MovieChat Forums > North Country (2005) Discussion > Soooooooooo one-sided.

Soooooooooo one-sided.

posted 19 years ago by robert-954
44 replies | jump to latest

Did it occur to anyone besides me that there were a grand sum total of two decent men in this entire movie? 99% of the men were portrayed as rapists, wife beaters, hateful harassers, raging disrespectful sons, emotionally absent and vindictive fathers, creepy leerers, and weak silent observers. Does that seem like a fair portrayal of our society to you? I know that the story was based in some part on a true story, with a whole lot of "artistic license" applied to make it a more interesting movie. But are we supposed to believe there were no decent men in that mine? Hell, in that town? A few more decent male characters, who did the right thing when they had the chance to do so, would have made this a much more realistic and interesting movie. As it was, it was just an offensive caricature of males. Imagine the outrage if Hollywood offered up a movie where every man was honorable, decent, and deserving of admiration, and every single woman was an evil, lying, violent, vindictive, careless, and murderous bitch.

Is a little fairness in the retelling of the facts of the incident too much to ask for? Oh yeah, I forgot, that wouldn't have been as popular.

[–] jones-mcwagnick 18 years ago

I'm a male.

And I see it as an accurate portrayal of our society.

Want me to pour it?

[–] z01 18 years ago

The question was refering to labor union brotherhood.

Not "male society."

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Danni009 18 years ago

First of all, Sean Bean's Kyle is a wonderful and decent guy. In fact, I don't think I've seen such a kind-hearted man in a movie for a long time.

Secondly, the film is about sexual harassment in the work place. Therefore, the film would focus on the more nasty side of men. These men do exist. Films aren't about showing a fair portrayal of our society, they're usually about focusing on the issues in our society. That's what makes them interesting.

Hollywood has done many movies where women have been vindictive, lying, murderous, slutty, pathetic, weak, brainless and all sorts of stuff. I don't remember any outrage.

An eye for an eye would make us all blind

[–] dioditto 18 years ago

robert-954 - Until you can tell me you are willing to put your job on the line, willing to put your family, your kid's willbeings on line, for SOMEONE ELSE's cause, you don't have a right to even argue about this. Because you are one of the cowards (which is 99% of us) who aren't going to something and standup for others. It is simply a herd mentality. So, are you willing to lose your job, lose your house (for not being able to pay for mortgage), lose your kid's future to bet on someone else's cause?

[–] klutzinpink 18 years ago

The hell she wasn't from the mines. The woman who was the original plaintiff, and I would have to get my book out, or look up her name again, because right now it escapes me, anyway, she worked in the mines. AND, what many people don't realize is that the case took FOURTEEN years to be settled. One of the original plaintiffs, Pat was her first name, died before the case was settled. The other woman suffered a nervous breakdown. Is it so hard to believe that in a very male oriented occupation such as mining, woman would be harrassed? It happens every day, in every field and industry imaginable. Those woman wanted a better life as well, and that's where the money was. I'm sure the movie portrayed the men as a little more unwilling to stand up than in real life, but think about it...in many workplaces, schools, et cetera, people do not speak up for what is so obviously wrong for fear that they will also be ostrasized (sp?) and harrassed themselves. I feel for the men who felt powerless to stop the actions of their male co-workers. I'm not saying it's right, just that I can understand the conflict involved in keeping one's mouth shut and speaking up.

I think it was a powerful movie - unfortunately, they could not pack fourteen years worth of trials into a two hour movie so I think they did a pretty damn good job. And the performances where honest and convincing, in my opinion anyway. Charlize Theron gave her usual excellent performance as did Frances McDormand. Sean Bean's "Kyle" was so tender and touching. Nice to see him in that type of role for a change, Woody Harrelson, also excellent and last but certainly not least, Richard Jenkins as the father just blew me away. He's more of a character actor, but he was sooo good as Josie's father, the way he comes to terms with his daughter and his misjudgement of her, the way he stands up for her at the union meeting, even before he realizes she was raped. He was incredible. Brought tears to my eyes.

Anyway, that's my opinion! And, if the movie inspired debate and made us think about what's acceptable and what isn't, then I guess it did it's job.

Come on little pup. Step back on the porch and let the big dogs play.

[–] metsfan15 18 years ago

It may have been one sided, but being a guy, looking through it like a guy, men cause most sexual thigns i see everyday, im not a feminist, but i think they did this movie right

[–] terrythomas 18 years ago

I thought the movie managed to paint a pretty fair image of the characters of both genders. For example, there are clearly several male characters who work in the mines who object -- if quietly -- to the harassment on display (I'm thinking specifically of the porta-pottie scene). And even certain of the "villainous" male characters are portrayed in a reasonably fair light; I'm thinking of the character of Bobby (I believe that's his name; the guy who assaulted Josie and who was a buddy of hers in high school), who in spite of committing horrible sexist actions is a reasonably sympathetic character.

