There are far too many people these days who have no idea
who Cesar Chavez was. Having grown up in the sixties I remembered the name and
some of what transpired. I will admit that I didn't know most of the details
but in following up with some reading after watching this movie I remembered
most and found some more disturbing aspects of the film that happened. Mostly
these involved an attempt to twist history just a tad to make it suit the
current political atmosphere as opposed to what happened then.
For those who don't know the movie depicts the life of
Chavez, a farm worker in California who struggled for the rights of field
workers to unionize in an attempt to have better working conditions and fairer
pay for the work that they did. The movie offers a quick voice over of his
early life and move to the area and jumps head first into his work trying to
form the union and protect the workers.
Rather than sit comfortably in an office while trying to get
things going, Chavez packs up his family and takes them to the fields where the
workers actually live. Working there himself he develops a camaraderie with
many of them. They know that he's been there with them and are willing to stand
beside him when the time comes. But the owners of the fields where they work
are not nearly as fond of Chavez.
What we have is a stereotypical depiction of greedy land
owners and cracker law officers that for all we know could be true. Depicting
them this way though just seems like lazy story telling rather than depicting
reality. It's as if in a rush to show just who the bad guys were laid beside
the good guys this was the least common denominator. In actuality the depth of
character for both sides seems rather lacking in the movie. All that's missing
is white and black hats.
Amidst all of this there is a decent presentation of the
facts of what happened with Chavez and his search for justice. Rather than use
violence to achieve his goals he adopts the non-violent tactics of Gandhi
instead, a wise decision. While the
goons the land owners employ try to push them around and the police do little
to protect them, the workers stand there ground while picketing. A strike break
works to their disadvantage but Chavez changes tactics to move them forward.
Rather than focus on the entire issue he instead focuses on
one particular grower. Picketing and striking against a single grape grower,
garnering support from the people of California to not purchase wines made by
this company, he eventually gets them to the bargaining table. The other owners
don't follow suit and the strike continues. The struggle and the end results
make up the majority of the film.
The weakest portion of the film deals with the man himself
and his family. Momentary glimpses into the struggles his family faced with
both the cause he gave his life to and the effects it had on them feel glossed
over rather than explored. A history book or documentary could tell you of the
struggle. Why not talk about the man?
Michael Pena, an actor I've long thought deserved better,
turns in a lackluster performance here. There is no depth to the character of
Chavez as he depicts him here. That could be the fault of the script and if so
he should have fought harder to get them to let us see the real man instead of
the paper cut out here.
As to bringing in current affairs into the mix we have other
famous people depicted as those black and white hat caricatures I felt the film
was full of. Richard Nixon is depicted as doing everything in his power to put
an end to the struggle for unionization. A quick google search of "cesar
chavez + richard nixon" yields 4 pages of nothing more than references to
this movie. I'd honestly like to know if he did what they claim here. The same
holds true for Ronald Reagan, exclusively having his political affiliation
mentioned as Republican. He's shown here as trying to support the field owners
and not the workers. No mention is made of the fact that Reagan he introduced a
bill in the California Senate that would permit field workers to unionize under
secret ballot elections. If in reality he helped them achieve their goals why
demonize him in the movie? Unless the reason was to attempt to break down a
political icon of the right by showing only one possible side of him.
On the whole the movie was interesting and made me want to
learn more but at the same time felt as if they chose to canonize Chavez rather
than show the true accomplishments that he achieved. A good biography these
days should show the good, the bad and the ugly of the person being discussed.
Rather than do so we are presented with an uncharismatic character in the lead.
No where, with the exception of one short sentence, is the connection to his
following if Saul Alinsky discussed. No where is the mention of his stance
against illegal immigrants. There is no mention of his connection to Michael
Dederich or his cult tactics used to create a communal situation. When you
choose to raise someone on a pedestal and ignore the bad side of them you set
them up to take a fall even greater than they could have done on their own.
I still think that there were some wonderful things that
Chavez achieved for the people that he represented. I think that the reality of
it was that he was a symbol for those people and didn't accomplish those goals
all alone, that there were so many others involved. I didn't get that from this
film. Unfortunately as depicted I found myself more inclined to disbelieve what
was presented rather than find inspiration. Sadly that's what Chavez's life
should have done, inspire. I didn't find that here.
Click here to order.
No comments:
Post a Comment