| On-line resources from the American Studies Resources Centre at LJMU |
|
McCarthyism
Read more about On the Waterfront in the Internet Movie database. |
A pantheon of fifties
American film-making might include John Ford's The
Searchers or Alfred Hitchcock's Rear
Window, while the top box office successes of the decade included
White Christmas, Cinerama Holiday and The Ten
Commandments. Yet if one film of that era is required to illustrate
the unique power of the cinema to resonate with its time, and become an
emblem for it, On the Waterfront
would be a strong contender. While the image of
Marlon Brando in the film has become an icon of 'the fifties', On
the Waterfront relates most strongly to the post-war decade that preceded
its release in 1954. Context is provided by three interrelated circles
of events, the first of which is the ideological and cultural conflict
that dominated the late forties and early fifties, and which was fought
out in Hollywood as well as Washington. The second concerns the changing
political economy of the American film industry, and finally there is
the history of the New York waterfront itself. There are a number
of reasons for the dramatic change in dominant concerns following the
end of the war, not least the breaking up of the wartime alliance and
the beginning of the Cold War. Out of these new responsibilities came
a right wing Republican agenda which blamed successive Democratic administrations
for what was seen as a reverse in America's interests. Soviet dominance
in eastern Europe and its testing of an atomic bomb in 1949, together
with the victory of Communist China in the same year, all served to focus
attention on the new totalitarian enemy. The House Committee on Un-American
Activities first explained these reverses by pointing at enemies within,
most notably in their successful charges against the former State Department
official Alger Hiss. The same institution also pointed a finger at Hollywood,
and by the early fifties the studios were actively participating in a
blacklist of writers and artists who were not fully prepared to co-operate
with the FBI and the Committee. |
| McCarthyism |
The one individual
who came to personify the anti-communist 'investigations' in the first
half of the fifties was Senator Joseph McCarthy, who did much to stoke
up the flames of domestic paranoia with his repeated claims of State Department
betrayal. McCarthy helped to scare liberals away from a populist stance,
and to convince them of the need for elites to guide the process of democracy.
The Popular Front alliance between liberals and radicals that had such
a cultural impact in the late thirties and the war years was now splintered
and disabled. Whittaker Chambers, the man who had accused Hiss, published
his influential book Witness in 1952, and by 1954, when McCarthy's sudden
decline began with his censure by the Senate, the informer - or friendly
witness - had become a contemporary hero. The blacklist was
only the most important of a number of shocks to affect Hollywood in the
years after the war. From their peak in 1946 attendances began a rapid
decline that was to last until the late fifties, while anti-trust action
began a process by which the major studios divested themselves of their
holdings of theatres. A brief wave of social problem films came to an
end as producers increasingly avoided social themes as likely to attract
the attention of politicians or American Legion pickets. The doubling
of GNP in the post-war decade both changed the agenda and provided alternatives
to cinema-going, the most important of which in the 1950s was the fast
growing television industry. Defensive studio bosses turned away from
social realism in search of audiences, and new techniques such as 3-D
and Cinemascope were seized upon. More gradual, but more effective, were
the success of epics and musicals (now mostly in colour) that underscored
the cinema's advantage over the small screen, and a slow recognition of
the importance of the young as a key niche for movie marketing. With its
social theme and location shooting, and in particular its close observation
of wrking class life, On the Waterfront
was far from typical of its time. |
| The waterfront and organised crime |
The final historical
arena which the film draws on is that of the New York and New Jersey waterfront
in the late forties and early fifties. There was widespread interest in
various forms of corruption involving the International Longshoreman's
Association, which was eventually expelled from the American Federation
of Labour in 1954, New York politicians, and the stevedore and shipping
companies. Rank and file discontent with the system, and with the ILA
leadership, grew in the period, as violence, loansharking, and corrupt
hiring practices - including the 'shape up' - were publicised by journalists.
