The plot of Way Down East was antiquated upon its release but the movie still offers the inestimable compensation of Gish's utterly committed acting and Griffith's epochal filmmaking. North Country doesn't come close to Griffith's achievement as a piece of filmmaking, and draws no benefit from its real-life subject matter because it doesn't live up to the responsibility the subject matter imposes. Sadly, all North Country shows is how moviemakers habitually reconstitute reality as romance. Jenson may have planted the seed of corporate liability for sexual harassment, but what Caro and company harvest is tough, overgrown theatrical corn.
The movie can't even come together on these degraded terms because it's so divided. It operates on the assumption that the heroine has to be put-upon or we might not side with her, though if we really understand the situation that wouldn't be necessary. At the same time, however, Josey has to be triumphant, although by portraying her as put-upon they make her seem as if she wouldn't be hardy or practical enough to pull off what the actual Jenson did. Unlike Josey, who quits her job before suing the mine, the plaintiffs continued working at Eveleth and intelligently took photographs of the "escalating sexist and obscene graffiti, notes, and props that became ever more prevalent." When they decided to bring a private action against the company they hired a team of Minneapolis attorneys, including Paul Sprenger who had brought the first class action case under Title VII in the Eighth Circuit.
McDormand as Glory actually has the grit that Theron as Josey lacks. (Even Doris Day as the union seamstress being courted by the factory supervisor while preparing for a strike in the musical comedy The Pajama Game (1957) seems stronger-willed than Josey.) Of course, unlike her model Pat Kosmach, Glory isn't party to the suit from day one, but like Kosmach she is devoted to the union and she is dying. Despite this diminution, McDormand is so resilient, and salty, she instantly establishes a rapport with the restless audience, and if the moviemakers had made her the central figure they might have had a hit. As is, the pretty young thing out of virginal melodrama is too damn pitiful to carry a two-hour epic set in an iron ore mine.
The real peculiarity of the moviemakers' sympathy-at-all-costs approach, however, is that they take as the substance of Josey's story all the personal material that the plaintiffs' attorneys wanted to keep out and that the Eighth Circuit agreed was irrelevant. The Jenson case set a precedent limiting abusive discovery but such material is pretty much the entirety of the moviemakers' sense of drama. The courtroom scenes in particular are shaped around the abusive discovery, only seen sympathetically. In North Country it isn't irrelevant that Josey was raped, it's a central item in her favor. (This tack is the opposite of the one taken by the makers of the equally uninspired, "prestigious" feminist bomb The Contender (2000), which I wrote about here.)
Article comments
1 - Bill Fraser
This is a superb movie review. In fact, the review is more engaging than the movie. It analyzes North Country in the level of detail I'd like to see in every movie review. The disingenuous attitude film makers adopt that they have to alter historical facts drastically to engage the audience's attention in the story is a combination of laziness and contempt for the audience. In fact, in claiming to represent the true interests of the protagonists, by using distortion and outright fiction to bolster the audience’s supposed lack of interest in historical storytelling, they actual work *against* the interests of the protagonists " the audience is left with no clear belief in what’s real and what’s made up. It’s like Barry Bonds and steroids " how do we know how many of his accomplishments are legitimate?
We all understand that no one can capture the whole truth, that truth is always a composite of multiple viewpoints, and every director’s choice to leave something in or out is a subjective editing decision. But it’s a lazy copout to substitute fiction for fact for the majority of a movie’s content, as a reaction to the daunting task of presenting a compelling story which is generally true to historical accuracy, though by necessity truncated via subjective editing decisions.
What a shame that Lois Jenson’s and a few of the plaintiffs’ gritty, persistent heroism has been turned into a sort of Hallmark movie card, which cheapens the immense sacrifices they made. As the reviewer Alan Dale says, “Acquaintance with the facts makes it plain that the behavior the women were subjected to was so scurrilous that moviemakers wouldn't have to make anything up.” Throughout the movie I was discussing with my wife (we watched at home) how this character’s actions and that situation didn’t ring true, while simultaneously expressing admiration and sympathy for the main character’s plight and courage. This isn’t the way I like to watch a movie. I prefer to be drawn in to a movie’s plot and characters because of the ring of truth that resounds in every scene. However, the movie did make me aware of the Jenson vs. Evelyth Mines case and prompt me to do some research, bring me to this excellent movie review, The Kitchen Cabinet, and del.icio.us, where I hope to find more thought-provoking and well-written articles.
2 - Alan Dale
Thanks for the comment, Bill, and the praise. I was disgusted to read this news report, that a New York Women in Film & Television survey had declared North Country the most-important film for women to see in 2005. To learn from by negative example? I'm afraid the survey respondents must have liked it not despite the movie's evident flaws but because of them--because of the slick way it sells "feminism." If people want candy they're going to have candy, no matter how much more nutritious and subtly flavorful fruit may be.