On the Waterfront Review

Moral decisions are made almost on a daily basis. Most times, they are not as epic as the decisions that Terry Malloy faces in On the Waterfront. A film about doing the right thing, On the Waterfront, directed by Elia Kazan, was enjoyable but not fantastic. In my personal opinion, it couldn’t compare with the Oscar nominated films of today, even if it did win a few Oscar’s itself. At times, the movie possessed many important morals and themes, but these magnificent scenes were shadowed by the almost musical-like music and far too dramatic moments between the characters, namely Terry and Edie Doyle. Although Kazan does a decent job getting into the action, there are times when I wish to just sink into my seat and disappear out of embarrassment. On the Waterfront was a fine choice for an English class movie because there were many controversial decisions worth discussing, but overall, it was just a bit too dramatic for my tastes.

A key aspect that might have contributed to my dislike of the film was possibly the unrealistic characters. The use of Terry as an underdog was quite clever because it is common for the viewer to cheer on the underdog as he takes on the bully. Even if what happens to Terry may not seem real, giving him the disadvantage makes his character easiest to sympathize and even at times, empathize with. Although Terry was a pleasant character to watch, other characters were not as believable. One such person would be Edie Doyle. Edie, an idealist, is unaware of many things that go down on the waterfront. She believes it’s easy to rat out on the mob instead of playing D and D like most of the workers do. I wonder if her view would be the same if she was a waterfront worker; I doubt it would be. Although it does take someone to first stand up before a revolution can begin, I felt as if Edie Doyle was just a talker. All she really did was speak about what she could do, or what others could do, but she never once went out and did it herself. Glover was another character I found to be implausible. For one, what little kid would strangle a whole bunch of pigeons just to get back at Terry? Not only was the act unsettling, but it also felt like a form of hazing the mob was likely to do. I find it quite disconcerting that a boy so young would practice such acts, and quite unrealistic.

Character development was just one literary aspect that I found didn’t work for me, but the theme of On the Waterfront, doing the right thing, caught my attention. How many films or stories throughout the generations contain that theme? I know I’ve read and seen plenty. It’s the same idea of the main character facing a conflict of choosing one decision over the other: one is morally right but is the harder choice, and the other is morally wrong and the easier choice. Even though the theme is a cliché, one can’t help but fall right into the literary trap, engaged in the story until the very end. Even I don’t know why, but I suppose it has to do with the believable options of choosing a path that are so evident in a person’s life. Every time I watch a film like this, I always end up asking myself what I would if put in this situation, and I presume it’s safe to bet the $10 in my pocket that this thought crosses the mind of viewers alike.

Point of view, sometimes best known as bias, was, although somewhat hidden, still apparent in this film. Movies are commonly made in a 3^rd person point of view, but that doesn’t mean the viewer, or the director, is completely unbiased. Kazan cleverly crafts the camera work and storyline to follow the feelings and emotions of Terry Malloy. So when watching On the Waterfront, it’s most likely uncommon for the viewer to be cheering for Johnny Friendly as he bedraggles Terry at the end of the film. This technique, used frequently in film, can also show insight into the director, producer, or writer, like the point of view of a book can demonstrate the feelings of the author.

The acting was superb despite the characters themselves being somewhat fanatical, which may have affected the acting capacity. Karl Malden portrayed Father Barry as well as the character could allow. He was a rather controversial priest who both smoked and drank. Malden gave Barry a sense of ferocity not seen in most church figures and brought the character to life. Barry became easier to relate to once the viewer learned of his imperfect qualities; he even became humorous. Not many actors would be able to pull of the priest’s twisted humor and inappropriate timing without ruining the already set mood. Marlon Brando played lovable Terry Malloy. Terry’s character was already set up to be the one that viewers would sympathize with the most, but Brando’s Oscar-worthy acting made Terry an even more believable character than he already was. Because of his charismatic personality and Brando’s magnificent portrayal, everyone will be cheering for Terry to get up and make the walk at the end of the film. Edie Doyle’s character was another story. While Eva Marie Saint might have done her best, it was not enough to stop Edie from appearing whiny and nauseating. Perhaps the role was written that way, and if so, than Saint depicted her perfectly. Saint’s interpretation of Edie was like a conscience, nagging at everything you do, a Jiminy Cricket to Terry. And I suppose that was her purpose, to sway Terry into ratting on the mob, and she accomplished her intention without even breaking a nail.

