On the Waterfront: Film as Literature Essay

On the Waterfront: Film as Literature

As a whole, On the Waterfront, Elia Kazan’s 1954 Oscar-winning film starring Marlon Brando, was a very successful piece. It effectively combines the brute toughness of a gangster flick, such as The Godfather, with the suspense and wit of a classic Alfred Hitchcock film. Brando’s performance was more the worthy of the award for best actor, his apparent toughness combined with his longing to do the right thing while keeping his superiors content kept viewers guessing until the very end. The scenery throughout the film was equally effective, using long shots of the docks combined with city and park backdrops to give you a feel of the action taking place far and wide. Also going for the film are the unique comparisons between the characters and birds, making viewers think while the similarities are set. Most effectual, perhaps, was the way Kazan and cinematographer Boris Kaufman mixed in camera angles of all types to influence views of the characters without having the say a single word. All this came together in one explosive, very well executed piece of film.
Literary aspects are those relating the film to a written text. As trivial as they may sound, they often compose the difference between a great film, and a box office bust. The characters in On the Waterfront are quite developed from the start; each has a unique personality that becomes apparent within the first few minutes. In fact, the personas the characters wear in the beginning are for all intents and purposes the same for the entirety, with the exception of Terry Malloy, played by Brando, who really switches his views. The characters are well played out and akin to the way they would be portrayed in a novel: simple, yet dramatic. They each play a role, much as they would in a book. Another similarity between Waterfront and a written novel would be the intricate use of symbols, items used to represent something else. Often times in literature, an author will use symbols, written clues to move the story. In Waterfront, birds are used to show the character’s personalities and tendencies. A canary is used to describe one who tells everything, or sings, much as a canary does. Someone considered a pigeon is one who is used as a middleman, someone who does what he or she is told but doesn’t necessarily know why. A hawk is pretty self-explanatory; it’s simply one who kills other “birds.” Much as the beast represents fear in William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, these birds of a feather represent the different types of people and who will and will not take a stand. Kazan’s On the Waterfront shares many aspects with a written work, including characters and symbols, which move it along as provides the footholds for an effective film.
Dramatic elements are those shared not between literature and film, but between film and a stage production. To put together a movie or a play, you need strong acting, make-up, props, etc. It all matters to the overall effect of the performance. The strongest aspects of On the Waterfront came in the form of acting. Brando, delivering his finest “Pre-Godfather” performance, was well deserving of best actor. The most famous, and possibly most powerful scene in the movie was also Brando’s strongest. His taxi ride, “I could have been a contender” speech showed that he could not only play the tough mobster, but also the caring, almost compassionate brother. More importantly, he delivered the line without sounding too corny, or forged. The thirty year-old Omaha native played the role like a seasoned veteran, taking both calm and dramatic parts in stride and delivering one of the finest acting demonstrations Hollywood has ever seen.
Another stellar acting performance came from Chicago-native Karl Malden. Playing the dedicated and dependable Father Barry, Malden blew the job out of the water, and proved more than deserving of the Best Actor in a Supporting Role award at the 1954 Oscar Awards. He played the part convincingly, but more than that, he played it perfectly, expressing emotions into parts that could easily be taken as dry or boring. A scene that Malden really shone in was the church meeting scene. Telling Kayo Dugan he’ll “go down the wire with him,” and help stop the crime in the city was very powerful, and erased all doubts that Malden couldn’t play the serious parts. Malden proved to be the best choice for the role, and looked the part as well, staying calm and collected throughout his entire performance.
A third surprising acting performance came from the young Eva Marie Saint. Though she worked largely with television before On the Waterfront, she played the big screen role confidently, and won Best Supporting Actress for her work. Her presence is known as well, with her glowing blond hair always catching the light and giving her an aura of goodness, the opposite of what is becoming a reality around her. She plays the part well, appearing unflustered by what is going on, a woman with a mission. This is exactly how she’s supposed to seem: cool and calm under pressure, but strong, determined, and dominant. Marie Saint hit the nail on the head with this role, sweeping audiences along with Marlon Brando in one of the best side-by-side performances in cinema history.
