This might not even really be an error but in the film Kenehan warns the strikers against resorting to violence to get what they want but a lot of union organizers, like Mother Jones, said that sometimes violence was the only way to achieve their goal and encouraged taking up arms. — Fanning Neal R. 2016/11/02 10:16

I did not see much as far as historical inaccuracies go, but that might be my inexperience with this event. I did, however, notice one thing that annoyed me. One of my pet peeves in historical dramas/period pieces is the use of antiques as props, instead of reproductions. However, I will let this slide because of the low budget. But these things would have been brand new, rather than rusted and dented. — Gaddie, Jason 2016/11/02 17:20

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

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. — Kacoyanis, Leah F. 2016/11/01 18:35

The film was definitely accurate about the greed of the mine owners and the way that they got away with deducting pay and controlling where the miners spent what little bit of the paychecks they received. Hearing the miners speak of the working conditions sounded a lot like what we learned of in class too, as was the racism. — Frey Lauren E. 2016/11/01 18:48

This movie is accurate with the depiction of the Baldwin-Felts’ role as enforcers in the mining town as well as the positions of Sid Hatfield and Cabell Testerman. I liked the fact that the filmmakers took the time to include what happened to Sid Hatfield at the courthouse during the narration. It also included problems faced by miners with company housing and getting paid in company scripts. — Callie Morgan 2016/11/01 19:59

I agree with Callie, I think the film did an excellent job as portraying the Baldwin-Felts as real “sonuvabitches.” They were not just hapless mooks just doing this for the money, they actually did take joy in busting a few skulls, just like they did in the Ludlow Massacre. I also like how Sayles kept the original language of the people. Instead of toning it down, he kept it as it was, with people saying words like “nigger” and “scabs” loosely. — Gaddie, Jason 2016/11/02 17:37

The conflicts and overall animosity between the strikers/mountain people and the Baldwin-Felts strike-breakers seemed pretty accurate to what went on during strikes in small mining towns such as these. The intimidation factor used by both sides as well as the potshots and small shootouts occurred all the time in such strikes. Also that the coal companies would send infiltrators who would try to undermine the union organizing of men like Kenehan was accurate. — Fanning Neal R. 2016/11/02 10:06

Although minor, I think it is important to note that the movie definitely did a good job in depicting the conditions the men were in as coal miners. Throughout the movie you hear the men wheezing and coughing from lack of oxygen and the development of black lung. Again, although minor, I thought it was important because most of the depictions of coal miners in media usually don’t show that so to have a movie that had that was pretty cool. — Mary-Margaret McMaken 2016/11/02 13:56

Things the movie got right… This week I was very pleasantly pleased with the historical emotion and enviornment that Director and Writer John Sayles did in Matewan. From following the key components of the story of Sid Hatfield, the Miners, and the Baldwin-Felts to the portrayal of a mining town and the encompassing monopoly that entailed. I also enjoyed the small character attributes as Mary spoke on with the addition of the coughing and don't think that implication is anything to look over. — Baker, Jonathon A. 2016/11/02 17:22

I was actually surprised with the relative accuracy in the film. I agree with Mary-Margaret, the wheezing and coughing in the film added to the accuracy. In the mines, miners underwent rough conditions and back then they didn't know or appreciate the impact of asbestos. Often, these miners would later develop lung cancer and sometimes use an iron lung. The town environment was also pretty accurate.. — James, Emily B. 2016/11/02 21:07

In the movie, the director and company did a great job depicting the rough conditions for the coal miners. You could truly feel the miners and the need for unionization. Along with the proper depiction of miners towns, living co ditions, and brutality of Baldwin-Felt agents, the film makers also included the introduction of southerners and African Americans. Overall the film makers were very true to the story in Metawan. — Robert Pratt 2016/11/02 21:32

One issue I believe the movie was able to convey well is who was working and whose job was being taking. The scene with the men talking about how black men were taking their jobs and living in their houses while they were living in canvas tents really shows the tension and aggravation and racism that these men had. Everything they had in life relied on their ability to work, and they were going to do everything they could to make sure that it was them working. Now, i’m not excusing their racism, but I believe the movie showed the complexity of the situation very well. — Brooks Anna R. 2016/11/02 21:42

