imdbcom-03846 I'm so glad I saw this film! It shows the power of solidarity - people of all backgrounds, gender, and whatever other category might otherwise be used to separate them, uniting together to gain the power and dignity they deserve as human beings. It took some of them a while to learn, but the common struggle tears down walls. Rise up, and push everyone else up with you!

david-sarkies I gave this movie a high score not only because it is very anti-American, but it was made at a time where if you were anti-American you could be exiled, or even executed. 1953 was at the height of McCarthyism and the Hollywood Black List. Anything remotely smelling of communism was considered traitorous and a danger to the fulfillment of the American Dream.Suddenly appears Salt of the Earth, a movie where capitalism is attacked and the idea of liberty and truth is spat on. This movie challenges those who watch it to realise that America was not a land of equality and that even in the 1950's there were people living in poverty.The movie is based around a Zinc mine and a Latin-American community. The Mexican's men work in the mine while the women slave away in conditions which are way below the poverty level and the Anglo families who also work in the mine live a much higher lifestyle. There are problems at the mine as well for the Anglo's are treated with respect while the Mexicans are expendable, and as such they decide to strike. When the court orders the miners to cease striking, the women take up the job.When I look at this movie I see a movie that stands up and protests against the lies that enshrouded the Fifties. At this time women's rights were ignored and equality among the people was only something that the white people enjoyed. It wasn't until a few years later that the Negro equal rights movement began, but even then it was equal rights for Negros, and not Mexicans, Indians, or Asians. What this movie does is it attacks the American way of life and shows us that equality is a myth that will never be reached as long as equality remains only among the white people.When this movie was released in 1953 it caused a lot of anger among those who wanted to "protect the American way of life." It was shown in very few cinemas, and those that did were watched by the FBI and anybody who went inside were noted as potential seditioners. It is interesting to note that at that time there were more people searching for communists than there were communists. They say that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, but I can't help thinking that their eternal vigilance is going in the wrong direction.

Jackson Booth-Millard Seeing how the 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die book has been really reliable with film choices, this was another one I was looking forward to trying. Based on the true events, this is about the strike against the Empire Zinc Company mine in New Mexico in 1953, dealing with prejudice against the Mexican-American workers and safety issues. Begun by Ramon Quintero (Juan Chacón, it started first with miners themselves demanding the changes, but with them being treated like second class, the wives get involved too. Roman's wife Esperanza (Rosaura Revueltas, also narrating) who, three months pregnant, was part of the large amount of women, the miners wives, playing a vital part in the strike, against their husbands wishes. In the end, they may not have won the strike, and the wives convince them to drop it, but they realise that prejudice and poor treatment aren't always imposed by outside forces. Also starring Will Geer as Sheriff, David Wolfe as Barton, Mervin Williams as Hartwell, David Sarvis as Alexander, Henrietta Williams as Teresa Vidal and William Rockwell as Kimbrough. This film I read made a big impact in the political and journalistic establishments, and developed a cult following, I can see why that would be, it is a good drama. Very good!

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.