Many dramatic aspects were present in the film, but I thought the costumes complemented the story the best. Each character had a specific look: Edie with her delicate clothes that she wears with the sisters, Terry’s plaid jacket, the workers’ torn clothes, and the mob’s well dressed suits. The outfits were particular to each person’s disposition. It gave the untold story of each character’s history and a sense of places they’ve been to. For example, Edie’s nice, conservative clothing represents her time spent training to be a nun. Terry’s one worn out plaid jacket signifies the rough days he spent as a boxer and his position as a bum. The costumes also enhanced the time period and social classes are established, the mob being the highest up, clearly with the best clothes. We become aware of the poverty of the times when we see the state of the workers’ clothing, evident in the scene when Pop gives Joey’s nice jacket to a worker with a depleted one, and realize that the mob isn’t making things any better.

After watching a clip from The Royal Tenenbaums, where the editing was full of cuts, the smoother transitions in On the Waterfront seemed refreshing and worked for this cinematic drama. And when, if in some case, quick cuts were used, it was clear that panic was trying to be portrayed. The wonderful editing helped set the atmosphere for the forthcoming scene, whether it is a continuing storyline or a new one that needed to be linked with a transition, the editing added to the film as a whole. Camera angles enhanced the film by furthering the development of characters, particularly in the opening scene when Joey Doyle is thrown off the roof. The mob members are shot from a low angle, giving them a look of power, while Terry is shown from a high angle, displaying his insignificance. A flat angle also gets the viewer into the action. During the scene at the Friendly bar, a flat angle was used to make the viewer feel like they were a part of the mob, an equal. The last cinematic aspect that I must consider is the music, and unlike the other two mentioned, it was a tad too much. Although Leonard Bernstein’s compositions in West Side Story are beyond perfect, they are much too overpowering for On the Waterfront. At times, the music even envelops the dialogue, making it hard to understand the point the actors are trying to get at. Other times, I feel like the characters are about to burst out into song and dance, specifically when the music reached its climactic points. Now, for a musical, this is perfectly acceptable. For a drama like On the Waterfront, I don’t find it to be a very good idea. So, while the editing and camera angles used complemented the film, the music clashes with the rest of secretive and fearful mood.

On the Waterfront has many similarities with Arthur Miller’s All My Sons. The main parallel that caught my eye were the protagonists. In On the Waterfront, there are Edie Doyle and Terry Malloy. Their views are similar to those of Chris and Joe Keller in All My Sons. Both Edie and Chris have idealistic point of views. They believe that it is better to put others ahead of yourself and your own wellbeing. Joe and Terry, both at first, believe that their own family and happiness is more important than that of strangers. They both have to make a moral decision. Terry, eventually, chooses the waterfront workers and townspeople over Johnny and the mob. That is similar to Joe’s dilemma of his family (Johnny and the mob) versus strangers in the war (the waterfront workers). But unlike Terry, Joe decides to choose his family over others serving in the war. Both decisions have severe consequences. Terry is unable to work at the waterfront and Joe is condemned by his community and even his family. In the end, Terry’s decision, the one of self-sacrifice, paid off more, because the workers eventually sided with him, than Joe’s, whose son killed himself after learning what his father did, the one of selfishness.

On the Waterfront, when considered as a whole, was a satisfactory film. It wasn’t phenomenal, but I believe it accomplished its purpose of teaching the world what it means to do the right thing. Is it a film worth watching? I’m not sure I can answer that question for everyone. In my opinion, it was a well-done movie. There are likely to be critics out there who absolutely fall in love with it and claim this film to be “a classic for generations to come”, but there will also be others who absolutely loathed the film and will call it “a lackluster piece of nothingness not worth half a penny.” My personal take on this film was somewhere in between the radical extremes, but I presume one must watch it and decide for themselves.