One thing that I found right that was a relief was that they stuck to the original, or at least close to the original, amount of people who died during the gun fight. From what I counted they were pretty close to the original number ( if not the correct number since there was one or two I missed), which honestly felt like a huge relief after seeing so many movies that turn 2 people dying into 10 or 20. I felt like Sayles did a really good job on being historically accurate, and you can really see his care and focus on the film being as accurate as possible. — Lindsey, Megan E. 2016/11/02 22:21

The movie accurately showed how dangerous and how unhealthy the conditions were for coal miners. The film was one of the more accurate ones we have watched so far. As others have said, the filmmakers did not avoid showing a very complicated and unpleasant situation. — Carey Megan A. 2016/11/03 04:44

One of the most frustrating aspects of studying the historical relationship between unions, workers, and owners is how hopeless and helpless the workers were to the demands of their bosses and owners. Every aspect of their lives was controlled by the company and so the company had rights to intervene or intrude whenever and wherever they felt like. The film Matewan is successful at conveying just how helpless the workers were prior to taking matters into their own hands. Their homes were subject to forced lodging and inspection, they were forced to give up their money when on strike as it was considered property of the company. The representatives from the company are so genuinely unlikeable and the union members seem like martyrs in their own right which is a fair depiction of how the different groups were understood at the time. — Rainford, Lauren E. 2016/11/05 13:22

The union recruitment scenes are important because it shows the conflict and division that was a reality in trying to form unions. It highlights the racial disputes between coal miners as well as the foreigner and nativist conflict.The movie does a good job of making the conflict between these groups evident. It does not gloss over these relationships and the strain between groups which is very important to understanding the difficulties present in creating coal miner unions. It also tries to give an idea of the different types of people that made up mine workers by including the different groups. — Liberty, Catherine A. 2016/11/01 18:01

While we learned that it's an understatement that the mine owners were greedy, and the Baldwin-Felts agents didn’t seem to think any tactic was beneath their moral standards, I still felt as though the film played up their immorality. While Griggs pulling a gun on Danny was a legitimate threat, him giggling with Hickey at the church and Hickey calling Bridey Mae “mountain trash” seemed more almost gimmicky. Was their portrayal a this a fair interpretation, given that Baldwin-Felts agents were guilty of poisoning milk, or did it seem a little more on the over-exaggerated side? — Frey Lauren E. 2016/11/01 19:16

Much if this movie was well researched and well done in order to accomplish historical accuracy. We know that the film director worked hard for this fact. Was there actually a slang term for the African American workers, and company, who were brought in to replace the original coal miners? It would not surprise me at all if it were true. — Robert Pratt 2016/11/02 21:33

Robert, the term “scab” was very commonly used for people who were brought into work during strikes. They were the ones who weren't willing to risk their paychecks for the sake of trying to reach long-term goals that may not affect them. For example, an all-white union may go on strike for better wages, so the company hires black workers to fill in the spots left vacant. Black workers likely won't benefit from the white union's victory on wages since there was already such a large pay gap (and they're not even allowed in the union), so they don't assist in the strike and become “scabs”. This goes along with the prospect of companies playing different races or ethnicities off of each other, and it's the reason group-specific unions weren't as effective as inclusive ones in strikes. Did the movie portray this idea well? Did workers among the group intended to cover the workers on strike actually continue mining, or did they all collectively go on strike anyway, like in the movie? — Lindsey McCuistion 2016/11/03 00:46