The only area where I thought the film tended toward stereotypes was in the portrayals of the bosses and higher-ups, though I've yet to see a Hollywood movie where they aren't depicted as sleazy, lecherous villains.

[–] t_rex_1989 18 years ago

I love North Country i personally don't think it's one-sided cause their were several men in the movie the steped in or said stop and yes someone of them just did nonthing and some of them were the bad ones. Like Bobby he bad but yet you felt sorry for him cause he was the weak link in the movie. Sexual Harrassment still goes on today in any work force area and this movie just brough to light one how one couragous women wanted to make a diffrence and she stood up for what she believed in.

[–] chrcoluk (70) 3 years ago

To be fair I have met some nice business owners but all these nice guys own small businesses with only a handful or a few of employees.

Large businesses with employees in the 100s or 1000s tend to get there via cut throat management, usually nice guys dont run those businesses. Especially people higher enough who dont even normally communicate with the labourers, they have that distance between them and the people they manage like sheep. I do actually think the top guy was been legitimate nice when he first met her with her kids, but bear in mind he wont be day to day at the mine, and will be fed info by people like the manager, who we know was brainwashing him with false information. That would have explained his reaction at the meeting, and he even seemed to think he was doing her a favour by not sacking her on the spot due to the report of poor work performance and brewing up trouble.

Later we see him been a complete arsehole, as his business reputation is at stake.

[–] somethingwicked 18 years ago

Does that seem like a fair portrayal of our society to you?

In some cities/counties/regions/whatever? In a word, yes. The world is not a pretty place. What makes you think that such hideousness does not exist within even the almighty U.S.? Considering our track record of how we like to treat women, people "of color", foreigners of all kinds, poor people, and other untouchables of western culture, and considering how recent and even current some of these problems are, I think the portrayal is quite capable of being a "fair" one.

The existentialists would approve.

[–] Bundy1 18 years ago

Its not one sided at all. Of course not all the men were jerks, but you can't say that most of them weren't. Thats what the movie was about the ones that were *beep*

[–] istore01 18 years ago

My first impression of the film was that they did portray all the men in it as negatively as possible, but I have to say I was equally as pissed off with some of the women. Regardless of what pressures they were under, they’re at least on par with the spineless men that wouldn't stand up to their "brothers". I'd say they were even worse though, because they were the ones being affected and they still did nothing (except maybe complain a little).

All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

[–] Bundy1 18 years ago

Its not one sided and thats it.

[–] Howlin Wolf 18 years ago

Of course it was one-sided, because it was a retelling of what happened in that particular time and place; it didn't pretend to be a model for every workplace situation across the world!

I'm sure there were more decent men in that town, but maybe - just maybe - they werent relevant to the story being told?! If you try to be too even-handed, you'll end up diluting the point you're making and left without anything to say at all.

Maybe, in reality, the 'decent men' didn't actually help all that much?

Movies in general should just do their best to ignore "outrage", and follow the director's vision.

Do you know the facts of the incident, yourself? What, exactly, was missing that should have been in there?

I'm gonna take this itty-bitty site by storm... I'm just gettin' warm.

[–] brenda_hankins 18 years ago

Since when was the movie ever trying to portray society as a whole? It's about ONE small town. Until you study psychology or experience something like this yourself, you won't understand how powerful GROUP THINKING is. Getting defensive about the issue doesn't help. I have actually experienced a work place where MANY guys didn't say anything about severe, open, displayed sexual assault. Why? In groups we often get scared or think, "No one else is saying anything so I shouldn't." Especially in small, tight-knit communities that happen to have a preconceived notion about females. It's not to say all guys are like this at all by any means - it's just certain groups, and it is FACT.

[–] jggarcao 8 years ago

Despite Robert's comment beeing right, it is very important to understand the reason why the movie was made this way.

This way, we think mainly/only on the main issue of all times in the society worldwide. There is a big difference in many aspects between men and women in terms of rights, value, opportunities, etc..

In this movie, altough strongly enphasized, it's a real problem existing for centuries and still today 12 years after.

"Bad" men portrayed in this movie, active or passive, are still the bigger part in society because the problem still exists.

Criticism must be made the other way - to be constructive - in order to improve or solve problems.

Happy new year everybody.