Every fact, every condition, every basis for analysis that could have made North Country the complex and important work it is fairly hyperventilating to be taken for has been misjudged if not falsified outright. (One of the irritating historical distortions is to show Josey being inspired to sue by watching Anita Hill's October 1991 testimony during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. Lois Jenson and Pat Kosmach first sought redress in 1984 and, unlike Hill, they did so while still working with and under the men they were complaining about.) Read the court opinions, read Bingham and Gansler's book; if there's any problem for moviemakers it's that the facts are so extreme the audience might think they were exaggerating. Seitzman and Caro took truth that now seems stranger than fiction and simplified it into comfortingly predictable fable. How do you blow that kind of capital and end up with so little to show for it?
You can find this review and a lot besides at The Kitchen Cabinet.
Alan Dale is the author of What We Do Best: American Movie Comedies of the 1990s and Comedy Is a Man in Trouble: Slapstick in American Movies.
Ed: JH
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.