Danny falls under the character category in movies of the boy or young man trying to figure out the world, the sympathetic character learning along with the viewer. His inclusion is not odd. Joe Kenehan, on the other hand, seems like an interesting choice. As the mine workers repeatedly say, “You're not a miner.” The most prominent leaders of unions at the time had connections to mining and to the area. They did not need someone from another part of the country coming in, telling them how to act and what to do. For instance, Mary Jones, known as Mother Jones, one of the most prominent organizers had had her family killed in a mine explosion. People like her who had a vested interest in the union struggle were much more commonly the people organizing. I understand how including an IWW worker brings some context to the union struggle (though only if you know what the IWW is). But, why, when trying to shed light on the history and valiance of a community and era that have been widely overlooked would a filmmaker invent a fictional character from elsewhere to steal that spotlight? Though the West Virginians were portrayed as good, hard-working, valiant people, they were not portrayed as very intelligent (as compared to Kenehan). What effect does this have? (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj66/newsinger.htm)–Julia Peterson

I think the way the film depicted the Matewan conflict is reflective of the 1980s time period. It does give an accurate depiction of what happened but if this film had been made in the 1920s, I believe the film would have shown the mining owners as the victims and the strikers as the “bad” guys since the government tended to side with the owners. There were many advancements with unions and the working class with the government and owners through the years which reflects the way the film was made. — Kacoyanis, Leah F. 2016/11/01 18:47

Is the movie more a primary source of the time it was made, or is it a primary source on the director himself? This director is known for making movies on “forgotten history”, so doesn’t this just add to his legacy? And he also has the benefit of hindsight: once the airplane was invented it was used to drop tear gas on rioting miners in West Virginia. -Christian Trout

I know strikes were a big discussion in the 1980s, although I'm not entirely educated on the specifics. A movie like this might have come across as significant to create at the time due to its relation to socialism and unions, both of which were becoming increasingly unpopular over the decades prior. At the tail end of the Cold War, people wondered if the government's actions within the nation, not just overseas, were justified. Workers still went on strike, though not with the intensity or popularity that the Progressive Era saw. In movies like Robocop, we do see strikes playing a big role in workers trying to be heard, although in this case it hurt a lot more than helped, and the result of the strike was unclear by the end of the movie. But the idea of workers in the US still trying to gain that leverage through strikes would likely have an impact on films like Matewan being made. The movie wasn't overwhelmingly successful, but it does reflect the 1980s by sheer will of its existence. — Lindsey McCuistion 2016/11/03 00:57

In the 1980s, there was an economic recession and unemployment rose to very high levels. Most of the jobs lost were in the working class sector that produced goods. The auto industry was particularly hit hard. At the same time, white collar jobs were largely unaffected. This dynamic definitely mirrors the situation with mining in West Virginia in which business owners and those with cushier jobs were continuing to profit, while the miners were suffering terribly. (http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1981/02/art1full.pdf …and wikipedia…) –Julia Peterson

In the reading “Store Pay Is Our Ruin” it talks about the ways that the company store effectively owned the lives of the workers. In all three of the correspondence accounts talk about being able to not purchase goods they needed or being paid properly. When the group of African American men come to town to start work the company employer lists off all of the things that the new miners need. For each item on the list he states that it can be purchased at the county store. Every item on his list or any item that was needed to live was sold by the company. The film accurately describes the way that the mining companies controlled ever aspect of the miners lives through company payment. — Liberty, Catherine A. 2016/11/01 18:27

The readings discussed that young boys would work in the mines and around 14 or 15 years of age would being doing the same work that adult men did in the mines. In the film, it shows Danny, a 15 year old boy, working in the mines and even proclaimed that there were boys even younger then him working there. It highlights how these mining towns ignored certain laws, such as child labor laws which affected many boys because they would be uneducated, severely injured, or even in some cases would result in a death. It shows how the state and federal government did not get involve in these situations because they usually protected these miners which in effect negatively affected these young boys. — Kacoyanis, Leah F. 2016/11/01 18:34

One thing the movie did well was showing the miners suffering from constantly inhaling the coal dust. The reading “Oh God, For One More Breath” shows the coal miners as simple men trying to provide for their family, and hoping their sons will stay away from the mines and find a better life. -Christian Trout

I thought it was interesting how the movie brought together the minorities and how they also wanted to work with the unions. Just like in the National Negro Committee reading, they knew they were being treated unfairly just as the other minors did, and want to gain the same kind of rights that the white workers wanted. In both, this lack of fair treatment shows how the two were able to work together to reach a common goal. — Lindsey, Megan E. 2016/11/02 21:11

