Kazan’s Waterfront, Research Paper Example

Elia Kazan is no longer a hot name in American popular culture. Although Kazan was the director and/or producer of dozens of Hollywood films and Broadway plays and the winner of a score of domestic and international awards, his legacy has been tarnished by aspects of his biography. One of the most controversial parts of Kazan’s life is political in nature and has to do with his brief involvement with the American Communist Party and his subsequent testimony to the House UnAmerican Activities Committee. Kazan’s life is one of dramatic accomplishments and notable tribulations. For many artists of Kazan’s stature, the line between their art and life is blurred, sometimes to the point of vanishing.  One of Kazan’s most notable films, On the Waterfront (1954) lends itself nicely to interpretations that tie the events and imagery of the film to Kazan’s own experiences. While On the Waterfront is not an outright autobiographical movie, its protagonist, Terry Malloy (Marlon Brando), undergoes a process of redemption that is very closely aligned with Kazan’s political involvement with HUAC and its aftermath. The HUAC period of Kazan’s life marks a low point in his personal morality and professional career and has caused his legacy to have been tarnished over the ensuing decades.

Lloyd Michaels mentions in “Elia Kazan: A Life” (1990) that Kazan’s life followed an almost fated arc from  obscurity to brilliance and fame. Michaels writes “Kazan’s life has followed several archetypal American patterns … he has realized the immigrant’s dream of success, starting out as a handyman in the Group Theater and  emerging in the late 1950’s as one of the most powerful creative forces on both coasts, Hollywood and Broadway.” (Michaels, 62). Progressing from immigrant to a Master artist is a dramatic enough of an achievement, but Kazan’s genius was such that he felt compelled to move outside of the realm of art to find expression and influence. He participated in political debate and explored ideologies. During this time he became a participant in the American communist party. Just how far his participation extended is unclear, but it appears to have been sporadic at best and of a brief duration. The key element of Kazan’s participation in communist politics is that he would later become and informant to HUAC. In doing so, he gave testimony that implicated his colleagues and friends.

In relation to On the Waterfront, Malloy’s redemption comes from standing up to the mob and from by gaining information with which he can turn informant to the police.  In Kazan’s real life, he turned informant on his former friends. This similarity is commented on in Bruce Walker’s article “Elia Kazan Reconsidered” (2012). In the article, Walker draws a direct connection between Kazan’s experiences with the HUAC and Malloy’s actions in On the Waterfront.  Walker writes that the film “is perhaps the closest Kazan came onscreen to defending his HUAC behavior. Brando’s Terry Malloy is prompted by his girlfriend, a priest, and his own conscience to inform on racketeering and murderous union bosses.” (Walker). Given this interpretation of the film, it is reasonable to suggest that Kazan’s own life-experiences led him to in some ways compensate in art for the moral ambiguities that existed in life. In other words, the line between right and wrong is quite clear in On the Waterfront where Malloy’s enemies are the mafia and other thugs and criminals. However, in the case of Kazan’s life and his testimony against his former associates and colleagues, it is less certain whether or not Kazan was acting out of a sense of moral goodness. Instead, he may have been acting only to preserve his own stature and power base in Hollywood since being confirmed as a Communist before the HUAC meant certain blackballing in Hollywood.

If Kazan was acting in order to preserve his career and reputation, his strategy was only partially successful. In the article, “Elia Kazan,” Richard Corliss comments that Kazan’s participation in HUAC damaged his career and reputation profoundly and caused a great deal of his power and legacy to simply disappear. According to Corliss, Hollywood never forgave Kazan for his actions. Rather than celebrating his genius he became a figure of anger and shame to the Hollywood powerbrokers that made and destroyed individual careers as a routine. Corliss writes that Kazan “was never forgiven for identifying himself and a few old friends as onetime communists before the House UnAmerican Activities Committee. Tributes to the old lion were booed, boycotted, canceled” (Corliss). There can be no denying that Kazan’s career, like Malloy’s, was damaged by his act of informing. The big difference between Kazan and Malloy is, of course, that Malloy never had success and power, where Kazan had it to spare.

This difference is significant because it shows that Kazan, in using Malloy as a vehicle for his own life experiences, was attempting to state that he did not testify to HUAC because he wanted to save his career. He is trying to say that he, like Malloy, was prompted by his conscience. This is an appealing perspective and one that Corliss advocates. He observes that those who despised and ignored Kazan because of his testimony were guilty of underestimating the true threat that communism posed to the American way of life. According to Corliss: “Kazan’s enemies forgot that even belated opposition to Soviet communism at its most rapacious could be an act of principle as well as expediency–and that an artist’s most telling testimony is his work. By that standard, Kazan was an admirable American original.” (Corliss). This perspective stops just short of fully vindicating Kazan while simultaneously acknowledging his principles. The fact is that Kazan’s actions, as previously mentioned, were based in the real world where ambiguity, rather than moral clarity, is the norm.

