The Angry Silence (Dir. Guy Green) (1960)
Richard Attenborough stars in this anti-union picture in the role of Jesus Christ himself, crucified for his beliefs. Visions of John Proctor's "my name is my name" are recalled as Attenborough's character undergoes his titular struggle: his coworkers won't talk to him. Of course, they also throw a brick through his bitch landlady's window and kick him off the soccer squad. It's quite the tribulation. To be a little more fair, events do eventually escalate, and I think this film is certainly well made on a technical and dramatic level. I just don't believe that makes up for its agenda: to obfuscate what is in the best interests of the average worker on behalf of the powerful.
Consider the opening incident of the film. A women is nearly maimed by running equipment on the factory floor. The head of the union chapter relays the event to the boss saying they need to install safety rails to the machines. The boss responds that he likes the rails. They're rusting in the basement at the moment because because the workers themselves don't like how they hinder their work. Of course it's the workers who favor raw productivity over their own safety. This scenario isn't at all contrived to shift blame.
This begins the uniform pattern of the film in defending the dutiful worker while also defending his well intentioned employer who the film has the balls to claim isn't even a part of the core conflict. The film is careful to understand the plight of the most dutiful worker of all, Attenborough's character. It goes to great lengths explaining how he could feel victimized by the actions of coworkers but it ignores completely how strikers can feel cheated by a scab. It might portray their disdain, but it never pays the same attention to what drives it. We might see how a group action can conflict with individual circumstances, but not how individual action can counteract the sacrifice of the many. This selfishness goes unchecked.
This one-way understanding also takes place when examining motivations of the two groups in question. I have no gripe with portraying a man conflicted with financial stress unsure about any loss of work and how his family might suffer for it. Strikes are scary times wrought with insecurity I'd imagine, but the film doesn't show how the company is responsible for that financial insecurity and how that's a calculated tool to suppress any collective bargaining. The company supposedly doesn't play a role in any of this.
Their strike ends with the bosses up top caving immediately. After all, strikes are merely over trivial concerns like not having enough toilet paper. The boys can wait them out at the pub for a few days and do it over some pints. Thus
sacrifice isn't really a sacrifice at all. Any respectable adult only needs the
hardwork union. Only lazy thugs have the time to skip out on work over frivolous concerns. You can see how this uncharitable interpretation of collective action might spark skepticism. There's only one side worth rooting for here, and unsurprisingly it's the one backed by the powerful which is of course claimed to also be best for the average Joe. After all, a member of a democratic body becomes
so equal [they're] nothing. Yes, that fascist sentiment is uttered in this film in a serious tone.
To be clear, I'm not somebody who believes unions can do no wrong. Any hierarchy is capable of evil. A majority's decisions aren't always dictated by the strength of their moral standing. I believe these very broad critiques are applicable to any number of institutions and are not specific to unions. They could certainly fuel a more even keeled film similar to this one. This specific film, however, is never after a multi-faceted view of a conflict driven by subjective perspectives and varying power dynamics. It's about unions for a calculated reason. It's a film that chooses a side from the outset, and proceeds to reinforce that foregone conclusion at every turn. This harrowing tale's protagonist never once considers his company's role in his precarious situation. His only enemy is those who place the last straw on his aching back. His betrayal sparks retaliation, and the film desperately wants you to focus on that retaliation.
Perhaps the greatest irony is that the strikers are portrayed as the ones who aren't open to reasonable discourse. Of course, striking is typically a last resort to opening a reasonable discourse, one driven by the silence of the management. Their silence however isn't very
angry, and
The Indifferent Silence wouldn't be as catchy a title.