Terry (Marlon Brando) is a failed prize-fighter that now acts as muscle for the corrupt longshormen’s union. He’s sent by his brother, Charley (Rod Steiger), and boss, Johnny Friendly (Lee J. Cobb), to trap a squealer who is then murdered. The dead man’s sister, Edie (Eva Marie Saint), and the local priest (Karl Malden) won’t let things go, and Terry starts to fall for Edie. The question becomes, should Terry rat on the people who he used to see as friends?
You can’t look at On the Waterfront without looking at it’s director, Elia Kazan. The easiest take on Kazan is that he was a man controlled by anger and guilt. That’s probably too simple, but there is weight in that view. He joined the communist party, not out of conviction, but out of anger with wealthy women he thought were looking down on him. He quit soon after, again not due to conviction, but because he felt he wasn’t getting the respect he deserved.
His films were filled with social commentary. Gentleman’s Agreement was THE issue picture of the late ‘40s, rejecting good storytelling in favor of making a strong statement about the evils of anti-Semitism. Kazan was the message filmmaker. And then he was called before the House Un-American Activities Committee. Some suggest he had the power to stop the blacklists (just the blacklists since they were a Hollywood deal, not shut down the committee). I doubt it. He didn’t try. He talked. He named names.
Of course, he was angry. Some say he was greedy as talking led to jobs, but he’d have worked in any case. He was also a theater director and the blacklist had limited power there. No, greed dosn’t have the force of anger, and perhaps self-loathing. So he talked the way few others did, even those who gave in to the pressure. He made himself the focus of attention, giving more than he was asked for. As is normal with actions based on anger, he didn’t think it through. He always thought he deserved respect from all, particularly from those in the arts around him. He assumed he’d get it. It didn’t work out that way. He kept his power in the industry, but he made enemies of friends, and spent the rest of his life desperately trying to justify himself, nearly as often to himself as to everyone else. It’s hard to say if he managed for himself, though he never managed to justify it to anyone else. His friend and collaborator, Author Miller, had tried to persuade Kazan to do the right thing before he testified. Kazan rejected the advice. Miller then wrote The Crucible to show the evils of witchhunts. Kazan responded with On the Waterfront.
Terry Malloy is Kazan, as Kazan saw it. He’s the informer, but informers are good guys, and everyone turns on the poor, innocent, and pure informer. When Brando whines about being mistreated after he testifies, that’s Kazan feeling mistreated. He was wealthy, with power and connections, but he saw himself as the lone martyr, the Christ figure being crucified for doing the right thing. On the Waterfront is a two hour long justification for informing. Naturally he stacks the deck. The mob threat is real, immediate, and life-threatening, instead of the mostly imagined and philosophical Red Menace. But more, Malloy not only informs due to the oppression of the mob, but because they murder his brother. Kazan makes it personal so the audience will buy it.
So, is On the Waterfront a good movie? Yeah, for a self-justification for rotten behavior and a middle finger to those who chose the right path, it’s pretty good. It drags and I’ve given my thoughts on method acting and Brando elsewhere, and there’s a huge problem with the actions of the mob (they kill the wrong guy), but it’s a nicely shot film with some solid performances and a great score by Lenard Bernstein. It slips a bit when Kazan shifts off reality to more fully make himself look good. In the original script (well, one of them), Malloy dies. But here he rises up, Christ-like, to lead his people home, and give Kazan the heroic send-off he either thought he deserved, or desperately wanted to feel he deserved. This is not a story that should have a big hero moment, but Kazan wanted one.
Can you ignore the message and Kazan’s purpose and just enjoy the story? Not really. The story is just there to support that message, to promote Kazan’s side and maybe persuade himself that he was a good guy. The story is slight and sometimes silly. The message is what you’ve got. And it’s the wrong message.