In film, a certain “black and white” perspective on morality is not only possible, it is often desirable. This is certainly the case with On the Waterfront when so much of the movie’s tension, beauty, and theme emerge from Malloy’s inner-struggle with his conscience. At its most basic level, the film is trying to remind all of us of the primal core-reality of the human conscience. We are each born with a sense of right and wrong, but also with the freedom to violate any principle or moral idea that we choose. In many ways, this places On the Waterfront in the category of an existentialist, rather than say, Christian footing, but the results are, to some extent, just the same. In the existential paradigm, Malloy’s decisions are prompted by his growing awareness of community and social obligation. Redemption comes not from embracing a “savior,” but from following one’s conscience and living with courage and conviction, even against stacked odds.

It is entirely possible that Kazan saw his actions with HUAC in the same light. He may have genuinely believed that he was acting in a moral way because he felt that America was a special place that had given him the opportunity to rise from poverty to fame and fortune. In this case, Kazan would not have viewed himself as betraying his friends or colleagues in any way. Instead, he would have seen himself as a man acting out of social conscience and with bravery, in the face of certain backlash and negative consequences. The fact remains that however persuasive this line of reasoning may appear to be, no conclusive evidence exists that can establish with clarity the motive for Kazan’s testimony. Walker notes that, whatever the motive, it is clear that the long-term consequences were disastrous for Kazan’s career and reputation.

While mentioning that Kazan’s actions must be viewed as emerging from an uncertain set of circumstances and principles, the result is much less ambiguous, Walker writes: “While no one can assert definitively why Kazan willingly cooperated with HUAC (despite convoluted explanations from Kazan himself, as well as those given by film historians of every political stripe), the fallout was immediate and his legacy will forever be haunted by it. (Walker). The word “forever” may seem extreme, but the fact is Kazan’s obscurity in the contemporary cultural mind of America is in direct opposition to his accomplishments and former stature.  There can be no other explanation for this sensational slide in reputation than Kazan’s participation with HUAC. If this is the case, then the famous line spoken by Malloy, “I coulda been a contender” (Kazan) resonates with an even more complex set of implications. It means that, just as Malloy was forced to find redemption outside of personal ambition and desire, so Kazan felt himself to have acted in regard to his testimony and his communist past.

This is a complex proposition because it blurs the line between film and biography in such a way as to suggest that On the Waterfront is almost a personal confession by Kazan or an explanation for his HUAC participation.  In reality, this is not the case. The film is related to Kazan’s experiences, but it changes them and modifies them so that the result is both more clear and ore just. While it is entirely possible and even probable that Kazan is using the film to in some ways justify his choices, it is also quite clear that he is using the film to project an idealization of social morality that goes beyond the real world and improves it. The first way that the film improves reality is by clarifying the difference between good and evil.  The second way is by establishing a clear antidote to the evil that threatens society and the individual. In On the Waterfront it is the collective of workers that is able to stand up to the mob. Ironically, the collective of workers would appear to be a communist ideal. However, in the context of the film, what the longshoremen and dock-workers represent are men of honesty and good conscience.

What Kazan is trying to say in the film is that human morality is born in our innate sense of what is right or wrong. As Malloy states, morality is based in “Conscience… that stuff can drive you nuts!” (Kazan). At the same time that conscience can confound a person it is also the path to personal redemption, and for finding the meaning of human experience. This meaning is based in both personal ambition and service to others.  Without personal ambition, the world is reduced to a uniform state of conformity that fails to account for individualism. In such a world, collectivism becomes oppressive and threatening to the individual. At the same time, when the needs of the collective are placed below those of the individual, the result is exploitation as is represented in the film by the mobsters.  Kazan is suggesting that a balance must be struck between the ambitions of the individual and the good of the greater society. In a sense, what he is doing is making a stark distinction between his own political views and those which are frequently associated with communism.

In the film, Malloy makes it clear that he has personal ambition and that his dreams smolder inside of him, turning to resentment due to the influence of the mob. His brother Charlie tells him: “You’re getting on. You’re pushing 30. You know, it’s time to think about getting some ambition.” (Kazan). The way that Terry responds is to suggest that having ambition is a quick way to die. When Charlie Malloy tells his brother that he should try to get some ambition, what he is really saying is that Terry should try to break away from  his morals and start living by his fear of the mob. Terry’s speculation that to do so would wind up getting him killed is his way of telling his brother: no. This short exchange of dialogue between the brothers is a foreshadowing of Charlie’s death and it is also a deeply important point thematically because it is Kazan’s refusal of communism, or the “bad” form of collectivism.

In place of this bad collectivism, what Kazan is advocating is social conscience.  Stated simply, what he is saying is that communism as a form of government will not bring about a just society, but a society that values social conscience and personal morality while at the same time respecting personal ambition has the potential of becoming a just society. A further contrast between collectivism and social conscience can be shown by comparing the rationalization for moral behavior that is offered by Father Barry with Terry Malloy’s initial ideas. In the case of Father Barry, social conscience is an active principle, not merely a reflective response of knowing what is right and wrong, but a call to arms to fight back against those who seek to do harm to society. Barry tells Malloy: “There’s one thing we’ve got in this country and that’s ways of fightin’ back. Gettin’ the facts to the public. Testifyin’ for what you know is right against what you know is wrong. Now what’s ratting to them is telling the truth for you.” (Kazan). Barry advocates inverting the morality of the mob completely and using a “snitch” culture as a way of destroying the power of organized crime.

