It was ok I guess. Why is it so loved? Is it just because of the “contender” scene? Yeah it was good but can one good scene a classic film make? Would this movie be forgotten without that scene? Before watching it I assumed the line would be closer to the end or something, a real climactic scene. Seems like when they were making that scene they didn’t think it particularly special.
Well first, remember that just because a scene is not climactic doesn’t mean it’s not pivotal. The “contender” scene goes towards explaining the Terry Malloy character (Brando) and his complex feelings toward brother Charlie, which is critical context for how he deals with the conflicting loyalties (to the union, to his brother, and to fairness and justice) brought to the fore by the murders. In the end, Brando’s almost accidental (definitely unintentional) heroism makes him a catalyst towards empowering the workers against the exploitation of the union bosses.
The movie came out within very recent memory of sometimes violent conflicts in America between organized labor and managment (ownership) of businesses, and may have been the first serious cinematic exploration of the internal corruption made possible by the hard won power of the unions. Plus it had Brando’s amazing performance and solid supporting performances from Lee J. Cobb, Karl Malden and Rod Steiger.
The interesting subtext in the film is this: director Elia Kazan was notorious in Hollywood talking to the House Unamerican Activities Committee (people hated him for it until his death). Screenwriter Budd Shulberg also testified. Thus, one point of the film is to justify informing on others, in the context of informing on what is portrayed as a strong-arm labor union (at a time when some unions began to be taken over by the mob).
Even without that, Brando’s performance cemented him as being a star. It is truly impressive, as were the other actors in it.
Did your friend like it?
One thing that helps watching old “classic” movies is forgetting that every movie that followed it ever existed.
Citizen Kane? Oh, please…that movie uses every tired, old, worn out acting/directing cliche in the book…
…oh, wait…
On The Waterfront is a stirring, well-acted movie that doesn’t rely on a single scene to be excellent.
Sometimes it’s best to have seen movies without having been informed first by critics what’s so wonderful about them.
I reluctantly watched this film last spring, when it was on TCM. I generally don’t care for films of this genre, but was curious about why it won 8 academy awards. The only things I knew about it were that famous line and the music. It turns out, I was totally blown away by everything about the film, and wound up watching it 3 times (thanks to Tivo). It’s very rare that a film affects me this way, especially one that I don’t expect to even like.
Playing grabass in the building? That’s a crucifixion.
The subtext is that it is Kazan’s defense of his informing on the political leanings of his Hollywood co-workers. Rod Stieger did not know that this was what the movie was going to be about and hated Kazan for it. Kazan had basically been given a pass for informing by his fellow artists because he would have been deported had he not done so, and he only gave the names of people who were already “out” as lefties. This movie infuriated the lefties because it equated private political conviction of a decade earlier with being a corrupt mob boss, unions with the mafia and making it a patriotic duty to be a rat. Which was what Charleton Heston’s reasoning was behind supporting the HUAC witch hunt. The result was the studios refused to work with people named to the committees based on the political beliefs of the particular artists.
In short, the US Constitution doesn’t prohibit you from being a Communist, but this truly ugly period of American history had it so that if you were a Communist or accused of being a Communist, you were unemployable due to a series of laws, loyalty oaths, etc. To someone middle aged like me, this is very recent history and a very ugly side of the American right.
I wonder if young people in the industry, or in film school, have as much disdain for movies like Citizen Kane or On The Waterfront, as some people have expressed here (though IIRC panache45 is considerably older than I am so it’s not just an age thing). At least as far as audiences are concerned, it seems they now mostly demand lots of action instead of verbally planning or discussing what is happening or what they expect to happen, and if possible robots, monsters, or superheroes.
I wonder if part of it is also that many people just consider B&W a dealbreaker. Depending on the film I find that the lack of color make it more interesting if it’s shot by a good cinematographer. Not having color tends to highlight the visual composition, IMHO.
I don’t care if it is black and white. I usually do like older movies. I like King Kong for it has a giant monster and action
I’d like to hear more opinions or testimony concerning this point and the broader point raised re “classic films” – I think I’m pretty young at 34, and I can’t take my own experience seriously as evidence since I’ve always been a movie fiend since a young kid, but I find it shocking how few people my age and younger don’t even have basic cultural references like all of the Welles, all of the Hitchcock (that’s out there accessible – maybe it’s all out there now, but I couldn’t find the silents on VHS as a young pre-teen), the Renoir, the Powell and Pressburger. When I was a younger hipster in my early twenties, it was damned cool to be into key filmmakers like Cassavetes and Antonioni, but I rarely run into people outside of my circle of friends (and random older people I chat with in passing) who have a clue who Gene Tierney was, or even who Patricia Neal (unfortunately passed) was.