On the Waterfront

What About It?
(For a full summary of the film, scroll down to "What Happens?" below)

Terry Malloy is a bum and everybody knows it, including himself. He even has a pan handler, the traditional "bum" call him a bum. The pan handler was injured, cheated by the union and can't work, but Terry seems to have no excuse. Everybody has his number, he hears it all the time. In this film, a bum would seem to be someone without character, unremarkable, easily pushed around, and not standing for anything. Basically he's a low level lackey.

It's obvious that Terry is a mess, and gradually we discover how he got that way. It's revealed that Terry has had a tough life, father killed under mysterious circumstances, which he isn't even willing to discuss, and then a long time spent in a children's home. His brother Charlie, the thinker of the two, became his father figure, along with Johnny Friendly who apparently "took him to ball games." Terry isn't as valuable as Charlie, but he's kind of a plus one. Charlie is the brains behind Johnny Friendly and Terry is a guy who threw a fight and got them a big payday. He's the tagalong little brother. For all practical purposes, Friendly's outfit is the closest thing to a family Terry has. As in many families, there are things you don't like, but to get along, they're not mentioned. Terry just assumes that everything is normal because it's somewhat better than where he comes from. We know that at one point things were going to be better, Terry would have a title shot and been a respectable boxer, but it all took a left turn, and Terry rolled with it because he wasn't calling the shots. Perhaps he accepts that his brother is smarter, or the money is tempting, we know that Terry isn't any kind of a planner, but that's the end of his chances. There are no more fights afterwards, just work at the docks. Terry doesn't forget but what's the point to being upset about it? As he might say, it would just get him in trouble.

Naturally, he grows bitter. As he tells Edie, his philosophy is "Do it to him before he does it to you." But for all the edge that Terry claims, he's remarkably passive. Edie observes "He tries to act tough but there's a look in his eye." In many ways Terry is little more than a child who's hurt and doesn't want to be bothered. His status as a competent boxer gets him no respect, because everyone knows him, he doesn't cause trouble or fight back, he just does what he's told. The nickname "Slugger" comes across as almost an insult half the time, as it fits him so poorly now. We begin the movie with him doing Johhny Friendly a "favor." He's upset when his favor gets the well liked Joey killed. He doesn't complain about the action to Johnny Friendly, he complains because it doesn't seem right that he wasn't told. Would Terry still have lured Joey outside? We don't know and neither does Terry, but it bothers him. Just like his resentment over his boxing failure, it builds inside him but he doesn't know what to do with it, so he carries it around. He's used to being disappointed so it doesn't make him angry anymore. Yet, Terry does have talents, and ones that johnny Friendly could use and he's certainly a man that doesn't like his resources wasted. It's possible that Friendly is breaking Johnny in to "real" work on the crime side of the waterfront. Calling Joey to come to the roof would seem a natural first step in breaking him in. As he soon afterwards is asked to infiltrate the church labor meeting it would seem this is the case. Start small and build him up.

Terry could likely submerge any bad feelings for a long long time, if not for some outside influence. He's a long way from being the "contender" when we meet him. But Edie and Father Barry slowly chip away at his languor and he begins to question the place he's in, because his expectations change. He's never met someone like Edie before, a girl who takes in his abrasiveness and selfishness and suggests that the harsh nuns of his youth could've done better by him. "With a little more patience and kindness. That's what makes people mean and difficult. People don't care enough about them." she says, and it makes a lot of sense to Terry, although he can't quite admit it. He makes a point of appearing difficult to Edie, but tells Father Barry "She's the first nice thing that's ever happened to me." From Terry, this isn't hyperbole, he means exactly that, which is why her ideas about everyone caring about everyone else are so hard for him to process. He'd love for things to be that way, but knows that they're not. We get a glimpse of Terry as he'd like to be when he's up on the roof taking care of pigeons, something he does because he wants to do it and not because he has to. He understands that there are hawks watching for pigeons all the time, and while it's a small thing he tries to help with that and goes a step further teaching local kids to do the same. Terry's not very bright but he knows about pigeons because they interest him. He likes the idea of protecting them, and similarly wants to protect Edie, although not in a way she can accept.

