On the Waterfront is a Piece of Propagandistic Dreck and Elia Kazan Was a Cowardly Informant
Timothy Sexton
January 31, 2007
Some movies just can't be adequately critiqued without invoking their politics. The fact that Elia Kazan made On The Waterfront in the first place makes it fair game for reviewing the film from the point of view of a political statement. The movie is a counter to the indictment against people like Kazan that writer Arthur Miller makes in The Crucible. (And by the way, the argument that The Crucible isn't appropriately analogus to the Communist Witch Hunt because while there were no witches in Salem while there were Communist in Hollywood simply doesn't fly; there may have been Communists in Hollywood, but they had about as much power to influence the public as an imaginary witch.)
In case you aren't aware, Elia Kazan was already a renowned film director by the time he willingly went before the House Un-American Activities Committee—the Witch Hunt Committee—and ratted out his friends with whom he had attended meetings of the Communist party. He basically did this to save his own behind; there is certainly no indication that Kazan at any time really had any great belief that Communists were infiltrating Hollywood and were hell-bent on destroying the American way of life: you know, buying things you don't need and dying in faraway lands to contribute to a President's attempt to overcome his inferiority complex.
Having destroyed several lives with his testimony, Elia Kazan came under attack from certain quarters for his cowardly action. His response was a film that is so highly regarded it verges on the nauseating. (I’m not even going to get into the almost campy melodrama and the hysterical acting. I know it verges on a sacrilege to suggest that Marlon Brando was ever anything but brilliant during the 1950s, but in my opinion you won’t see a more affected piece of acting in any other movie released during that decade). Brando’s character in On the Waterfront Terry Malloy is supposed to be a stand-in for Elia Kazan, you see, cleaning out the filth so that a bum can become a contender. Well, here's the problem: The left-leaning writers, directors and actors whose careers Kazan helped to end weren't gangster or criminals. IT HAS NEVER BEEN ILLEGAL TO BE A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY.
So the analogy doesn't fit. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen: Elia Kazan is no Terry Malloy. Kazan wasn't bruised and beaten on his quest to become a hero by rooting out a criminal element. Kazan was a nothing more than a cowardly rat and the fact that this piece of dreck won so many Academy Awards is itself a testament to the fact that the Communist element in Hollywood was minor at best.
Hollywood and movies are a business. They are owned and operated not to make art, but money. They exist to fulfill an Althusserian delivery of America's prevailing ideology—capitalism is the answer to all our society’s ills and problems—and it would take more than ten or twenty or a hundred writers and directors to make a dent in that. Elia Kazan did nothing to protect the minds of America from being infected by communist doctrine. (You know the kind of stuff I'm talking about: free health care, affordable higher education for everybody, higher wages for workers, and less inheritance for Paris Hilton.) It is unconscionable to reward Kazan and anyone else connected with On the Watefront with Oscars or any other kind of award.
Look at it from this point of view: Do you think a movie that explains why Benedict Arnold betrayed his fellow countrymen would ever receive such adulation? What about a movie that explained the murder of Sharon Tate from Charles Manson’s point of view? Ah, I know what you’re thinking: Who’s making the fallacious analogy now? Not me. Manson and his freaky buddies ended Tate’s life as well as several others and threw countless other lives into disrepair. Are you aware that many of those who were blacklisted committed suicide? Then there’s John Garfield who died of a heart attack at the age of 39 after battling the stress of the blacklist. And those who didn’t commit suicide had their careers taken away from them for no other reason than that they attended a perfectly legal meeting years before.
I’ll go further with my analogy: In my opinion, Elia Kazan is worse than Charles Manson. Manson was insane; he can be excused to a certain extent. Kazan didn’t have to name names. He didn’t have to attend the hearings at all. He knew exactly what he was doing, he did it, and then he lived the rest of life never once expressing regret. Instead, he took hundreds of thousands of dollars and made a movie to justify his own cowardly rat actions.
Do yourself a favor. Ignore this movie when Turner Classic Movies airs it as one of their “Essentials.” The only essential thing about this piece of garbage is that it’s essential we all learn the lesson that being a coward with an Oscar still makes you a coward.
In case you aren't aware, Elia Kazan was already a renowned film director by the time he willingly went before the House Un-American Activities Committee—the Witch Hunt Committee—and ratted out his friends with whom he had attended meetings of the Communist party. He basically did this to save his own behind; there is certainly no indication that Kazan at any time really had any great belief that Communists were infiltrating Hollywood and were hell-bent on destroying the American way of life: you know, buying things you don't need and dying in faraway lands to contribute to a President's attempt to overcome his inferiority complex.
Having destroyed several lives with his testimony, Elia Kazan came under attack from certain quarters for his cowardly action. His response was a film that is so highly regarded it verges on the nauseating. (I’m not even going to get into the almost campy melodrama and the hysterical acting. I know it verges on a sacrilege to suggest that Marlon Brando was ever anything but brilliant during the 1950s, but in my opinion you won’t see a more affected piece of acting in any other movie released during that decade). Brando’s character in On the Waterfront Terry Malloy is supposed to be a stand-in for Elia Kazan, you see, cleaning out the filth so that a bum can become a contender. Well, here's the problem: The left-leaning writers, directors and actors whose careers Kazan helped to end weren't gangster or criminals. IT HAS NEVER BEEN ILLEGAL TO BE A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY.
So the analogy doesn't fit. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen: Elia Kazan is no Terry Malloy. Kazan wasn't bruised and beaten on his quest to become a hero by rooting out a criminal element. Kazan was a nothing more than a cowardly rat and the fact that this piece of dreck won so many Academy Awards is itself a testament to the fact that the Communist element in Hollywood was minor at best.
Hollywood and movies are a business. They are owned and operated not to make art, but money. They exist to fulfill an Althusserian delivery of America's prevailing ideology—capitalism is the answer to all our society’s ills and problems—and it would take more than ten or twenty or a hundred writers and directors to make a dent in that. Elia Kazan did nothing to protect the minds of America from being infected by communist doctrine. (You know the kind of stuff I'm talking about: free health care, affordable higher education for everybody, higher wages for workers, and less inheritance for Paris Hilton.) It is unconscionable to reward Kazan and anyone else connected with On the Watefront with Oscars or any other kind of award.
Look at it from this point of view: Do you think a movie that explains why Benedict Arnold betrayed his fellow countrymen would ever receive such adulation? What about a movie that explained the murder of Sharon Tate from Charles Manson’s point of view? Ah, I know what you’re thinking: Who’s making the fallacious analogy now? Not me. Manson and his freaky buddies ended Tate’s life as well as several others and threw countless other lives into disrepair. Are you aware that many of those who were blacklisted committed suicide? Then there’s John Garfield who died of a heart attack at the age of 39 after battling the stress of the blacklist. And those who didn’t commit suicide had their careers taken away from them for no other reason than that they attended a perfectly legal meeting years before.
I’ll go further with my analogy: In my opinion, Elia Kazan is worse than Charles Manson. Manson was insane; he can be excused to a certain extent. Kazan didn’t have to name names. He didn’t have to attend the hearings at all. He knew exactly what he was doing, he did it, and then he lived the rest of life never once expressing regret. Instead, he took hundreds of thousands of dollars and made a movie to justify his own cowardly rat actions.
Do yourself a favor. Ignore this movie when Turner Classic Movies airs it as one of their “Essentials.” The only essential thing about this piece of garbage is that it’s essential we all learn the lesson that being a coward with an Oscar still makes you a coward.
Print
Email
