North Country similarly goes at a sociological topic emotionally, an approach that is undercut by the fact that nothing in North Country feels like lived experience. Certainly not the union meeting in which the miners first cheer for a hooligan denouncing Josey with obscene epithets; after Josey's union-veteran father, his sense of chivalry outraged, gets up and defends her right to speak, the same group then cheers for him. (The union audience has the firmness of conviction of the citizens at Springfield town meetings on The Simpsons.) Next in unbelievability would be the scene in which Josey is called a whore by her supervisor's wife at Josey's son's hockey game. The son, who's about 12, is so upset he decides to spend the night with his girlfriend's family. The girl's mother, vividly aware of the precariousness of a girl's reputation in their small town, nevertheless thinks it's a good plan.
You rarely feel you're seeing working-class life represented as it is, and similarly the role of class in general is left unexamined. For instance, the plaintiffs could not rely on their own union for support; as the District Court said in its opinion in the liability phase of the trial, reported at Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co., 824 F. Supp. 847, 879 (D. Minn. 1993):
Under the existing grievance process, were a female employee to bring a charge against a fellow bargaining unit employee, the Union would be required to simultaneously press the woman's claim and seek to avoid punishment for the alleged male perpetrator. The need to stand on both sides of a charge of sexual harassment presents a potential conflict of interest which reasonably renders the [Collective Bargaining Agreement's] grievance procedure ineffective as the primary mechanism for addressing complaints of sexual harassment brought by one bargaining unit member against another.
Instead, the plaintiffs received just treatment only by recourse to the jurisdiction of the professional class of jurists. (Even Special Master McNulty awarded them some money for damages.) The case thus reveals some unpleasant contradictions in union progressivism and working-class solidarity, as well as fair play and chivalry more generally, and corporate rationality and juristic wisdom, too, among other categories. The moviemakers, however, aren't interested in any aspect of the story beyond its ability to enhance the melodrama. They so totally lack interest in the assorted components of the Mesabi Iron Range mentality that they present Josey's view as if it were natural, which the movie's own epic-melodramatic structure contradicts in every scene. I assume this results from the fact that the movie was made by and for an educated audience who would, or like to think they would, have been sensitive to Josey's predicament when she first brought the grievance. Thus, apart from her bad shag hair-do, Josey becomes a working-class heroine that a female yuppie can identify.
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.