Father Barry and Edie both tell Terry that they won't tell him what to do, but they'll leave him to his conscience. The "conscience talk" starts to get on his nerves, because he knows all along what he needs to do, but he's in between states. He has the life he knows, and the idea introduced by Father Barry and Edie, that he wants but is afraid to accept. Terry doesn't make an instant turn around. It's actually remarkable how much pushing is needed to get him to act. The change begins when he's confronted by the biggest disappointment he can imagine, the thought of his own brother thinking of having killed. Charlie gives him the opportunity to finally confront the disappointments he's been shouldering. He wanted to be a contender and a more difficult truth than that, his older brother totally failed him. In this exchange we see the dynamic of their whole relationship, Charlie's easy deflection of responsibility and Terry's usual acceptance of this. Terry isn't angry, he's more hurt than he's been in his whole life. His very slight reaction to the gun, gently pushing it away, tells us that a gun pointed on him is minor compared to how this betrayal hurts. "Oh, Charlie." he says, and we get that this is everything. he's disappointed not only for himself but for Charlie too and everything between them. The life he "knows" has been as illusory as the one that Edie represents. At this point, Terry might be capable of anything, but as if to make sure, he has to see Edie in danger and Charlie killed. Although it takes a lot his killer instinct comes out. If not for Father Barry, we believe he would kill Johnny Friendly, although it's far more likely that Terry would be killed himself as Friendly would most certainly have anticipated the action. For a moment though, we see the pleasure Terry takes in making Tillio sit down and wait for what's coming and telling the well respected priest to "go to hell."

Luckily Father Barry is able to get to him, using boxing friendly patter. "You want to hurt him? You want to finish him?" Terry accepts that his testimony would hurt Friendly more, and based on the reaction Friendly gives when discussing stool pigeons, it's not much of a stretch to believe this. It does appear to be what would hurt him. A change of heart doesn't automatically fix anything though, and although Terry's testimony is assumed to have some impending affect, it doesn't seem to hurt him right away. Right in the courtroom Friendly threatens Terry. Terry resents having police guarding him. When the only good thing in his life before Edie is destroyed (his pigeons) he knows that what he did is not enough. Terry has by then givien up his passivity. He'll go "get his rights," he tells Edie, and shows up at the dock, where the D and D act is unchanged. Nobody admires him for what the did and they're all still on Friendly's payroll, even Pops. The injured homeless pan handler is given work and still there's nothing for Terry. It isn't until he approaches Friendly directly that anything changes, as this is a spectacle worth missing work over. Despite a few tricks, Terry is easily able to best Friendly in a fight, but that isn't worth as much as he might have thought, since Friendly's thugs are eager to jump in. This action also doesn't help Friendly as much as he thinks and the workers, too late to help Terry can refuse to work in solidarity with Terry, unless Terry leads them in. Power is finally out of Friendly's hands as the freight owner needs the work done and he clearly can't accomplish this. Father Barry shows up again for coaching, and as usual he helps in a way you might not expect. he encourages Terry, and then keeps anyone from helping him walk in the door to get to work. He knows that if this is to be a victory at all, Terry has to do it himself, and he does. What comes next, who knows, but if nothing else, Terry is living on his own terms for the first time since he can recall.

Marlon Brando is amazing in this role, giving a performance that stands out in film history. His Terry Malloy was a turning point for the film anti hero. He wasn't a good guy. He wasn't even good at being a bad one. Terry was a guy who really had no idea about anything other than his habits. Brando gave us a tough leading man living in a state of perpetual hurt. We're showed this more than told, by his mannerisms and how he carries himself. This guy was once a fighter, but every movement tells us that it was a long time ago. "Doing the right thing" is not a familiar concept to him and he needs to be given motivation before it even makes sense. We see the fog he lives in and its gradual clearing.

Rod Steiger is terrific here as well. For his small amount of screen time, we get a remarkably full character. Whereas Terry lives on the fringes, Charlie has bought into Friendly deep, as the right hand man. Charlie has his own delusions though, different than Terry's, bigger. Charlie sees dollar signs and suits. Charlie could well be the source of Terry's "philosophy." Yet, for everything that's happened, he still loves his brother, and once forced to look at how he's failed him, we can see it break his heart. He gives Terry his gun, knowing he won't see him again and asks the driver to bring him to the Garden, to relive a time when he still could've done right by Terry and the future could've still been a good one. Their "contender" conversation in the cab is one of the most remembered for a reason. It's rare to see so much history packed into such a small amount of screen time, but Brando and Steiger show us a whole relationship from start to brutal finish in a matter of minutes.

Eva Marie Saint is wonderful too. The lightness and goodness of her Edie being the perfect complement to Terry. Where Terry lives in a fog of denial and delusion, Edie truly believes that people are good. She's naive and he's simple and so they connect easily, both of them presenting the other something they haven't seen before. Even when she knows Terry had a part in her brother's death, she still finds him compelling, knowing there's more to him than the path of least resistance persona he tries to project.

