Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

You've loaded an old revision of the document! If you save it, you will create a new version with this data.

You should do a total of 2-3 comments/questions/observations this week.  You do not need to post to all areas. Please do include links to sources, clips, images that are relevant to your point. -- Dr. McClurken

====== I.	How does this movie work as a secondary source? What does the movie get right about history?  ======

This film was surprisingly accurate, despite the addition of fictional characters like Union Organizer Joe Kenehan and the boy preacher Danny Radnor, the film itself sticks to history very well. All of the major plot beats for the miner’s strike line up, from African American and immigrant miners joining the union, to the miners having to spend the spring in tents, and to the eventual battle of Matewan. Lots of other smaller details also line up, like the depiction of the terrible conditions in the mines, the youth of some child miners (minor minors if you will… bad joke I know), the way the company took advantage of the minors, the way the Baldwin-Felts detectives operated, and the general events of the final shootout. One spicy little detail I found reading through Wikipedia is that the accusations were made that Sheriff Hatfield was the one to shoot Mayor Testerman because he was in love with the mayor’s wife. Granted this roomer was started by Thomas Felts, one of the Felts brothers, the other two of which died at the battle. I would chock this up to slander, except 12 days after the mayor was shot and killed, the Sheriff married his wife! (Sorry, I liked the tea). Overall, I would count this film as an excellent example of the way historical films can add fictional characters to a historical story in order to give a more human perspective, while also faithfully retelling the actual history of the events. --Lucca Crowe

The movie discussed Communism as an issue in the l teaching scene in the movie, which is accurate as this was around the Red Scare of 1919. It is interesting that they’re using it as a fear tactic against unions as it definitely impacted the labor movement as a whole. Kenehan was also called “Red” which relates to this idea. -- Logan Kurtz

The film was extremely accurate to the historical events it depicts. Aside from Joe Kenehan who, as far as I know, was fictional, everyone else was a real person. I thought it was particularly accurate how the film portrays the bigotry of the miners and how they were unwilling to work with the black miners at first. The film made it clear that it was the company pitting them against each other, but even once the miners realized this and were living all together in the camp, there was still some prejudice there. I appreciated the fact that the film, while wanting to portray strong solidarity among the union organizers while still acknowledging they had bigotry to overcome. - Maris Tiller

One of the first things I noticed was the depiction of the tensions between the different groups within the working, mining community. The scene in specific where the older white woman and Italian immigrant woman fight over cooking really solidified how a lot of these unions didn't really get off the ground because of internal prejudice, and although the union eventually seemed slightly unified, there were obvious biases to making the African American and immigrant workers do the dirty work. It did bother me slightly that there was that whole heartfelt exchange between the two women later and they seemingly moved past their differences, but the anti-climactic ending after the shootout felt like it rectified that a little, since it was seeming to imply that among other factors, those internal divisions played a major role in the union's failure to move past where they had been then. -- Jane Michael

I was surprised by how accurate this film was in the portrayal of how miners were treated and the mining towns. The towns were controlled by the company and they could only use a specific type of money so it was interesting to see that in the film. I was surprised with the detective agency and the way they were portrayed even though it was accurate. They were hired more to keep the workers in line. I think this movie was pretty accurate to what actually occurred. -Sophie Weber

I thought that this movie was fairly historically accurate. The portrayals of the miners was very real and I thought they did a good job of showing the struggles that they faced. As odd as it sounds, it almost surprises me when a film does a very accurate job portraying the actual historical events, as there is many instances where that is not the case. -Margaret Jones

I found Matewan to be extremely accurate and well-executed. Although it was not a blockbuster film, Matewan was able to portray the life of early 20th century miners, the conflict between the laborers and the industry, and even aspects of the “red scare.” I think that this film would serve well as a secondary source, especially considering there is not much on this subject in pop culture. -Burke Steifman

I thought the film was accurate in portraying the poor conditions that the coal miners endured. Also accurate in showing that African Americans did join unions during this time. Lastly, I thought it was accurate in portraying how unjust the coal companies and deputies treated the coal miners. Erika Lambert.

The movie is pretty historically accurate. As other people have mentioned, it does a really good job at portraying work conditions and how labor workers were treated at the time. I was surprised that the film showed Black workers also joining the union, and showed it more realistically than I was expecting. I assumed that in order to make the union look better that the movie would show them ushering in Black workers with open arms, but it was the opposite which is realistic for the early 20th century. - Neonya Garner

Honestly, I found the movie to be very accurate. The depictions of the conditions that miners went through was disturbing. Thinking about the air itself being flammable from the coal dust just gives me the heebie jeebies. It blows my mind to think about how dangerous the conditions were, and how little the mine owners thought of their workers. In the beginning where the guy was comparing the miners to tools for the company really resonated with me.  -Michaela Fontenot

====== II.	Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ======

Compared to the last couple of movies we have watched that are based on actual historical events, very few of the characters in this film are fictional. Joe Kenehan and Danny Radnor are the two main characters in this film that are fictional. I think that alone is very impressive and it is important that the director and writers wanted to stay as true to the original history as possible. I was very impressed by the cinematic accuracy of the area and the clothing, regional dialect, and general feel of the film. I think it did a great job of encapsulating the location and time period that the film was set in, and the awards and critical reviews that the movie received definitely give it the credit it deserves. --Olivia Foster

