Matewan (1987)

I've reviewed political movies before, but this felt a little harder to approach. Part of it comes from having seen a special screening with a loudly pro–labor union audience, where writer-director John Sayles showed up with a lot to say. Still, I decided not to write it off for others right away. If you're like me, then you don't have to agree with a film's message to find it worth watching.

The title is the name of a West Virginia town, whose citizens pronounce it "mate-wan," because they have no regard for tribal origins. In 1920, union organizer Joe Kenehan (Chris Cooper in his first silver-screen role) comes to town and finds the coal miners disgruntled but rather weak in resistance to company pressures, particularly in the form of gunmen from the Baldwin–Felts Detective Agency. Upon word that a "red" has arrived, Agents Hickley (Kevin Tighe) and Griggs (Gordon Clapp) take up temporary residence in the same boarding house to throw their weight around, not very daunted by the legalistic sheriff (David Strathairn) and mayor (Josh Mostel). Kenehan makes a name for himself within the budding union, but they don't always cotton to his pacifism, especially under C.E. Lively (Bob Gunton)....

It is a story of intrigue and treachery as well as mounting tension. I won't say too much, but if you already learned something about the history of Matewan (which I hadn't), you know that a battle occurred. Sayles repeatedly called it a massacre, but his own movie gives the lie to that label: Both sides came ready to shoot, and they were pretty evenly matched. Which means no real happy ending for either.

If one good thing comes of Kenehan's intervention, it's the reduction of bigotry. He insists that a union isn't a union unless it welcomes all laborers. It doesn't matter that all these newcomers are Black men and Italian immigrants or that they were sent to replace the strikers; they suffer under the same town-owning company. Never is their newfound unity more beautifully illustrated than when they bring musical instruments together for an unusual fusion that works. There's also some pretty funny-turned-sweet interplay in the gradual softening between a local woman and an Italian woman over cooking differences.

Of course, it's not a complete unity. As unofficial spokesman "Few Clothes" (James Earle Jones, to Sayles' surprise and delight!) points out, Black men taking arms against White men would get an extremely ugly reaction, so they don't. Nor do the nervous Italians. Some of the remaining locals feel that the others aren't doing their part.

Sayles has the integrity to show the ups and downs of both peaceful protest and violent uprising. The live audience showed more approval of the latter, much to the would-be chagrin of the main hero. It's a bit depressing to think that neither method worked well enough. What does Sayles suggest? Keep to the gun-based threats and hope you won't have to pull the trigger?

Actually, from a certain standpoint, Kenehan isn't the main hero. The narrator, who does have some pull on the plot, is Danny Radnor (Will Oldham), son of the boarding house owner (Mary McDonnell). Only 15 at the time of the events, he regularly preaches at two churches, casually and sometimes with blatant, uncountered heresy in order to get his present-minded points across. Sayles indicated a low opinion of Christianity but a determination to find something useful in it, as well as in pretty much everything else.

Make no mistake: Despite his attempts at even-handedness, this is propaganda, as even some admirers put it. The most obvious sign to me is in the portrayal of Hickley and Griggs. Wretched to everyone else in their every scene, they might as well be card-carrying villains.

I suppose you want to know my politics; if not, skip this paragraph. Well, one conservative position I never fully espoused is the absolute opposition to unions. I know they have a habit of turning into the thing they were supposed to combat. So does Sayles; he's wary of that danger. But given the apparent history of pre-union working conditions, what else can these laborers do? I can't help approving a few cases of unionization in the bad old days.

Whatever you think of the message(s), you should be a little glad that the film exists, if only for the sake of the genuine West Virginian miners who worked on it. Quite a few got speaking parts, partly to save time and money on an accent coach. One declared that the filmmakers were the first people to give back to his community rather than just take from it.

As for the film quality, I can see why it got an Academy nomination for cinematography. My first impression was that it would look very low-budget, given that I'd never heard of the studio and only Jones was already famous, but they do a good job of hiding their budget. The crisp writing doesn't hurt either, and none of the actors struck me as amateurs. Jones, naturally, remains the biggest treat.

My previous Sayles viewings were of Lone Star and a good chunk of Eight Men Out (discontinued due to technical difficulties). Both seemed to carry a constant mood of unexcited bitterness. Or maybe that was just how I felt. Next to them, the rhythmic intensity of Matewan is quite a relief. Will I watch more of his work someday? Possibly. But I'll look for something less likely to be controversial.