the companies must be respected by the workers. In “Matewan” Sayles takes the side of the Union workers, as he tries to emphasize the repressive actions of large companies against their workers. —Helen Dhue | I believe this movie shows a lot about the 1980s under Regan. Regan was particularly hard on unregulated unions. During Regan's presidency, there was an aircraft controller strike, they demanded higher wages and shorter hours. Regan upheld the idea that the companies must be respected by the workers. **In “Matewan” Sayles takes the side of the Union workers, as he tries to emphasize the repressive actions of large companies against their workers.** —Helen Dhue |
| |
| ===== V. The "So, what?" question ====== | ===== V. The "So, what?" question ====== |
| I feel like this film at least attempts to give a voice to truly communities in rural Appalachia, by simply putting mountain communities on screen It tries- albeit very imperfectly- to portray applicable folks in this part of the country as intelligent and autonomous, if if they are without a formal education. They are not saved by a well-educated high-brow flatfoot, as is the case with many movies about rural America. As a matter of fact, they weren't "rescued" at all. Even today, poorer folks in what many in cities have referred to as "flyover country" are forgotten or abused by Richmond, Charleston, and Washington, and yet they move on and embrace their work. | I feel like this film at least attempts to give a voice to truly communities in rural Appalachia, by simply putting mountain communities on screen It tries- albeit very imperfectly- to portray applicable folks in this part of the country as intelligent and autonomous, if if they are without a formal education. They are not saved by a well-educated high-brow flatfoot, as is the case with many movies about rural America. As a matter of fact, they weren't "rescued" at all. Even today, poorer folks in what many in cities have referred to as "flyover country" are forgotten or abused by Richmond, Charleston, and Washington, and yet they move on and embrace their work. |
| |
| Occasionally, a few will even save up some money to help their children grandchildren get a secondary education head off to college, grateful for the time their family labored in mills, mines, or tobacco fields. Then, we get to hear college people wax eloquent about their intellectual superiority to our friends and family who are just uneducated hicks who don't really know what's good for their own communities. True story. (Not referring to anyone, don't worry.) -Ethan | Occasionally, a few will even save up some money to help their children grandchildren get a secondary education head off to college, grateful for the time their family labored in mills, mines, or tobacco fields. Then, we get to hear college people wax eloquent about their intellectual superiority to our friends and family who are just uneducated hicks who don't really know what's good for their own communities. True story. (Not referring to anyone in this class, don't worry.) -Ethan |