Lee J. Cobb is a perfect choice for Johnny Friendly. His character towers over everyone, giving us a credible menace, believable as the force that keeps everyone living in fear for their lives. Able to be your best buddy one moment, and suggest you kill your brother in the next one, he's really the glue that holds everything together. Everybody hates him but no one wants to be on his bad side. His small army of thugs are a secondary menace to his own deep seated malice.

Karl Malden gives a passionate performance as Father Barry, the cheerleader/ trainer/ coach who has a knack for showing up at just the right time. We see a man consumed with his desire to clean up the waterfront to the point of mania. Being a priest, his addresses typically hinge on Christ references, but his personal commitment and outrage come through. He's willing to risk his own life, yet he's not above feeling frustration, which often happens when he tries to get anyone to share any information. His speeches to the workers, despite their passion, show us more than anything else that the workers fear is all but impenetrable. He's most useful in one on one scenarios, as we see when he makes his pact with Dugan, and in his interactions with Terry.

On The Waterfront is a great and powerful film, and aside from that, has significance from its place in Hollywood history. Elia Kazan presented it as a defense of his own "naming names" before HUAC and a condemnation of the Communist party. While this certainly lost him a few friends and colored the film a certain way, it doesn't change the fact that his motivation inspired him to create a great work of art. It's a beautiful film and a moving one. To me, the story behind the story doesn't take away from it's power. It's message could be applied to many situations even today, there are many who feel betrayed by a system that's larger than them but seems impossible to take down. It could probably use a few less references to "ratting" and "D and D." but it's not enough of a fault to really damage it. To enjoy the film, it's only necessary to believe that Johnny Friendly's outfit is totally corrupt, and this is illustrated well in the film. The viewer has no obligation to accept as a result that HUAC or their actions are acceptable or that Communists real or imagined fit the profile of Johnny Friendly. Is a strong case made for Terry Malloy to testify? Despite the inspiration, Terry Malloy is not Elia Kazan, so it's very easy to view the film on it's own merits.

I find it curious that even with Kazan's stated motivations, Terry's testimony lacked the impact you might expect at least from a film. Terry testified but Johnny didn't go away. Dugan testified and he got killed, as did Joey. It would be very easy to make an argument against talking from this film and certainly Father Barry's enthusiasm could stand a little scrutiny as he's essentially urging people to get themselves killed. But as he tells us, Father Barry is familiar with the idea of crucifixion. That here would be a heavy cost to do "the right thing." is perhaps more comfortable an idea to him than most. The idea of fighting the mob with religious faith seems like an odd choice of weapon, but then Father Barry's only function is to urge others on, so his sermons need only show a bigger picture than the insular world of the waterfront. Edie gives a more sensible suggestion, telling Terry they should leave. This would make sense, but not to Terry's pride and anger. Johnny killed his brother after all, and he feels like a fighter again. To not show up would be a loss.

Another inspiration for the story was a true account of a dock worker who with a priest's urging set out to take down a corrupt water front union. In the true account, the dock worker failed and in this film, except for the obligatory happy ending, we could as easily have ended up there. Terry's victory isn't knocking out Johnny Friendly, but managing a short walk after he's been worked over. Friendly isn't gone, and Terry's coworkers will in all likelihood do what they're told as they always have, especially if their lives or work are in jeopardy, which Friendly still has the power to do. Terry tells Friendly "You take the good goods away and the kickbacks, the shakedown cabbage and the pistoleros, and you're nothing!" Unfortunately, no one is taking those things away, except perhaps the Crime Commission, and their power seems severely limited. Short of killing everyone in Friendly's outfit, anything Terry can do would seem destined to fail.

But, since this is a film, Kazan can certainly pick a high moment for the ending and we can feel good for Terry and Edie and Father Barry and maybe even believe that things will be better at the waterfront. In the end it's not about the waterfront as much as it is about Terry trying to find himself a better way for himself. Personally I'd rather cheer from him trying to walk, than think of him hiding himself away from every disappointment he's learned to expect from his life. Even if it isn't realistic, it's good to see him finally win one and since it's a film I can hope his streak continues. At least he's not a bum anymore, even if his friends don't talk to him. And the viewers win too,because we get to see some of the best acting in history.

What Happens?

The film opens with Terry Malloy (Marlon Brando), and a group of men exiting a meeting with Johnny Friendly (Lee J. Cobb) the head of the dockworker's union on the NY City waterfront. Of the group, everyone is wearing a suit except Terry, who's dressed in casual clothes. Friendly gets into his car with his men and he tells Terry, "You take it from here, slugger."