I think that the “So, what?” question in this case goes back to our questions about Amistad. Why make this historical film? Because no one really knows this story. It is forgotten about in history. I have certainly never heard about the town of Matewan before and this was an interesting look at the lack of labor safety laws at the time and labor unions. — Callie Morgan 2016/11/01 20:02

I agree with Callie. Matewan documents a time in our history that is largely overlooked. Miners are barely talked about in schools and history in general. However, this conflict brings awareness towards the lack of labor safety regulations and rings true today with the increased issue of unions' role in business. The miners are 'common people' and so many times in history we emphasize the role of officials or figures instead of looking at common peoples' impact on history. While many films try to attempt to do this, Matewan proves successful because of its attention to detail. — James, Emily B. 2016/11/02 11:44

“So what” plays a huge role in this movie because like state earlier, we don’t really learn this kind of stuff in history classes therefore the media can be a critical tool in how we learn different parts of history. Even though these events take place in 1920s coal towns, a lot of what was discussed are issues we face today in America, corporate greed versus the working class. This movie could be used in classes to help with teaching this aspect of history and how the working class has, and always will be here. — Mary-Margaret McMaken 2016/11/02 13:49

In the movie, the director and company did a great job depicting the rough conditions for the coal miners. You could truly feel the miners and the need for unionization. Along with the proper depiction of miners towns, living co ditions, and brutality of Baldwin-Felt agents, the film makers also included the introduction of southerners and African Americans. Overall the film makers were very true to the story in Metawan.

After watching the movie, I really did get the feeling that the men and women living in these types of town were truly going through hell. I was unable to get a settled feeling after watching it, because these things are still happening today. The events that happened in WVA and Matewan are still relevant today and the movie shows that the issues that happened during the progressive era are ones still being fought over today. — Brooks Anna R. 2016/11/02 21:36

Despite being a historical movie, Matewan does have quite a few elements of a classic Western as we discussed last week; there’s a shoot-out/gun fight, a more-or-less damsel in distress and a sort of hero. Matewan, in my opinion, is fairly accurate, probably more so than the average Hollywood “historical” movie. Coal wars and unions aren’t a popular topic for people to study and the average American is likely unaware of the coal miners’ problems so this movie is very important in getting the miners’ story out there. — Haynes, Kelly E. 2016/11/03 00:56

I think this movie is important because its discussion on unions is much more positive (although no less hopeless) than most depictions of strikes and unionization. It's not a widely known film, but its message is clear: unions are necessary to protect workers, and the failure of the US to recognize that in the 1920s has led to the destruction of opportunities for miners to improve conditions. We don't hear much about the mining industry and its impact, but I do know that in regions that still depend heavily on mining, such as West Virginia and Western Pennsylvania, it's a hot topic even today. Pollution from mining has practically poisoned the water in some areas, and homeowners in mining towns only own their land to a certain depth under their property. If anything beneath it gets mined out, and the land collapses, there's nothing the homeowners can do about it. These issues should be more widely known, and movies like Matewan should be more openly discussed not only for their historical accuracy but their message. Unions did not take hold as effectively as they should have in certain areas of work, and so workers and those who live around that work – mines, factories, etc. – do not have the protection they need to live comfortable lives. — Lindsey McCuistion 2016/11/03 01:13

This film showed me and others a part of history that we were probably not very aware of. The filmmakers' goal was to tell a little-known story that was still very important to the history of this country, and they were successful with that. Before last class and before watching the film, I was mostly unaware of the history of unions and of the violence that happened as a result of strikes, especially in coal mines, so this film caught and kept my attention. I think it might actually help other Americans appreciate history more if more filmmakers found little-known events that deserve more popularity, instead of making films about the same events or people several times. — Carey Megan A. 2016/11/03 04:39

How were Sid Hatfield (police cheif) and Cabell Testerman (mayor) characterized in the film? Were they historically accurate or more film tropes than people? — Lindsey McCuistion 2016/11/03 08:30