Kazan is pointing out that social conscience actually makes a political system such as communism completely unnecessary. This is because social conscience ensures that people will feel an affinity for one another without a government having to enforce this as a law. In Kazan’s vision of collectivism, empathy and feelings are an underlying factor. It is through our emotional responses to one another that we, as humans, learnt o value or shared communities and shared responsibilities to each other. A conversation between Edie Doyle and Terry Malloy clarifies this point in an overt way when Edie states explicitly, “Shouldn’t everybody care about everybody else?” Terry responds that this is a crazy idea, to which Doyle asks: “… isn’t everybody a part of everybody else?” (Kazan). The implication of Doyle’s word is that all people are connected whether a governmental system acknowledges this connection or not. Equally important to this statement is the idea that the connection between people is one based on something other than purely material considerations.

It is as though Kazan is using the film to make certain observations about the nature of communism and to state why he rejected communism and viable political theory. In his estimation, the basing of communism on material goods and wages was a mistake because the true connection between people that would ultimately lead to a just society was one based one motion and art, rather than finances and goods.  What Kazan wants to leave the viewer with is the sense that the highest political and material aspirations are actually those that rise out of the human conscience. It is only when we are moved in our heart by our awareness of our collective reality that we find the full measure of our courage and purpose in living. This is an admittedly idealistic vision and one that might strike some observers as highly naïve.  This criticism is shown in the film by Terry Malloy’s response to Doyle’s moral ideology.

Terry tells Doyle, that he is a fool and asks him if he’d like to know his own personal philosophy on morality. When Doyle says that he would like to now, Terry responds: “Do it to him before he does it to you.” (Kazan). No other single exchange of dialogue in the movie makes the distinction between the mob mentality and the mentality of social conscience. The perspectives are distinctly opposite from one-another. Kazan makes it clear that each person has a choice in life between serving the mob and serving the greater good of society. There is no mistaking which side Kazan thinks is more valuable and leads to a more fulfilling life, despite its impact on one’s material status. By embracing his conscience, Terry is able to find personal redemption later in the film while his brother Charlie dies by mob law.

The identification of personal conscience with social responsibility and redemption is one that hints at an even more profound message than the rejection of the mob mentality. This deeper implication is that human conscience and the sense of empathy that binds us together is evidence of a human soul. This is not to suggest that Kazan is stating a belief in any specific religion of philosophical tradition. Rather, Kazan is suggesting that our emotions and our feelings about social morality are based in an innate response that we have as human beings. in other words we have a soul, an essence that transcends our personal lives and connects us to each other while simultaneously preserving our individuality.  This idea is mirrored in an exchange of dialogue between Father Barry and Terry Malloy when Terry is attempting to refuse the pressure to inform on the mob. Terry tells Barry “If I spill, my life ain’t worth a nickel.” Father Barry’s response is: “And how much is your soul worth if you don’t?” (Kazan). The most complete experience and depth of being human is one that admits the moral duty we owe to ourselves and to society. It is precisely this response that preserves and strengthens any society and makes it possible to hand down freedom and opportunity to successive generations.

As the preceding discussion has clearly shown, the film On the Waterfront incorporates many profound aspects of Kazan’s personal life and his personal views of morality. The film is in many ways his explanation for his testimony to HUAC. It is also a statement on his rejection of communism as a political system. However, instead of disposing altogether with the notion of collectivism, Kazan modulates this idea to an ideal of social responsibility and social conscience. His verdict on humanity is that we are inherently possessed of the ability to know good from bad and right from wrong and that we flourish most in preserving our collective good and morality.  Rather than basing ideals purely in materialistic terms, Kazan reaches toward an articulation of the human soul, finding in the human conscience and human capacity for empathy some validation for an aspect of human nature that goes beyond the purely physical and manifests in moral and emotional responses. As mentioned in the opening of the discussion Kazan’s vision is On the Waterfront  is deliberately idealized as he wilfully utilizes art’s capacity to improve on  and compensate for the vagaries and ambiguities of life.

References

Braudy, Leo. (2005)  “On the Waterfront.” BFI film classics Volume 78, p. 88.

Corliss, Richard  (2003)  “Elia Kazan.”  Time Canada. 162 (15), p. 18.

Kazan, Elia. (1954)  On the Waterfront. Columbia Pictures.

Michaels, Lloyd . (1990).  “Elia Kazan: A Life .” Film Quarterly.  44 (2), p. 61 – 64.

Walker, Bruce Edward. (2012) “Elia Kazan Reconsidered.” Freeman, Volume 62, Issue 6, p. 37