Also pressing for reform were the so called 'waterfront priests', notably
Father John Corridan, who had campaigned on behalf of rebel longshoremen
since arriving at the Xavier Labour School in the Hell's Kitchen district
of New York in 1946. Hearings conducted
by Senator Estes Kefauver into organised crime paid particular attention
to the New York waterfront, and they attracted national attention to the
issue when they were televised in 1951. In response to public concern
Governor Dewey of New York established a Waterfront Crime Commission,
which began its own hearings in late 1952; its report, issued the next
year, called for changes, including an end to the shape up. (Despite a
number of reforms the ILA narrowly survived as the main bargaining agent,
winning a ballot for recognition against a rival AFL union in 1953). This was the particular
social problem that Elia Kazan turned his attention to in the early fifties,
first with Arthur Miller, and then with Budd Schulberg. Kazan, an Anatolian
Greek who had been brought to New York at the age of four, had come of
age in the political and cultural movements of the Depression. He first
gained acting recognition as the 'proletarian thunderbolt' in Clifford
Odets' agit-prop drama Waiting for Lefty; his hostility towards
what he saw as the privileges of middle class America also led him to
membership of the American Communist Party for nearly two years from 1934.
An eager disciple of the leaders of the Group Theatre, Kazan later applied
his knowledge of and commitment to Stanislavsky's theories to the Actors
Studio, which he co-founded in 1947. |
| Why did Kazan name names to HUAC? |
In the late forties
Kazan became a successful two coast director, working on both large budget
social problem films and smaller budget semi-documentary films at Twentieth
Century Fox, while directing the key work of Arthur Miller (All
my Sons and Death of a Salesman)
and Tennessee Williams (A Streetcar
Named Desire) on Broadway. His cinematic ambitions increased as he
planned a series of more independent productions, including the film version
of 'Streetcar', and scripts with John Steinbeck (Viva Zapata) and Miller.
Arthur Miller's script,
The Hook, was based on a pre-war case of rank and file action against
six Brooklyn ILA locals which had been long been controlled by notorious
criminals, including members of the Anastasia family. When Kazan and Miller
proposed the script to Columbia Pictures in 1951 there were political
objections which may have contributed to Miller's withdrawal - to Kazan
unnecessary - from the project. Meanwhile the novelist Budd Schulberg,
who had also been a Communist party member in the thirties (1937-1940),
had begun researching his own waterfront script, in particular by talking
extensively to Father Corridan and a number of rebel longshoremen including
Tony Mike deVincenzo, who had testified to the New York Crime Commission
and declared himself 'proud to be a rat'. When Kazan contacted Schulberg
the writer worked up a script which was offered to and rejected by all
the major studios; only with the support of the independent producer Sam
Spiegel, whose previous films included The African Queen (1951), did the
production proceed, with filming beginning on location in Hoboken in the
bitter winter of 1953. Before the film went
ahead both Kazan and Schulberg had been involved in appearances before
the House Committee on Un-American Activities, which had begun a second
series of hearings in 1951. The Committee, working with FBI information,
called before it individuals who had a Communist Party record, and some
fellow-travellers. In the late forties witnesses who had refused to answer
questions on the basis of the first amendment to the Constitution (the
'Hollywood Ten') had served periods of up to a year in prison. In the
new hearings witnesses who declined to answer questions about their political
pasts needed to plead the fifth amendment, but such action led to their
being blacklisted in the film, television and radio industries. Kazan,
who had previously stated that he would refuse to testify, 'named names'
before the Committee in April 1952, to the shock of his friends and admirers.
