1


On the Waterfront The Recipient of eight Oscars (including four other nominations), On the Waterfront represented a shining light in the filmmaking industry and process. Among these Oscar were: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actress, and Best Screenplay. With that many awards in such key areas, one can’t help but assume that they were each benefiting from each other. Each one adding to the others, making them even greater than they would be otherwise. There are a few scenes in the film that have become known as “classic” scenes in film history. These scenes effectively portray very real situations and character relationships that we as the audience can care about, and ultimately learn from. Over the years, many critics have praised On the Waterfront for having what has been called “a nearly perfect screenplay.” Written by Budd Schulberg, and based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning series of articles by Malcolm Johnson, the script brought the story to life. As a note of background, the film represented an opportunity for both Schulberg and Elia Kazan to escape, at least by proxy, some personal guilt they may have been harboring. By naming the names of colleagues associated with the Communist Party, they gave themselves a free pass, and were able to proceed undeterred with his own

2


career. Kazan also became one of the most high-profile witnesses to speak out and avoid blacklisting. On the Waterfront explains how it is fundamentally right to speak out in a situation like this, even if you seem to be “ratting out” your friends. To be at peace with your conscience you must tell the truth, regardless of the consequences. Yet it’s easy for the harbour cops to ask someone to talk, since it’s not their lives that are going to be ruined. They won’t be ostracized, victimized, and probably murdered for speaking out. This is where Schulberg’s script rings true. More so probably when it was written, but still applicable today. It becomes painfully clear as to why someone wouldn’t want to testify, simply because the cost is too high. Not everyone is cut out to be a hero. “Some folks have learnt, in the spirit of interest, to look away and forget what they’ve seen.” This film shows it both ways. In this light there is an obvious connection between the film’s storyline and Kazan’s personal life. Nothing could have benefited his film direction more. He knew exactly what it is like to be in Brando’s character’s situation. When On the Waterfront comes up in conversation, it’s usually Marlon Brando’s performance that comes to be praised above all else. This goes without saying. Brando achieves immeasurable heights. His interpretation of Terry Malloy is natural and honest. We come to know Terry as a person. We forget that we are watching a film, and focus on the “real” life of this man. He isn’t a bad person. He’s just misguided and confused. The outcome of falling into the wrong crowd. Yet, Brando could not achieve these heights without someone to play off of. Eva Marie Saint embodies Edie Doyle. There ignites a great conflict between them. This conflict, however, does not seem staged. It’s as though we are peering into a small moment of their lives and courtship. She provides

3


the moral and emotional opposition that exists in many typical relationships. He’s hardened by the docks, unshakeable in his belief that you should look after yourself at all cost. Meanwhile, she is receptive to the humanity in everyone and believes in basic goodness. This relationship is depicted beautifully in a scene toward the middle of the film. Terry and Edie are in a bar sharing a drink. Terry is explaining to her with such solid bluntness, his philosophy of life: “Do it to him, before he does it to you.” Which is directly contrary to her belief. She states earlier in the scene, “Shouldn’t everybody care about everybody else?” Drool, as Terry calls it. They go back and forth like this. Each truly believing his or her own thoughts on life. Again the audience is drawn into the scene, as if it were an actual “getting to know you” conversation between to budding lovers beginning a new relationship. What adds another element to this scene is the camera work. The scene is expertly shot, with moments as if the camera is telling its own external and somewhat subliminal story. At times, Terry is shown in the bottom left corner of the screen, while Edie is on the top right. The angles and positions are such that Edie seems to stand out in the foreground above him as though she’s a kind of guardian angel. She’s doing all she can to protect him. Not only from life on the docks, but from himself as well. Now, let’s discuss one of the most famous scenes from the film, not to mention film history. The “Contender” scene. There is not enough credit given to the cinematography in this scene. The significance of the cinematography is that there isn’t any. The scene takes place between Brando and Rod Steiger (Charly, Terry’s brother) in the back of a cab. The camera shot doesn’t change. It was a dangerous choice, but

4


Kazan had the foresight to avoid muddying up the scene with different camera shots. He just shot two brothers having a “come to Jesus” experience. With Schulberg’s words, and the family relationship Brando and Steiger had created, the result was pure poetry. Once again, it’s just real. We can feel the pain in Terry as he accuses his brother of using him. And the remorse of Charly as the truth is laid on the table. We can see the missed opportunity for Terry to be “somebody.” We imagine, with him, how different his life would be away from the docks. Making his own way. Not having to rely on the corrupt men of power to give him a leg up. We feel for them both, and are fortunate to have been able to share in that intimate moment. Just imagine if something within the process of making the film would have been different. What if one of the pieces of the puzzle was missing? Take away Kazan, with his vision and life experience. Or a supporting cast speaking Shulberg’s words. Put someone else in the role of Terry Malloy. It would have been a drastically different film. The role of Terry was originally given to Frank Sinatra, but changed to Brando because of scheduling issues. As good as Sinatra is, he could not have formed Terry into a character that we “knew” let alone someone that we cared deeply about, as Brando did. Replace any of the key elements of the film and it would be a “decent film,” definitely worth watching. As it is, it stands as one of the great American films of the 20th Century.