SnoopyStyle Esperanza Quintero is a downtrodden wife of a miner in New Mexico. She's sad to be pregnant again raising a child in the dead-end place. The village was called San Marcos when she was a child but it is now strictly a company town called Zinc Town. Her husband Ramon is trying to organize for wage equality with the white miners but prejudice is against them. After the dangerous conditions kill a miner, the men shut down the mine and vote to strike. The women struggle to find respect from their own husband as they demand sanitation.The story is compelling. It's a simple story of the underdog. I really don't like the narration and the amateur actors do struggle. The idea of the blacklisted filmmakers is more impressive than the product. The directions are static and the acting lacks power.

runamokprods If a bit awkward and rough edged in form, a bit on the nose in it's politics, and a bit melodramatic in it's telling, this is an historically important early 'independent' film. Made by artists largely blacklisted from Hollywood for liberal beliefs, and/or for refusing to testify against others, this was the only film in America's history that was itself blacklisted, and kept out of theaters despite positive reviews. Yet what it preached; basic dignity and rights for Hispanics, for women, and for workers could hardly be seen, even then, as a real threat to America -- had it not been for hysteria towards all things liberal, progressive, or intellectual –- those things being lumped in with communist revolutionary activity. It's remarkable for a 1954 film to see an American film with all the leading roles being Hispanic, and played by Hispanics, not white actors in 'brown face'. Even more impressive is the film's early but potent feminist viewpoint. The issue of women also adds a nice level of complexity to a story that could have felt too simplistic in terms of right and wrong. The male Hispanic workers are almost as guilty of oppressing their wives as the Anglo bosses are of oppressing their Hispanic workers. So there's an acknowledgment that everyone still had a lot to learn about creating an equal society in those days. Along with the occasionally awkward acting (most of the cast were non-professionals) and occasionally too blatant speech-making, there are some very moving, human and inspiring moments. And in a nice twist of fate, after being blacklisted from theaters and kept from the public, the film now resides on the national registry of important films.

tomgillespie2002 The propagation of fear of the "other", or the unknown, is a fervent device used by governments for the control of the masses (the population). In the 1940's and 1950's in the west (particularly the United States - and to a lesser extent the UK), the common object of fear was the spread of Communism. In 1947, this paranoia about the infiltration of socialist ideologies into US politics, culminated in the organisation of HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee), which began a witch hunt for any persons involving themselves (allegedly) in Communist politics and ideas. Propaganda was in full swing by 1954, and the hunt was extended into the arts, particularly Hollywood - with its "Harbouring" of socialism - which led to the imprisonment of "The Hollywood Ten" which included the writers and filmmakers involved in the making of Salt of the Earth - which was inevitably blacklisted.With a largely non-professional cast (only five were professionals), this neo-realist style film tells the story - based on real events - of a workers strike for equality of pay and conditions for American- Mexicans working in the Delaware Zinc mines in New Mexico. Told from the perspective of Esperanza Quintero (Rosaura Revueltas - one of the five actual actors), the film opens with a domestic scene and her narration, as she outlines their social conditions, and the small community. Her husband, Ramon (incredibly heartfelt performance by non-professional, Juan Chacon), signifies the "traditional" male, whose displays a reluctance for his wife to involve herself with nothing but the upkeep of the home, and the raising of their children (not a particularly revelatory experience in the 1950's).After the failure of the men - bound by union restrictions - to successfully picket the mine, the women of the village take their places, creating a barrier to the entrance. This destabilises the workers union to begin with, and fundamentally disrupts the home life of Ramon and Esperanza - whose conventional roles are reversed, creating an emasculated man-of-the-house. The reactions of the mining management/owners leads to the arrest of all the women, which creates an even greater sense of solidarity between the women, and eventually (once they realise the importance of this strike) the men.Within the context of this film, it is hard to believe in this day that this film (which perpetuates socialist ideas - Communist theories) was regarded as dangerous to the point of being blacklisted. However, what this part of history highlights is that these political ideas are simply dangerous to a hegemony of market power. That is, the fear of Communism (or socialism) is simply that it would - in theory - give equal rights and fair wages to the workers of any company or corporation. Of course, if socialism did spread, this would mean the obliteration of the free market economy that has so far simply created a greater divide of rich and poor in the West, and ultimately led to such incredible greed, and intrinsically creating the banking crisis of 2008.With a strong cast of actors and locals, this film is both enlightening and emotionally mature. It is itself a piece of pure propaganda, but it skillfully emphasises the socialist ideal of equality. The film also raises some interesting feminist questions - a movement that didn't really become part of popular culture until the late '60's and '70's - and gravitates towards alternative social roles for women. It was of course ignored by the Hollywood system, but eventually found audiences within film schools and workers unions. A common reaction was astounding: The Hollywood Reporter (a trade magazine) made a bold and frivolous statement claiming that the film was made under the direct orders of the Kremlin. It is an incredibly important piece of social history, that is also successful as an interesting and entertaining slice of cinema.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