Hatfeild seems like a hard-nose, no-nonsense man, and Testerman seems like a wimp. While they might seem like they fit the traditional lawman and mayor tropes, based on what I can find on them, they were really were like that. — Gaddie, Jason 2016/11/03 10:09

I didn't think Testerman was a wimp, though he certainly didn't fit the personality of a politician as we know them today. He seemed to genuinely care for his town, and while I hope there are small town mayors like that still out there, my first thought when I think politician are greedy people who are certainly not above bribery to fill up their own wallets. — Frey Lauren E. 2016/11/04 09:34

I believe the two were portrayed pretty accurately. It seemed like the actual Hatfield and Testerman were men who cared more about their town and what was right than dirty money from the mine company. This is how they are portrayed in the film. — Fanning Neal R. 2016/11/07 13:34

In every movie there are going to be small areas where there are going to be inaccuracies. For the most part, Sid Hatfield and and Cabell Testerman, were portrayed accurately. There are always going to be embellishments for dramatic impact, but for the most part I believe that Matewan portrayed both men accurately. — Brooks Anna R. 2016/11/07 17:55

How were unions seen in the 1980s versus the 1920s Progressive Era? — Lindsey McCuistion 2016/11/03 08:30

I think unions were viewed a lot more positively in the 1980s because the film portrays these strikers as victims (rightfully so in my opinion) unlike in the 1920s where government would always protect the owners and punish the workers. — Kacoyanis, Leah F. 2016/11/03 10:24

The distinct difference seen throughout history and its growth in the acceptance of Labor Unions has an increasing positive correlation. From the time span of the 1920s to the 1980s is intense, with the introduction of work safety and the influx of workers influences at the work place we can see a distinct difference in the time the movie was made to portray and the time of production. — Baker, Jonathon A. 2016/11/07 13:16

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. — Brooks Anna R. 2016/11/07 17:48

How were people of color portrayed in this film? How did this portrayal differ from other films we've seen? — Nicholas T. Houff 2016/11/03 10:31

My first thought in that first scene was “Really, we're gonna try and attack a big man like James Earl Jones?” I thought it was done well, it was clear that Few Clothes was not given the same educational opportunities as white men (even the poor miners), but he was also very street-wise. The racism he faced was very accurate, I didn't know that “scab” was a term, but his reaction to it seemed very realistic. — Frey Lauren E. 2016/11/03 14:25

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! — Mary-Margaret McMaken 2016/11/04 22:13

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? — Nicholas T. Houff 2016/11/03 10:34

It seems pretty accurate. My guess is that other filmmakers are just simply telling the same stories over and over again, and adding a skin of history over it. — Gaddie, Jason 2016/11/03 10:16

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. — Kacoyanis, Leah F. 2016/11/03 10:20

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).

We already know that James Earl Jones was definitely willing to join this production, despite knowing he would not receive a paycheck that he was accustomed to. David Strathairn (Sid Hatfield) has been in multiple Shakespeare based films, likewise Chris Cooper and Bob Gunton seem to have had successful careers as well. It seems that the accuracy of this film really spoke to them too. Why other directors *cough* Michael Bay *cough* seem to rely more on explosions than historical accuracy is something that I found myself wondering about too. Perhaps it's because as good as it is, Matewan isn't a well known movie, nor are the events that it focuses on. — Frey Lauren E. 2016/11/03 14:29

This film was definitely one of the most historically accurate that we've seen. There are many reasons why some directors don't strive for such historical accuracy but I think mainly the reason is money and the audience that the director is attempt to pull in. Adding fictional love stories, heroism, and extra explosions draw in crowds. — Callie Morgan 2016/11/04 15:37

