On the Waterfront

On the Waterfront, a 1954 motion picture staring Marlon Brando, Eva Marie Saint, Rod Steiger and Karl Malden, is a movie that highlighted corruption on east coast shipping yards of the time. The movie drew its inspiration from a series of exposes written by Malcom Johnson, a New York Sun reporter who would later earn a Pulitzer Prize for his work on the subject.

In my view, the movie is primarily about the internal struggle of Terry Malloy, Brando's character. Our text refers to moral implications, the truth of human nature and the struggle for human dignity, all which are applicable to this film. Malloy finds himself loosely associated with a mob-like union running the waterfront. In the early moments of the film Malloy convinces a fellow longshoreman to the roof of his building where, unknown to Malloy, he is to be thrown from the roof because he plans to speak to authorities about his knowledge of crimes committed by the union. Malloy is deeply troubled when he learns his actions lead to the death of his friend.

Malloy first meets the sister of the deceased longshoreman, Edie Doyle right after his body is discovered. Doyle initially engages Malloy because she is convinced he has knowledge that will help her determine who was responsible for the death of her brother. Malloy initially refutes her inquiries but Doyle obviously notices a deep but withdrawn sense of morality in him. She continues to pursue answers and eventually they begin to have romantic feelings for each other.

Through out the film Malloy is torn between a taste of the easy life with an association with the union and what he knows to be honorable and just. Malloy had been a prize fighter years earlier. He was preparing for a fight that would earn him a fight for the title if he had won. Moments before the fight Malloy was was convinced by his brother who works for the union to throw the fight so that corrupt and powerful people would win bets they had placed against him. As Malloy put is, he could have been somebody instead of being a nobody. It was at this point that Malloy seemed to loose his spirit and his moral character becomes subdued.

Malloy knows that it isn't right for people to have to pay kickbacks just to work on the waterfront, or that people should be hurt of killed for speaking out against what they feel are unjust working conditions or treatment. The movie concludes with Malloy telling authorities what he knows about the illegal practices of the union and leading the longshoreman to work against the union boss and his henchmen. Malloy finds his moral character and the strength to stand up to the union. Good triumphs over evil.

Waterfront's writer, Budd Schulberg, spent years of his life examining and researching all he could about the New York waterfront. He frequented the West side Manhattan and Jersey City bars speaking to longshoreman and union leaders before writing the screenplay. His work was rewarded with the 1954 Oscar for Best Writing, Story and Screenplay.

The movie's director, Elia Kazan also won the academy award for On the Waterfront. Kazan was a very controversial figure. In 1952 Kazan testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee during a time when American fear of Communism was at its peak. Kazan informed the committee on several of his acquaintances from the the Group Theater who once had been member of the Communist Party with Kazan. His testimony lead to the Hollywood blacklisting of these individuals.

In 1999, Kazan was awarded an honorary Oscar for lifetime achievements in the motion picture industry. Because of his 1952 testimony and failure to apologize for it in later years, several individuals and groups protested him and the award. There were demonstrations for and against Kazan outside the Academy Awards and some attending the event refused to stand or applaud in protest.

The summary of the movie at ModernTime.com brought up a very interesting point that I had not considered. The article stated that the “film will exemplify the way self-appointed tyrants can be defeated by right-thinking people in a vital democracy.” However points out that the movie avoids the main social issue of how these tyrants achieve such power in the first place.

The article also states that after more than 50 years the story no longer seem fresh. I agree with that statement to some extent. The cinematography is obviously dated and some of the acting is a bit over the top, particularly that of Rod Steiger. However the story of ordinary people rising to up against injustice in extraordinary acts of courage will be replayed in movies and history as long as movies are made and as long as humans walk the plant.