(He named those fellow members of a Communist Party cell in the Group
theatre). Budd Schulberg had similarly been a 'co-operative witness' in
1951. Whereas Kazan has
sometimes been ambivalent about his action, Schulberg has consistently
justified his testimony, arguing that he was a 'premature anti-Stalinist'
and referring to the fate of Soviet writers that he had met when attending
a Writers Congress in Moscow in 1934. While self-interest was clearly
a key motive for Kazan's volte face - he has admitted that - there was
an argument at the time that communism was an internal threat, and that
secrecy served its purposes. (In addition 25,000 Americans died in Korea
in the period 1951-3). At some point in the early fifties Kazan joined
the American Committee for Cultural Freedom (ACCF), which had been formed
in 1951 to represent the views of anti-communist liberals. |
| The film opens to critical acclaim |
The completed film
opened in New York in July 1954 to popular and critical acclaim; it was
to receive eight Oscars, including that for Best Picture, at the 1955
Academy Awards ceremony. On the Waterfront presents the labour conflict
and corruption of the time in terms of the experiences of one docker,
Terry Malloy (Marlon Brando) who begins to have doubts about his life
from the moment he is forced by his brother Charley (Rod Steiger) and
by Johnny Friendy (Lee J. Cobb), the leading officials of the union local,
to set up someone to be murdered. The man had been talking to the Crime
Commission, and with this opening scene the film introduces the notion
that such testimony is considered to be informing, 'ratting on your friends'
by the men and particularly the union bosses. What is presented
as Molloy's moral reawakening is encouraged first by Edie Doyle (Eva Marie
Saint), the sister of the man killed, and then by Father Barry (Karl Malden),
the 'waterfront priest' character. Terry's dilemma remains the pivot of
the film, in part because of the emphasis of the script, which itself
fits Hollywood's own preference for individual heroes, but also because
of the power and originality of Brando's performance. Only with the murder
of Charley, following a taxi cab journey in which he fails to get his
brother to 'dummy up' (ie not to testify to the commission), does the
tension drop. Now Terry's testimony to the commission can be seen as revenge
for his brother's death, and after Terry gives evidence against the union
leaders he goes down to the dock to take his revenge personally on Johnny
Friendly. Some writers have
seen the film as little more than a vehicle for Schulberg and Kazan to
justify their own 'informing', and have stressed the role of the Catholic
priest in manipulating Terry's 'conscience'. Yet the film is more complex
and genuinely powerful than this view would imply. There is first the
location shooting in mid-winter Hoboken, using real longshoremen as extras
as well as a number of authentic boxing 'heavies'. Furthermore there is
a strong sense, at least in the first hour, of ordinary life, captured
in a way that recalls the style of Italian neo-realism as much as traditional
Hollywood. On the tenement roof, where Terry looks after his own pigeons,
and those of the murdered Joey Doyle, we get a strong sense of his private
life, and of a vulnerability and sensitivity behind the macho posturing
of the world of work. In addition Terry is given a psychological
depth which helps explain his behaviour. In the famous taxi-cab scene
Terry Malloy complains to his brother that he 'could've been a contender'
and could have had class, had not Charley and Johnny ended his chances
of a title shot by forcing him to throw fights for 'the short-end money'.
The Crime investigator, visiting Terry on his roof, also reminds him of
his boxing career, and his sense of unfulfilled talent and personal ambition.
Brando's anguished performance is perhaps the most striking example of
a Method approach that related the motivations in the script to real memories
and resentments in the actor's life, and therefore brought these feelings
to the screen. Many of the cast were recruited from the Actors Studio,
and a number of other scenes, including the long take of Terry and Edie
Doyle first talking in a playground, are classics of naturalistic acting
style and emotional realism. Brando's suggestion
of a mix of toughness and sensitivity, and his dramatic rebellion against
the prevailing norms of his peers and elders arguably connects the film
with those that starred that other Method icon of the mid-fifties, James
Dean. Kazan directed Dean in East of Eden, and Kazan's friend Nicholas
Ray - out of a similar thirties milieu of social theatre and radical politics
- directed Rebel Without a Cause in 1955. (Brando, 30 in 1954, was fifteen
or more years younger than the top male box-office stars of the fifties,
including John Wayne, Gary Cooper and James Stewart). While the Kazan-Brando
film looks backward to the thirties in its working class locale, the Ray-Dean
film is more characteristic of the new emphasis of Hollywood on the problems
that affluence was bringing the middle classes. |
| The film as a commentary on its times |
Hollywood's new responsibilities
in the war years led some to look forward to less escapist, more adult
American movies. Certainly the socially conscious writers and directors
who came to the film capital from the East hoped for a more decentralised
process of film-making as the old authoritarian studios lost their power.