====== III.	How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources? ======

====== IV.	How does this movie work as a primary source about the time period in which it was made or the filmmakers? ======

While the film does have its issues, (particularly the way that false sexual-assault accusations in film can cast doubt on the testimonies of real-world survivors of assault), I believe the film on the hole has a very positive influence on society. By telling the story from the perspective of the coal minors, the writer and director John Sayles was able to humanize them. As I’ve briefly mentioned above, the chief protagonist of the film, the Union Organizer Joe Kenehan, was completely fictional; the choice to focus on him and his ideals rather than a real historical figure like Sheriff Hatfield, therefore, helps to illustrate the key ideals that the film tried to convey. Sheriff Hatfield was union sympathetic; owing to his direct involvement in the event, he was also the most obvious leading man for a film telling the story of the Matewan Massacre. But Hatfield wasn’t a minor, and the film wanted to focus on the minors, on the nonviolent, multiracial, multicultural, and ultimately collectivist ideals of the worker’s union. 
--Lucca Crowe

I think we can assume that the filmmakers wanted to humanize workers/union organizers because of the particularly hostile attitude towards unions during the time this film was made. Solidarity among workers is painted as positive, while people who try to break up unions are cruel and violent. It gives a lot of weight to this small event, showing how something as simple as workers wanting better wages and working conditions can result in death and tragedy at the hands of people who refuse to give them their due. - Maris Tiller

I think this film was used to get people to support union workers. This movie showed people what life was like for workers who were not unionized and how important it was for them to establish it. I think people had a misconception about unions and the filmmakers used this movie to fix them. -Sophie Weber

While the film gained major critical success, with an Academy Award nomination, it was a box office ‘flop’ and only grossed under $2 million compared to its $4 million budget (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matewan). I think those numbers demonstrate that there was not a lot of public interest in 1987 about the subject of this movie. I do think that the choice to make this film at the time period is a very interesting choice, especially with the very anti-union Reagan administration. As Dr. McClurken mentioned in class, Matewan is more of an “indie” film about a much more niche topic than the other films we have watched in this class. I think it would be interesting to see the demographics of who went to see this film in theaters and what states they were from. I can see how West Virginians or WV adjacents would be much more interested in watching this film than someone living in California, which could explain its lack of public interest or attraction in the theaters. --Olivia Foster

I feel this film did a good job at depicting how union workers just wanted some type of //fair// treatment when it came to working. Mining is a difficult job, especially under the conditions these people would have been working through. In the beginning of the movie, they list the reasons in the first meeting (that the viewer sees) of how they’re being treated and being taken advantaged of. For the time period, I feel it shows how working should get them more than the companies who appear to just be sitting on their butts and it also shows how the companies were viewed versus the union depending on which //side// you were on. -Paula Perez

I thought that this film did a good job of highlighting the struggle of union workers to be recognized. I think that this is an ongoing issue that workers are still grappling with today, so anytime that a film highlights this is an important discussion to facilitate. It reflects the attitudes that are changing towards workers and a changing culture that was occurring when this movie came out. -Margaret Jones

Considering that this film was released in 1987, I found it to be quite progressive in its support of the miners’ union.  The workers just wanted to have an honest industry and be compensated fairly for the dangerous and taxing work that they perform, and that is portrayed well throughout the plot. The progressiveness of Matewan may explain why it was not a hit at the time of its release, but it does explain why the film has aged well. -Burke Steifman

Due to unions being evident even in today's society and definitely during the 1980s, I think the film worked well as a primary source to depict the rightfulness of unions during this time. Overall, I think if an earlier time period depicted unions, they may do so negatively because even the government was against it. During this time period, it was beginning to be more appropriate and commonly respected. Erika Lambert.

The time period that film was made definitely shows the progression of society. By the 1980s, unions weren't as taboo as they were at the turn of the 20th century. It is especially interesting since it was not too far removed from the time period it was presenting. It is possible that some (definitely not too many) people who lived during the labor movement were still living when the film was released.- Neonya Garner

====== V. The "So, what?" question	======

I was actually quite bothered by the characterizations in this film. Obviously most of these characters were fictionalized for the sake of the narrative, but even the ones that were taken from real-life figures were exaggerated to a point of comedy. The Baldwin-Felts agents in specific eventually just seemed cartoonish to me, especially during the scenes where they laugh hysterically in the church. They, along with most of the other people, didn't really have much dimension and were on opposite ends of very extreme, black-and-white spectrum. The agents were very, very, obviously the villains and everything that they said and did were very blatant attempts to make the watcher despise them, which worked, but was an out-of-place contrast between the somber tone of the film and its subject. -- Jane Michael

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

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

Overall, I did enjoy the film. Prior to watching this film and talking about unions in class, I had no prior knowledge on the bad conditions that miners went through specifically. I think the film depicted it successfully and made the audience understand what the union members went through and overall, why they felt it necessary to join a union and work for better working conditions. Erika Lambert.

Edit summary

Note: By editing this page you agree to license your content under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International