Being a European I had some difficulty in understanding the occurrences in this film. It tells the true story of the labor conflict of coal miners in Virginia around 1920. They are dissatisfied with the working conditions and go on strike. The company uses the truck-system, and the workers live in company houses. So the company takes with the other hand, what the one has paid out in wages. Right at the start we see the strikers in action while stopping a train and trying to thrash a group of so-called scabs (who apparently were unaware of the prevailing conflict). In addition the strikers employ anarchist methods to intimidate the employer, like sabotage with dynamite sticks. It is not surprising, that the employer has placed a machine gun at the premises. On the other hand the employer himself uses similar methods, and has hired a private security firm in order to intimidate the people. He tries to bribe the mayor and the sheriff. Yes, they still have a real sheriff over there, complete with a badge and belt and pistols on both sides, like an ancient Sam McCloud! Fortunately for the miners, this local establishment remains on their side. When the bandits of the security firm try to evict several families from their company homes, the sheriff maintains that this action is illegal and puts an end to it. However, we as the audience lack the information needed to judge which of the quarreling parties has the supreme law on its side. Luckily we still have the union of miners, and they send an organizer Joe Kenehan into the area. This man is as best as you can get them. He has a social hearth and strongly opposes violence, firstly because it is against his principles, and secondly because the workers will eventually lose an armed battle. The union brings some material support to the strikers, like camping tents, which transform the area into a kind of refugee camp. During the night the company bandits have a raid and fire at random. The climax is reached when two young men try to steal coal, and one of them gets his throat cut by the security bandits. The miners revolt, and a gun battle ensues in which the mining company is temporarily defeated. However, both sides suffer severe losses, among which is the fatally wounded unarmed organizer. The film suggests, that this was the start of a long range of armed collisions between employers and workers. In Europe we have never seen similar scenes, and in my eyes the film looks more like a western than like a film about unionism. Perhaps it has some similarities with the French film Germinal, which however narrates a story about a labor conflict around 1870 - so half a century before! And even in that tragic event the national guard was immediately present as the legitimate defender of the law. I guess the differences reflect the weak position of the authorities in the American Federation. There was hardly any authority or legitimate law in the newly conquered land, and the people had to take matters into their own hands. Of course the most powerful party will always win, but in American states like Virginia there was no strong local or regional authority, that could play the role of mediator in order to mitigate excesses. The narrative suggests that the film director Sayles sympathizes with the miners, but essentially the whole mess turns out to be a display of stupidity. But perhaps this is European prejudice. Apart from this drawback, the acting is convincing, the dialogs are realistic, and the film shots aptly convey the local conditions.
