|
NORTH COUNTRY
by Judge J. Howard Sundermann
North Country is about the first class action lawsuit
ever filed for sexual harassment. Courtroom scenes are shown
briefly at the beginning, and the film ends in a court hearing,
but most of the screen time is about the events leading up to
the suit. The film is loosely based on real events and a book
that was written about the entire situation, but is not by any
means a docu-drama, the details are fiction. The film is made
in the tradition of Silkwood and Norma Rae, but
unlike Norma Rae, there is already a union and they are
one of the bad guys.
 The lead character,
Josie, leaves an abusive relationship and goes home to Northern
Minnesota with her two children. The only job that pays decent
money there is in the mines where her father works. She gets
a job at the mine and connects with the few other women fellow
employees. Their bosses and the men who work at the mine are
hostile and clearly do not want women working there. The harassment
portrayed that Josie and the other woman receive is brutal and
graphic, everyone seems to be in on it. Even those who do not
participate tolerate it, laugh at the crude jokes, and certainly
would back their fellow workers if accusations were made.
Josie goes to her bosses to complain but does not even get a
hearing. She is told to come back when you have a real problem.
She also cannot convince her fellow woman workers to join her
in a complaint as they say they need the job and would rather
put up with the deplorable conditions than get fired. As a last
resort she goes to a local lawyer who is at first reluctant to
help, but finally agrees because the suit is the first of its
kind.
The film graphically portrays the difficulties woman encounter
in trying to achieve equal status when they go into jobs that
have traditionally been exclusively male. Josie is told she
is taking a job away from a man who needs it to support his family;
she replies that she needs it for the same reason. The story
is told totally from Josie's point of view; almost everyone else
depicted is evil.
The film is very well done; it is gripping and extremely well
acted. Charlize Theron plays Josie. She showed in Monster
that she is not just another pretty face and can act, and delivers
another terrific performance here. She is the underdog against
the large corporation and her fellow male workers. Her father's
character is particularly well performed. He works in the mine
and has the same mind set as his fellow male workers about women's
place in the mine, but he sees what is happening to his daughter
and is caught in the middle. His speech in the union hall where
he finally resolves his conflict is one of the dramatic highlights
of the film.
The film does, in my view, have three flaws. First, the harassment
seems a bit over the top. Every male minor is shown to be a
grinning moron, who spends most of his time planning the next
disgusting thing to do to the woman workers. The second problem
is the court room scenes. I know that filmmakers are not there
to conduct law classes but to dramatize and entertain, but these
scenes take that to the limit. The film's legal advisor was
either asleep, underpaid or ignored. The latitude allowed as
to the sexual history of the witnesses is beyond belief. Lawyers
continue to question a witness after several warnings to stop,
and when the answer is badgered out of them, there is no objection
and the testimony is admitted. Speeches are made rather than
questions asked, and the "big dramatic moment" where
people stand up for Josie is a bit far fetched. But, I have
to admit, the scenes do work as film entertainment. Please leave
your "Wigmore on Evidence" home when you go. The third
problem is the heavy-handed political message. As the film shows
terrible sexual harassment, we are shown in the background several
times the televised Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill hearings.
Clearly the message is that we should believe Hill. It seems
to say that if any harassment is going on anywhere; then we must
then believe any such charge made no matter what the motive or
how unsubstantiated the evidence. But, with these asides, it
is a film worth seeing.
Posted November 7, 2005
|
