Some reviewers do not like that the actor playing Chavez plays him as a rather bland everyman as opposed to a great and charismatic leader. Truth be told, this portrayal doesn't bother me. Chavez's skills as a labor organizer come more from dogged determination and perseverance in the face of overwhelming odds, as opposed to a strong, magnetic personality. Chavez's strengths, as shown in the movie, is that the man simply did not give up in the face of injustice. I think the way Chavez was portrayed did justice to one of the most famous labor leaders in American history. The filmmakers do an excellent job in making the injustices migrant farm workers went through palpable. There is little romanticization of Chavez the man or the United Farm Workers, and the film is commendable for showing that his methods were controversial. For example, his holier-than-thou approach with the rank-and-file in the fields did cause inter-union conflict, and his apparently noble aim of using nonviolence as a tool for labor is not completely unquestionable, especially in the face of violent opposition from the growers. The film is limited in scope and straightforward in the way it presents its narrative, which focuses on Chavez's most famous fight, the Delano Grape Strike and Boycott. The audience is seldom lost, and gets a pretty good understanding of how the events played through.
Pluses include that the film does at least show that the United Farm Workers was a multi-ethnic union, in that it included both Hispanic and Filipino laborers, and that both were equally responsible for leading the fight against the growers (one scene shows the flag of the Philippines across from the Mexican flag). The film does devote equal time between the farmworkers and the growers, and shows that the growers, too, could find strength in union---although this plot seems rather undeveloped. John Malkovich does a superb job as a grower determined to fight to the bitter end. Chavez is portrayed not as a messianic figure or even a larger-than-life man like Abraham Lincoln, but as a simple union activist who had as his main life's goal justice for the working man. Nothing in this film is "epic"; it is really a simple story told well. "Cesar Chavez" most closely resembles another movie about the struggle between workers and their employers: "Matewan", by John Sayles. Both films are raw in depicting the fight between unions and employers; unlike "Matewan," "Cesar Chavez" does not feel as bleak, and, for those who enjoy large doses of cynicism in their movies, will be disappointed with the latter film, as it is far more hopeful in its tone.
This film is not without its flaws. I would have loved to have seen at least fifteen minutes devoted to Cesar Chavez's back-story as a union leader: how did he get into leading unions? Why did he feel the need to devote his life to migrant workers? How did he meet fellow union activists like Dolores Huerta? This could all have helped in fleshing out his character before we got to the main plot. The two minutes (or less) of exposition at the beginning was not sufficient as backstory. The film tries to balance its depiction of Chavez the labor leader with Chavez the family man. His turbulent relationship with his son is fairly undeveloped: the film could have benefited by spending more time on this subplot, or significantly less. As it stands, the subplot with the son who has problems with an uncommunicative father and with bigotry is rather choppily presented. There are also claims that the film is not true to history, particularly with the way Filipino members of the UFW have been seemingly relegated the background. I didn't think this was apparent, but it might have behooved filmmakers to have devoted a bit more time to the Filipino contribution to story of the Delano Strike and Boycott, particularly if they had any conflict with Chavez's methods. Lastly, this film, like the arguably better "Matewan", is highly polemic. The movie blatantly takes sides with who's "good" and who's "bad" on the political spectrum. Conservative viewers, who may like Chavez's lack of radicalism and his devotion to religion, will not like the persons this movie presents as "villains" (albeit unseen villains, except in historical newsreel footage).
In all, the film is a well-done story about an important part of American history. I highly recommend it. For comparison, watch "Matewan" on Netflix to get a better view of how American labor history is depicted on film.
Pluses include that the film does at least show that the United Farm Workers was a multi-ethnic union, in that it included both Hispanic and Filipino laborers, and that both were equally responsible for leading the fight against the growers (one scene shows the flag of the Philippines across from the Mexican flag). The film does devote equal time between the farmworkers and the growers, and shows that the growers, too, could find strength in union---although this plot seems rather undeveloped. John Malkovich does a superb job as a grower determined to fight to the bitter end. Chavez is portrayed not as a messianic figure or even a larger-than-life man like Abraham Lincoln, but as a simple union activist who had as his main life's goal justice for the working man. Nothing in this film is "epic"; it is really a simple story told well. "Cesar Chavez" most closely resembles another movie about the struggle between workers and their employers: "Matewan", by John Sayles. Both films are raw in depicting the fight between unions and employers; unlike "Matewan," "Cesar Chavez" does not feel as bleak, and, for those who enjoy large doses of cynicism in their movies, will be disappointed with the latter film, as it is far more hopeful in its tone.
This film is not without its flaws. I would have loved to have seen at least fifteen minutes devoted to Cesar Chavez's back-story as a union leader: how did he get into leading unions? Why did he feel the need to devote his life to migrant workers? How did he meet fellow union activists like Dolores Huerta? This could all have helped in fleshing out his character before we got to the main plot. The two minutes (or less) of exposition at the beginning was not sufficient as backstory. The film tries to balance its depiction of Chavez the labor leader with Chavez the family man. His turbulent relationship with his son is fairly undeveloped: the film could have benefited by spending more time on this subplot, or significantly less. As it stands, the subplot with the son who has problems with an uncommunicative father and with bigotry is rather choppily presented. There are also claims that the film is not true to history, particularly with the way Filipino members of the UFW have been seemingly relegated the background. I didn't think this was apparent, but it might have behooved filmmakers to have devoted a bit more time to the Filipino contribution to story of the Delano Strike and Boycott, particularly if they had any conflict with Chavez's methods. Lastly, this film, like the arguably better "Matewan", is highly polemic. The movie blatantly takes sides with who's "good" and who's "bad" on the political spectrum. Conservative viewers, who may like Chavez's lack of radicalism and his devotion to religion, will not like the persons this movie presents as "villains" (albeit unseen villains, except in historical newsreel footage).
In all, the film is a well-done story about an important part of American history. I highly recommend it. For comparison, watch "Matewan" on Netflix to get a better view of how American labor history is depicted on film.