Terry leaves on foot and stops at an apartment building. He yells "Joey!" up at one of the windows until Joey appears. Terry shows Joey a pigeon and says it's one of his, but he found it in his coop. Joey tells Terry "I gotta watch myself these days. Know what I mean?" Terry offers to bring the pigeon up to the roof and Joey agrees to meet him there. Once Joey leaves the window to go up, we see Johnny Friendly's men on the rooftop waiting. Terry lets the pigeon go and walks away meeting up with his brother Charlie (Rod Steiger,) and a couple of Friendly's men on the ground.

12 Angry Men

 What About It?


"Twelve Angry Men" is a film that many consider one of the greatest films of all time and was Oscar nominated for best picture, director and writing. This was also Director Sidney Lumet's first feature film, a fact which strikes me as astounding, given the complexity involved. To make such a powerful movie the first time out is miraculous. The idea of keeping an audience's attention on twelve men stuck in a room together talking is also a daunting task, (which was helped by some truly fine acting talent.) Lumet's technique is subtle and very effective, lowering the camera in each act and varying the lighting, to increase the sense of claustrophobia.

This is as good an example of a top notch ensemble cast as exists anywhere, although the magnetism of Henry Fonda, played against Lee J. Cobb's bitter stubbornness is the centerpiece that everyone gathers around. That being said, every juror in the room is notable in one respect or another and each man believes he is doing the right thing by his own reasoning. Each man has his own prejudices and quirks, and it's easy to see why at first glance they would all assume a guilty verdict.

While the film possibly presents a victory of the legal system, the implication is a lot less uplifting. If Henry Fonda's Juror #8 hadn't been in the room with his amazingly stubborn refusal to cave in when every other person in the room believed he was way off base, then what would have happened? Is it reasonable to expect that every jury have a Henry Fonda? I don't think so. On the other hand we can't assume that every jury will have a Juror #3, intent on a guilty verdict no matter what the facts may be. The reality is likely somewhere in between, and better represented by the jurors between the two polar opposites. Yet, if we look at the in between in this film we would definitely reach an almost instant guilty verdict.

Most of us have known people like each of the jurors and their traits are diverse enough that anyone could even find parts of themselves in each of them.
Juror #1, who tries hard to be fair, but needs to feel a sense of his own authority, which is easily threatened. Juror #2, timid and completely insecure in his own opinion. He instinctively goes along with the group.
Juror #3, so bitter, that he can't even see his own agenda, skilled at deflection and denial, so steeped in masking his real issues that he would send a man to death to take out his anger at his own son.
Juror #4, unemotional but fair, accepting only what he perceives as fact.
Juror #5, insecure and defensive about his own upbringing, and the closet thing to a "peer" the accused kid has. He's mostly reasonable, and makes up his own mind.
Juror #6, blue collar, somewhat cynical about anyone's innocence, but not maliciously so.
Juror #7, supremely self interested, seeing jury duty as an inconvenience keeping him from a ball game. Even knowing they're discussing a boy's life doesn't change his lack of concern.
Juror #8, the architect, determined that an innocent boy won't go to the chair without a thorough examination of every area with room for doubt. Self confident and stubborn, unfazed by the prospect of being the only dissenter.
Juror #9, the elderly man, pays close attention to detail, genuinely interested in doing the right thing.
Juror #10, his most prominent feature is the way his racism affects his every opinion about the case.
Juror #11, wants to follow the system properly, appreciating it differently than the others by virtue of coming from another country which didn't offer the freedoms and safeties he finds in the American legal system. Juror #12, similar to #7 in his extreme self interest. While he's a bit more polished than #7, he would rather talk about advertising than deliberate the points of the case.

These characters are all exaggerations, designed to highlight the different viewpoints that can be present in such a gathering. Each presents a piece of the group dynamic. One shared characteristic of most of them is that they are content to follow another's lead, whether Juror #8 of Juror #3. In this case Juror #8, knew how to present himself and presented his doubts better than #3 presented his certainty. No one wanted to side with Juror #8 against the other 11 jurors. Only Juror #9, the old man, who was unconcerned with social standing was willing to make that leap, and even he only did so out of respect for Juror #8's guts in standing alone.