Another aspect the movie shares with live drama would be the aspect of lighting. Throughout the movie, Eva Marie Saint’s character Edie appears to be lit up, making her appear brighter, almost better than the other characters. She emerges as a heavenly character, providing a ray of brightness in a very dark place. Although, admittedly, some of this “gleam” comes from her glowing blond hair in a black-and-white film, but the cinematographer Kaufman definitely played up the lighting, though rather subtly, and gave her a beautiful, angel-like appearance without doing more than flipping a switch.
Cinematic aspects, unlike dramatic or literary, are those unique to a film. One of many things Kazan does well is utilize high and low angle shots to influence opinions. His low angle shot of Father Barry rising up out of the depths of the docks. The scene begins with more excellent camera work, depicting numerous gangsters occupying the top ring of the dock and watching as Father Barry justifies the troubles. He then proceeds to enter a lift and rise up past the mobsters and out of the dock. The effect is two fold upon audiances: on one hand we seem Father Barry as a powerful character, indeed the scene seems like something tore from Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ storyboard. At the same time, we see the Father as something much more practical: A man, doing his best to rise above the crime in the city and take a stand. All that from a simple low angle shot, proving that camerawork is more than worth its weight in gold…gold Oscars, that is.
Another cinematic effect put together by Kazan was that of shot duration. No scene in the film seems to drag-it’s hit, hit, hit, with scenes right after one another. Especially when showing the protesters, or unhappy dock rejects at work, this aspect gives viewers a feeling that no time is lost, things move quickly on the waterfront, as it were. Although barely noticeable, this effect gives the film an overall pleasing appearance, and a quick tempo.
A cinematic aspect very apparent to some viewers, and highly unnoticeable to others is that of the music. The soundtrack of the film, written by Leonard Bernstein, is dark and intense for the majority of the movie, surprising considering Bernstein worked almost exclusively with musicals. It also packs some surprises. For example, the festive, dance music playing at the bar is sandwiched between two emotional, rather mysterious scenes concerning the past and present of Terry Malloy. Although never really brought to the forefront like the music of Harry Potter or the Bond series, the music continues, quite effectively, the direction of the film and provides and excellent base for the remainder of the action.
Though written to actually rival Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, there are many similarities (and differences) to be drawn from Kazan’s On the Waterfront and Miller’s All My Sons. For one, in both cases characters are forced to make difficult ethical decisions that are forced upon them rapidly. For Miller’s character of Joe Keller, it’s the split second decision of whether or not to sent the cracked cylinder heads; know to be potentially dangerous, overseas and into the planes of America pilots. For Terry Malloy, it’s the long running decision of what to do with his life. Though essentially a member of the mob by family, Terry seeks to break out. He needs to chose not once, but twice whether his life as he knows it is more important than his good conscience He is forced to choose between whether he wants to stay with the mob or not, following the murder of his friend Joey Doyle. He chooses to stay with the gang for the time being, in part helped by the bribe of a good paying job with zero work. Like Keller, he makes the wrong choice, and, like Keller, people get hurt when he does. By keeping his silence, Kayo Dugan is killed, as did his brother Charlie, a product of his second indecision. Finally, Terry makes the proper choice and confronts Johnny Friendly, the killer of the three men. So while the two men both make incorrect moral choices, there is a difference. Joe, in the end, takes the painless way out, and takes his own life. Terry, however, takes a stand, and corrects his wrongness by highlighting Friendly’s errors, and helping the general public. What we get out of the Waterfront and All My Sons is simple: People of all sorts make mistakes; it’s where they correct themselves that we can finally judge.
Speaking as a 10th grader, a movie fan, and an open-minded person, I can safely recommend this piece to people of all types. While I think as a whole it takes a certain type of person to enjoy a black-and-white movie, the acting and drama of this movie just blow those guidelines away. Brando, Marie Saint, and Malden provide superior performances, and the camera angles are a notch above the rest. And though there are some slight things that may require work, as in all movies, I don’t think there’s a single major flaw to point out. And as I’m hesitant to recommended a movie solely based on plot (This one’s was relatively routine), the movie can be easily supported by the acting and will continue to be an American classic for years to come.