dougdoepke In the early 1950's, film studios were under attack from two directions. Small screen TV had put a big dent in theatre attendance, while the Mc Carthyite cold war had put a big chill in the cultural milieu. A formerly lucrative industry found itself suddenly reeling, with a future no longer very certain. In short, the commercial winds had changed and Hollywood needed an overhaul. To meet TV's challenge, studio moguls introduced big screen Cinerama, biblical spectaculars and full-cleavage romance goddesses; to please congressional investigators, they fired unrepentant left-wingers and blackballed them from future employment. Social commentary, never much of a staple, disappeared entirely, while the escapism of Westerns, Tennessee Williams, and bedroom innuendo took over. The 50's had arrived with a vengeance. Against this backdrop, Salt of the Earth appears to have parachuted in from another planet. In retrospect, the film's look, feel, and values, plus use of non-actors, represent an anti- Hollywood aesthetic in just about about its purest form. Instead of the usual ersatz, there are company shacks, a desolate land, and real workers sometimes speaking a foreign tongue about hot water and labor solidarity. This was and is about as far removed from the fabled dream factory as any commercial film before or since. To my knowledge, Salt is the only professional movie made in America by known communists. And though I've seen it a number of times, I've yet to detect a theme that any conscionable liberal would disagree with. The emphasis throughout is on reform, not revolution. So why was the movie so thoroughly ostracized. Aside from the obvious negatives, there are two aspects that challenge patriotic assumptions about the power of the individual. The strikers win because of their solidarity, that is, their capacity to overcome internal divisions in pursuit of common goals. But more importantly, theirs is a leaderless solidarity. Unlike so many other labor films, no one person arises in Salt to take charge or direct the actions of the others. No single iconic personality dominates. Community of labor is the real agent of change and victor here, while no one individual can be pointed to as indispensable. Second, through the pivotal role of Esperanza (a professional actress), the individual is shown as flowering amidst the common effort. Far from being submerged in a faceless mass, she discovers through participation a heightened sense of individualness and a wealth of hidden talents. Moreover, a stronger, more confident Esperanza means a stronger, more confident strike effort. In short, it's not individuality versus the group, but individuality from within the group. I don't know how subversive these ideas ultimately are, but I do know they challenge decades of iconic film-making, in which the omnipotent movie star, a John Wayne or a Sylvester Stallone, is transformed into a demi-god and exalted above the common folk. Against this grain, Salt seeks to empower its audience, not dis-empower. There are many fine touches in the film. I'm glad the workers are not romanticized, nor are the bosses or their law-enforcement allies caricatured. Instead the hardscrabble families are treated as ordinary people, able, nevertheless, to act intelligently beyond the cultural limits placed upon them. Ordinarily, the viewer would expect a heavy hand with such politically charged material; however, the producers have the good sense to hew to a lighter approach that features unexpected deposits of humor, as when the men whine about being forced to hang out the wash. This furnishes both a good laugh and an incisive piece of social commentary. In fact, most of the movie's considerable humor comes from its strong feminist subtext, certainly a striking exception to the Ozzie and Harriet stereotypes of the period. Despite an obvious appeal to cultural historians, Salt is much more than a mere artifact. There is, of course, no more Mc Carthy-led purge, and miners' wives have long since gotten hot water and indoor plumbing thanks to labor militancy. Nevertheless, the film's social themes continue to reach beyond that long-ago period. Women continue to strive for equality, just as the workers' wives in Salt struggled as domestics against the chauvinism of their husbands. Moreover, the need for racial equality remains as pressing now as it was in Michael Wilson's prescient screenplay. And, of course, there's labor's ongoing battle to get something like a fair share of the wealth it produces. Far from being a dead artifact, the power of this suppressed treasure along with the courage of the men and women who made it, continues to echo across the decades, furnishing inspiration to generations to come.