Despite their knowledge that they were dealing with a young man's life, they were still concerned with the group's approval. Juror #8 wisely worked with the group dynamic to allow each Juror to change his mind in a way that felt acceptable to him. It's telling that the "outsiders" came around to his viewpoint first, the elderly Juror #9, the "raised in the slums #5, and the immigrant #11. Once there was a respectable number of "Not Guilty" votes, Juror #2 felt comfortable switching his vote, being himself an outsider, but also easily intimidated. Juror #6, the "average" guy now has the ability to entertain the facts, without a huge majority leaning either way, and considering the doubts presented changes his vote. With the numbers even at that point, and unable to deny the momentum of going from one Not guilty vote to six, the self interested are the next to change votes, partly to get what they see as the inevitable process over with. This leaves the three Jurors requiring extra persuasion. Juror #10, is persuaded by the room's unanimous rejection of his racist reasoning, which is only possible on the level that it occurs due to the growing majority. Juror #4, is all about the facts, and considers himself the smartest man in the room, only by appealing to knowledge about eyeglasses that only he himself has is he able to be swayed. This leaves only Juror #3, who is "peer pressured" into coming to grips with his own baggage. Certainly the facts and lack of them, is important, but as shown, the facts themselves would not have changed the Guilty verdict to Not Guilty.

In my opinion, this is the biggest danger of the jury system, the fact that group dynamics, can overpower the facts. I think that most jurors, have a suspicion that a man who is on trial is not on trial for no reason. We trust authority figures more than the average citizen. A policeman's testimony on the stand carries more weight than that of the man he arrested. The jurors here come to recognize Juror #8 as an authority figure, giving in to his determination and self confidence. While it's fortunate that he's working to give the accused a chance, making him just a little dumber and less charismatic, and making Juror #8 a touch more stable and objective would have changed the whole equation.

"12 Angry Men" is just a movie, but the issues it raises are as relevant now as they were then. Our jury system has not changed.Many people view the courts as a place where people, win by hiring the better lawyer. Do we really observe "innocent until proven guilty." to the point of "beyond a reasonable doubt?" I would speculate that the answer is "sometimes." I'm sure that some juries are as diligent as they can possibly be, but I'm just as sure that some are not. Some would answer such an assertion with the challenge to stop complaining if you don't have a better solution, but I don't accept that. The point of this movie to me is to ask some difficult questions, and take a look at where what we have can go wrong. It's wonderful that this movie is shown to schoolchildren to expose them to the danger's inherent in our system. This is a film I think we can all benefit from watching now and then, because someone's life or liberty could be at stake, and while we can't help the fact that the system isn't perfect, we can at least take it seriously enough to try to be aware of where it fails.

Fittingly I think, we don't know any more than the jurors do if the accused kid killed his father. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. That's what Juror #8's battle is really about, the fact that they can't know that. They are presented evidence that makes it appear that he did, and the Jury's response is to accept the evidence, arriving at the conclusion that he must have done it, and it needs to be proven that he didn't, the opposite of the law's requirement, yet a natural reaction, drawing guilt from the accusation.  To shift the burden of proof to the accuser, is a monumental undertaking which is only done by him accepting that their understanding in reversed and proving to them "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the case has a lot of holes in it. He points out this fact many times, but none of them understand it until the "proof" is scrutinized.  Rather than assume innocence, they assume guilt, and Juror #8 is forced to examine the case through this standard rather than the one prescribed by law.While Henry Fonda, might make it look like a walk in the park, I fear this task would be too much for most of us.

Sidney Lumet has said that the screenwriter Reginald Rose, believed that people were essentially good, a fact which Lumet himself doesn't agree with, but all the same, he loved the story. Personally, I can see the story serving both points of view. We can take it totally at face value and point to it as an example of the system working, but the difficulty and uncertainty in reaching this point suggest that next time it likely won't.  If we had 12 men itching like Juror #7 to see a ball game, this would have been a much different and much shorter movie. It's also notable, and a sign of the times, that the boys jury of "peers" was twelve white men who, except for Juror #5, had nothing in common with the accused at all. The problems the jury faces however are anything but outdated, as "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "innocent until proven guilty" are principles that our system still wrestles with today, and the stakes are exactly the same.

Justice prevails here perhaps, but I don't see any choice but to view it as anecdotal evidence. A brilliant film, which I think serves us better as a warning to how easy it is for the system to fail, than as a shining example of how well it works.

What Happens?

It's understandable that the idea of being tangled in the American court system is a less than comforting thought. The jury system is ideally designed to have your fate decided by your peers. Peers is a relative term though, meaning people chosen by random selection of any possible background, personalities, and outlooks. The idea of a jury systemoffers the potential for justice, but a terrifying possibility for justice being diverted.