Does The Truth Always Set You Free
? Essay, Research Paper
On the Waterfront is a authoritative, award-winning and controversial movie. It received eight academy-awards in 1954, including best-picture and manager. The manager, Eliza Kazan, in coaction with Budd Schulberg wrote the movie? s screenplay. Based on existent dockside events in Hoboken, New Jersey, On the Waterfront is a narrative of a dock worker who tried to subvert a corrupt brotherhood. Marlon Brando wonderfully portrays the character of Terry Malloy. He is a immature ex-prize combatant, now a dock worker given easy occupations because his brother is the right-hand adult male of the corrupt brotherhood boss Johnny Friendly. After Terry inadvertently allows himself to be used in puting up a adult male? s decease, he starts to oppugn the basic premises if his life. This includes his trueness to his brother and Johnny, who after all ordered him to take a honkytonk in his large battle at Madison Square Garden. The movie? s contention exists in the fact that Terry decides to attest against Johnny Friendly. His testimony efforts to demo how it is basically right to interrupt group silence in a tough state of affairs, even if a individual appears to? rat? on his friends. To be at peace with oneself, Kazan seems to state, one must state the truth, despite the fact that one will confront banishment, and, as in the movie, likely be murdered. Kazan makes the adversities of attesting distressingly clear. Therefore, Brando? s character is a hero. However, a dark docket exists behind the movie? s secret plan. On the Waterfront was made in 1954, two old ages after Kazan volitionally testified before the House Un-american Activities Committee. In 1952, Kazan named the names of eight friends and colleges allegedly affiliated with the Communist party. Kazan was an active member of the Communist party in the 1930s, until he went through a violent interruption with the party prior to the hearings. He said that communism could overrule a individual? s mind and beliefs. He besides stated that Hollywood and Broadway to a great extent financed the party. Telling his determination to attest, Kazan said, ? Communists were in a batch of organisations & # 8211 ; unobserved, unrecognised, unbeknownst to anybody. I thought if I don? t talk, cipher will cognize about it. ? On the Waterfront is Kazan? s justification for his determination to attest. In the movie, when a brotherhood foreman cries, ? You ratted on us Terry, ? Brando shouts back: ? Possibly from where your standing, but I? m standing over here now. I was rattin? on myself all those old ages. I didn? t even cognize it. ? That reflects Kazan? s belief that communism was an evil that temporalty seduced him and it was necessary to oppose it. Since Kazan believed that communism was an evil menace to the American manner of life, he tried to portray his determination to attest as a heroic act of heroism. He wanted to demo the populace that a individual who testifies is brave, non a coward. Throughout the movie there are a figure of mentions to the codification of silence, ? D n? D? , or? Deaf and Dumb. ? This means that no affair how wretched the fortunes are, a individual ne’er rats. The brotherhood hoods make a gag about the male child pushed off a edifice because he threatened to speak to the offense committee, therefore interrupting the sacred codification of D n? Calciferol: ? A fink. Possibly he could sing but he couldn? T fly. ? Kazan has one
character, in peculiar, emphasize the importance of talking out in life. Father Barry believes that the truth will ever put a individual free. He says, There? s one thing we? ve got in this state and that? s ways of fightin? back. Gettin? facts to the populace. Testifying for what you know is right and what you know is incorrect. What? s rattin? to them is stating the truth for you. Can? t you see that? Can? t you see that? This citation is an illustration of Kazan shouting out to the populace for forgiveness. Later in the movie, Kazan tries even harder to derive credence, as there is an obvious analogue between his ain testimony and Terry Malloy? s. In the courtroom scene, Terry Malloy turns? stoolie? and betrays Friendly throughout his testimony. He tells the tribunal that, on the dark governments discovered the organic structure, person pushed Joey Doyle from the roof. He states that he was the last individual to see him alive, ? except for the two hoods that murdered him. ? Terry testifies that, after the slaying, he went instantly to the Friendly Bar, where he expressed his feelings about the slaying to Mr. Friendly. Terry is a hero because he made it possible for honest work forces to work at the docks, with occupation security and peace of head. However, Terry? s battle is merely get downing. Friendly sums up Terry? s supposed destiny with one sentence, ? You? ve merely delve your ain grave. ? After the test, Terry? s friends refuse to speak to him and he does non receive work. Neighborhood friend Tommy kills Terry? s pet pigeons on the rooftop. Tommy tosses the dead bird at Terry and cries, ? A pigeon for a pigeon. ? Peoples deride him and banish him as a? canary. ? In interviews, Kazan discusses his designation with the Brando character. ? A batch of that sort of thing happened to me after I testified at HUAC, ” said Kazan. I was snubbed. Peoples I knew good would look at me but non speak. People looked down on me. They couldn? T except the fact that right or falsely it was something I did out of principle. ? After the release of On the Waterfront, Kazan was unfastened about his hidden motivations, baronial and black, to do the movie. The scene near the terminal of film, when Terry shouts to Friendly, ? You? re a inexpensive, icky, soiled stinkin? mug. And I? m glad what I? ve done to you, ? disturbed some people. Critics interpreted this to intend that Kazan was non regretful for his severely detrimental testimony. It appeared that he had no compunction for his actions. For other viewing audiences, the inhumed docket of On the Waterfront tarnishes the image. The critic John Rosenbaum told Roger Ebert that he could? Never forgive Kazan for utilizing the movie to warrant himself. ? In ulterior old ages, Kazan did finally hold compunction for the people whose lives he ruined and the blemish his testimony left on the whole movie industry. In his 1988 autobiography he says, ? I have some declinations about the human cost of it. One cat I told on I truly like a lot. ? Twenty old ages subsequently, unlike On the Waterfront? s winning stoping, in Kazan? s image The Visitor, a adult male besides testifies against former friends ; nevertheless, that film ends on a note of desperation. Possibly the words of a legendary character he helped to make, haunted Kazan. As Terry Malloy said, ? Conscience. That material can drive you nuts. ?