Except for the most successful directors, and for a number of B pictures,
such hopes were generally unrealised. Yet On
the Waterfront did set a standard for a more co-operative film-making
tradition based in New York; Sam Spiegel strictly organised the production
but the circumstances allowed the creative personnel more autonomy than
was normal under studio supervision. The film sounded different because
of Leonard Bernstein's only film score, which used discordance to point
up the scenes on the roof, and the understated, 'unHollywood' romance
between Terry and Edie, even if it also accentuated the melodrama of the
finale. Similarly the distinctive visual qualities, from day-time smoky
vistas across the Hudson to striking night blacks, owed much to the cinematography
of Boris Kaufman, who had worked decades earlier with Jean Vigo. The characters generally
avoid stereotype. Karl Malden drew some of his character from the real
life Catholic priest, while the Eva Marie Saint role - while also structurally
important in pushing Terry towards what is defined as his public responsibility
- is not the one-dimensional figure of much female imagery of the day.
Her desire to investigate her brother's death is
the catalyst for the action, and the observation of her emerging relationship
with Terry allows her - perhaps until the final scenes - a believable
independence. Terry's use of the phrase 'You go to Hell', to Father Barry,
required a bending of the Production Code rules by censor Joseph Breen. Terry's final walk
to work, following his fight with Johnny Friendly, was seen by the British
film director Lindsay Anderson as fascist, involving a sudden transfer
of loyalty to a new leader by the watching, apathetic crowd. Although
the 'walk', with its suggestions of religious symbolism, overstates the
sense that there has been real change On the Waterfront, Malloy hardly behaves
as a leader, while Friendly is seen shouting that he will be back, and
the men are shown to be little more than cautiously admiring of Terry's
exhibition of his old boxing skills.
In short, the film
shows little of the collective action that was an element of the real
events, concentrating as it does - characteristically, for the time -
on issues of personal identity. It also only hints at the role of business
in the waterfront corruption through a number of references to a mysterious
waterfront tycoon. Yet there much in the portrayal, including the general
sense of alienation, that does have roots in the documentary evidence.
|
| You've seen the film - now read the books |
Anderson, Lindsay,
'The Last Sequence of "On the
Waterfront", Sight & Sound, 24, 3, 1955, pp. 127-30;
see also the reply by Robert Hughes, Sight & Sound, 24, 4, 1955. (An exchange on interpretations of
the ending of the film). Biskind, Peter, "The
Politics of Power in 'On the Waterfront'",
Film Quarterly, Fall 1975. Hey, Kenneth, 'Ambivalence
as a Theme in 'On the Waterfront',
in Peter C. Rollins, ed., Hollywood
as Historian, Revised edition, 1998. (The best single survey
of the film). Navasky, Victor,
Naming Names, Viking, 1980. (See on the argument that the film justifies
informing to the House Committee on Un-American Activities). Young, Jeff (ed.),
Kazan on Kazan, Faber & Faber, 1999. (Good on Kazan's directing
style and approach). |
| Back to the top of the page | |
|
|
|
| American
Studies Today Online is
published by American Studies Resources Centre, Aldham Robarts Library, Liverpool John Moores University, Maryland Street, Liverpool L1 9DE, United Kingdom. Tel 0151-231 3241 International(+44)151-231 3241 E-mail info@americansc.org.uk |
The
views expressed are those of the contributors, and not necessarily those
of the Centre or the University. © Liverpool John Moores University and the Contributors, 2011 Articles and reviews in this journal may be freely reproduced for use in subscribing institutions only, provided that the source is acknowledged. |
Home Page | Online Magazine | Forum | Book reviews | Hot links | Directory | Degree courses | Events | Services | Study Days | Search | Email us | Response form