"On the Waterfront" (1954) - Movie Classics

I have never really seen a whole Marlon Brando movie till now. I have seen him in “The Godfather” but I was at the time impressed by Al Pacino. Sure it was a subtle and strong performance by Brando, but I always wanted to see the real legend he is been talked about. I did not have the patience or to come off the “old movie” attitude. So here it is, one of the most praised classics of all time, “On the Waterfront”. I did not even read the synopsis of the story before I watched and when I saw the first sequence, it immediately rang many bells. Seemed familiar and I have seen the same in a different way in my country. The film name is “Ghulam” meaning slave. Aamir Khan took the role of Sidharth Marathe which is Terry Malloy in this movie. It struck two strikingly depressing factor about “Ghulam”. First one is the trend of the Indian Cinema conveniently plagiarizing the movie and not even crediting the story. It is been happening for years but not crediting a classic movie made in 1954 in 1998 is cruel. Secondly is the difference in the ending, which I will discuss later in the review.

Terry Malloy (Marlon Brando) as every one says is leading a life of “Bum”. He is with his brother Charley (Rod Steiger) and his boss Johnny Friendly (Lee J. Cobb). Johnny moves the coin in the union of the harbour. He cuts a lot of money in the movement of shipments and also from the workers. This injustice is questioned by Joey Doyle who gets pushed off the building in the very first sequence. Terry is the one who calls him to the roof without knowing the consequences. That plants the seed of guilt in him. Even though he did not push him off, he feels responsible for luring him to the trap. But he gets a crash course hard lesson from Johnny and his brother. Terry meets Joey’s sister Edie (Eva Marie Saint) and is attracted to her. In the meanwhile, Father Barry (Karl Maden) arranges a meeting in the church trying to pull some muscle against this injustice. Terry goes in as an informer for Johnny but ends up with Edie alone when the group gets attacked. He starts to see the scorching power of truth from Edie’s eyes hunting down his guilt. He cannot face it and this continuously bogs him down to confront himself. The remaining part is his various obstructions, loss and courage being tested till the end is the story.

The film does not have any high technical soundness keeping in mind the time of it too. But this movie is about the performances. The powerful eyes sinking down when is confronted by Edie and Father Barry, the same eyes staring at the opposite characters to convey the casual nature, frustration, anger and courage; Marlon Brando ladies and gentlemen. I am guessing in those days image of an actor means a lot. Taking a role where he is depicted as a useless loiterer, helping the bad people and of all sinking every moment in search of redemption would have been thought as a career suicide. With those constraints, taking the role and bringing it impeccably can only show how much true identity the legend attached him into. This film is not about the performance of Brando alone but there are supporting cast emanating brilliance all the time. Karl Maden’s Father Barry is the reformer with a twist of calculated anger and the idealism essential for the character. Rod Steiger’s Charely is the protective brother and yet feels help less in front of Johnny is another addition to the stellar cast. But the real terror is the Lee J. Cobb’s Johnny Friendly. His enactment of mindless anger is quite evident in the “12 Angry Men” but this tough crack Johnny is anger with the cunning nature of affection.

The film is a social awakening. It is the call for the people against injustice, corruption and their inner conscience. The film’s ending as I said in earlier is of character. Terry is a fighter and at last he fights Johnny but gets beaten so badly that he is not able to stand. As a fighter the film could have made him stand up and beat Johnny or may be even tackle all the men who beat him. Or may be all the people seeing this cruelty done to him could have started attacking Johnny and his crew. They do not go for it. They remain the same but some thing does ignite out of this whole scenario. They want it the right way as Father Barry explains Terry when he decides to kill Johnny. This is not about attaining justice through violence. It is the whole definition of the law. The means to the end is very important. And there this film is class.

And now for my depressing factors about the movie “Ghulam” is that the very same ending being twisted upon. The character of Sidharth gets beaten badly by the mob boss. But Sidharth gets up and beats the mob boss to pulp. And then they make the same kind of ending through a disabled old man opening his shop against the wishes of the boss. While they try to finish it in the right way, the point is lost as soon as the character that gets hunted by his conscience taking the path he got lesson not to do it. In that he just becomes as guilty as the mob boss. And it is even sadder that this ending is coming from a country which got its independence out of non-violence. It is not wrong in making a movie violent provided it proclaims its category and philosophy. It is truly wrong when the original screenplay concentrated on the ending and its purpose is getting butchered for the purpose of commerciality and cultivating the “feel good” in the audience of violence.