Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_10_questions_comments-2022 [2022/10/27 06:10] – [V. The "So, what?" question] felipe_teresa
+++ 329:question:329--week_10_questions_comments-2022 [2022/11/11 00:54] (current) – [V. The "So, what?" question] 192.65.245.80
@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 This movie was great in its portrayal of the mining town and processes of the period. I think that the conflicts between the groups trying to go against the big company was also accurate. For this reason, I believe that this could definitely be used as a great introduction to the coal mining in the early 1900s. The characters were believable, as were their concerns in their lives. -Sarah Moore
+I believe the film was extremely accurate, due in part to the fact that the writer/producer funded it himself and was therefore given more creative liberty than a larger movie production would have been given. Not only did it do a good job of portraying the miners, but the town and the way it was governed by the company were amazingly accurate. Many of the conflicts shown throughout the movie were correct. The resentment and tension between the mining groups were reliable and the use of the red scare was canonical to this time. -Annika Sypher
 ====== II.	Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ======
@@ Line 67: / Line 70: @@
 I feel like the fact that the main characters were fictional was a poor choice in an otherwise really accurate movie.The movie could have been just as effective without this addition, but it is understandable for why they made this choice, but I don't think it took too much away from the viewing experience. Despite that, this film was important as it brought to light a story that most of us have never heard of before. By bringing in a story about unions in a time with issues such as the red scare, it shows audiences a story that they can relate to while also highlighting the importance of unions. -- Logan Kurtz
-This movie, unlike most movies we watch in this class, was a box office failure. It’s not mainstream and I had to go to YouTube to find the movie, it doesn’t even have background music for most of the film. Typically, most of the movies we watch have some pretty big societal impacts since some of them have won Oscars for best picture, or have been the number one film for decades.These descriptions don’t apply to this movie, it has reached a smaller population, it isn’t as widely viewed or known. Nonetheless, this movie is still significant. It came out in 1987, during Reagan’s presidency, someone who was very anti-union. The movie obviously was made as political commentary, and can tell us a lot about the period it was made in. Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that this movie is also very historically accurate, compared to the other movies we’ve watched in class. This outlier of a movie for our class can also be seen as an outlier for movies in general. It has political commentary of both the time period it is portraying, but as well as the time period it was made. The creators chose to have less development of a romantic plot line between Joe Kenehan and Elma Radnor, and instead chose to develop the plot line of the massacre. –Teresa Felipe
 I feel the film did a great job displaying the tension between the individuals who were in the union versus the people who hated them, the people of color who would fulfill the jobs the white people didn’t do and the individuals who were part of the same union but different. I feel it added many different perspectives all from the same little town. Also the display of immigrant workers fulfilling in jobs that needed to be fulfilled that the company would place them into. As well as the description Danny gave of him working in the mines as a trapper boy (correct me if I’m wrong) showed how young children would work and the task they would have to do just to earn a bit more for their family.-- Paula Perez
@@ Line 79: / Line 81: @@
 This movie, unlike most movies we watch in this class, was a box office failure. It’s not mainstream and I had to go to YouTube to find the movie, it doesn’t even have background music for most of the film. Typically, most of the movies we watch have some pretty big societal impacts since some of them have won Oscars for best picture, or have been the number one film for decades.These descriptions don’t apply to this movie, it has reached a smaller population, it isn’t as widely viewed or known. Nonetheless, this movie is still significant. It came out in 1987, during Reagan’s presidency, someone who was very anti-union. The movie obviously was made as political commentary, and can tell us a lot about the period it was made in. Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that this movie is also very historically accurate, compared to the other movies we’ve watched in class. This outlier of a movie for our class can also be seen as an outlier for movies in general. It has political commentary of both the time period it is portraying, but as well as the time period it was made. The creators chose to have less development of a romantic plot line between Joe Kenehan and Elma Radnor, and instead chose to develop the plot line of the massacre. –Teresa Felipe
+I believe that most other viewers would have like me, had a vague sense of the events of this time. Maybe, like me, it would have been part of a unit done in a history class that they took a decade ago. So, like me, while they would have had a sense of the time period they might not remember the atrocities that were actually committed. While the villains in this movie might seem cartoonish, it would be particularly hard to underplay how evil they actually were. This movie does an amazing job of informing the viewer what exactly happened at this time that the government and corporations might not want us to remember. -Annika