I would definitely argue that this film was the most historically accurate that we have watched thus far. Matewan is successful at conveying just how helpless the workers were prior to taking matters into their own hands. Their homes were subject to forced lodging and inspection, they were forced to give up their money when on strike as it was considered property of the company. The representatives from the company are so genuinely unlikeable and the union members seem like martyrs in their own right which is a fair depiction of how the different groups were understood at the time. Sayles worked to accurately depict the complications and complexities between the different races during strikes and unionization but the film also works to show how some unions focused on absolute unity between races and ethnicities in an effort to have a more effective force. In all this films accuracies, however, it is also one of the lesser known films that we have watched. Fewer students raised their hands when asked if they’ve seen it. I think that it further proves how people want the fame and the glam and the dramatic retellings of history, not films that accurately portray conflict between a small town in West Virginia and rich men from Company representatives. — Rainford, Lauren E. 2016/11/05 13:21

As everyone has stated this film is incredibly accurate about the time and place that it represents. Sayles strives for historical accuracy and is immensely dedicated to achieve that accuracy. On the question why many directors do not do this I think it is a combined time, money, and dedication determents. In class we discussed how Sayles pays for his films from his own resources and spends ages researching and preparing for these films. In order for other directors to follow that it would probably also require them to use their own resources because there really is not a big mass market that only watches completely accurate historical films. Taking immense amounts of time, effort and personal resources for a film that may not even be a success takes a certain type of director and a high risk level. Therefore I think that really deters other directors from trying to be fully historically accurate when only partially accurate sells well at the box office. — Liberty, Catherine A. 2016/11/06 20:51

Do you think Sayles is projecting socialist tendencies through Kenehan’s positive affirmations and/or the film’s overarching conflict between social classes?— Blount, David M. 2016/11/03 11:33

I don't know if Sayles is “projecting socialist tendencies” but I think he does do a good job of showing a “Red” that wasn't particularly radical. In the scene where Kenehan and Few Clothes are talking, Kenehan makes a joke about Reds carrying bombs. Kenehan is seen as a good person and Few Clothes accepts him even though he has a more extreme political view. — Callie Morgan 2016/11/04 15:42

I agree with Callie. I think that the film’s portrayal of peacefully depicting a communist adds to the reality of the situation. While communists, or “reds” were typically depicted as barbaric, violent, drunken murderers, Kenehan brought an element of truth to their history. Had this film been from the beginning of the 20th century, Kenehan would not have been the protagonist. In fact, he was the most unwilling to violence, constantly being questioned as to his lack of a weapon, his refusal to participate in the war, and by joking about how he didn’t carry guns because communists ‘carried little bombs.’ That moment between Few Clothes Johnson and Kenehan symbolized communist ideologies being generally welcomed among the working class. I think that Sayles is projecting communist tendencies because that was how it was perceived at the time in the conflict between overly powerful and invasive company owners and representatives and their workers. — Rainford, Lauren E. 2016/11/05 14:21

I think that Sayles depiction of Kenehan is another example of just how much he strove to make the film historically accurate. While Kenehan is technically a fictional character he represents a very real person. As Lauren brings up he gives a more rounded portrayal of a communist and more accurately portrays the reality of what it meant to be “red” for those working for unions. Since this portrayal runs so counter to the narrative audiences are used to seeing I think it is inevitable that many might read it as socialist or communist tendencies. Especially when read through the lens that it is the “red” who is the only one to peacefully transcend and get along with all the different miner groups. — Liberty, Catherine A. 2016/11/06 20:42

I do not believe that Sayles had political ideas that showed through in this film. Many union organizers such as Kenehan had socialist views and a lot of them identified openly with the socialist party. There was even known to be quite a bit of socialist activity in West Virginia. Some major socialist newspapers were based in West Virginia. — Fanning Neal R. 2016/11/07 13:37 Do you think there is any underlying significance between Kenehan’s opposition to violence in conjunction with his violent death? — Blount, David M. 2016/11/03 11:33

There are quite a few films I've seen where characters do all they can to prevent violent situations only to have them happen regardless of their efforts. I suppose it's a writer's or director's way of showing that fate can't be changed, or God (or the gods) decisions cannot be swayed no matter what happens. — Frey Lauren E. 2016/11/03 14:29

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. — Rainford, Lauren E. 2016/11/05 14:26

Did you notice any additional conceptual subplots within the film? — Blount, David M. 2016/11/03 11:33