The moral conflict in “On the Waterfront is too simplistic: Edie and Father Barry are unbelievably good and pure; Johnny Friendly and his thugs are relentlessly evil. Do You Agree?
Elia Kazan’s film “On the Waterfront” focuses on the failings of a morally corrupt society and the struggle between “good” and “evil”. The challenging environment of the waterfront forces its some inhabitants to ruthlessly eliminate those who oppose them. Hence, Johnny Friendly and his henchmen are exceptionally malevolent, seeking to keep their power and prosperity at the expense of others. Their binary opposites, Edie and Father Barry remain almost faultless and angelic and hence they project a simplistic view of “good” people. Hence in many ways the conflict between the righteousness and evil is straightforward, as Edie and Father Barry are inherently good, whereas Johnny and his thugs are undoubtedly evil. However, Kazan focuses on Terry Malloy’s journey from apathy to action demonstrating that the moral conflict in “On the Waterfront” is in fact morally ambiguous and complex. Therefore, whilst there are stereotypical portrayals of good and evil, Kazan exposes the ambiguity of ethics and hence the film is not overly simplistic.
Edie and Father Barry’s role in the film is to push Terry to pursue the righteous course of action. The courageous priest and pure woman remain incorruptible for the entire film and hence project an overly idealistic view of what “good” people are. Edie is frequently shot with light emanating from her face is depicted as a pure and innocent lady. Furthermore, she relentlessly pushes terry to discard his notion of self-preservation telling him “everybody should be good to everybody”. Moreover as one of the few women who appear in the film, she stands as a person of conviction and courage, unfazed by the harsh environment of the waterfront. Hence, Kazan’s depiction of Edie means that she seems to be devoid of failures and is immune to the corruption of the waterfront, establishing her as an inherently good woman. Furthermore, Father Barry is portrayed as entirely righteous in the face of a morally corrupt society. He remains “good” throughout, with his sermon on the docks demonstrating his courage and conviction in the face of adversity. Despite being physically abused by the henchmen, Barry continues his inspiring speech. The high camera angle, along with the multitude of men above him serve to demonstrate how isolated he is, which only makes his stance against the mob more honourable. Hence Father Barry and Edie, the people who represent the goodness of the world, remain incorruptible and virtuous and in many ways this makes the moral conflict too simplistic.
Similarly, Johnny Friendly and his henchmen are undoubtedly malicious and evil, serving as the binary opposites of Edie and Father Barry. The ruthlessness of their operation and their monopoly on power mean that the rest of the workers remain poor, whilst Friendly and his goons reap the rewards. The ominous music in the opening scene and the way in which the henchmen move with such confidence immediately establishes the fact that they are in command. Furthermore, the quality of their attire and the wealth that they distribute amongst themselves serves to highlight the corruption of the waterfront. In addition, the fear that they instil into the workers is demonstrated the idea of “deaf and dumb”, so that the workers will not report to the commission in order to say alive. The cruelty of Friendly and his henchmen is made explicit by the ruthless murder of Joey Doyle, as the henchmen are amused by his death commenting he could “sing but not fly”. Moreover, Friendly eliminates his right hand man Charlie in order to maintain his grip on power and also continually threatens Terry. Hence Kazan suggests that power corrupts and this is evident in the example of Friendly who is consumed by his desire to remain powerful and wealthy, resulting in his corruption and ruthlessness. Hence, the “evil’ people of the film are also stereotypical and one dimensional.
However, the journey of Terry is what makes the film distinct from the typical struggle between good and evil. Plagued by indecision and his low self-esteem, Terry struggles to differentiate between what is right and wrong and this is what makes the movie more than just a dualistic battle between good and evil. The moral ambiguity of his situation is made explicitly clear in the opening scenes where he rubs his chest constantly. Furthermore his incoherent mumblings and body language- such as placing his hands in his pockets with his head down- are indicative of his insecurity and lack of confidence. His guilt is further compounded by the fact that Joey is Edie’s sister whom he clearly has affection for, shown in the bar scene where they gaze lovingly into each other’s eyes. His transformation from apathy to conviction and righteousness by betraying his former associates evidently a great moral struggle, aptly demonstrated when Terry asserts “conscience-that stuff can drive you nuts”. His moral awakening his highlighted later in the movie where Kazan utilises a low angle camera shot, juxtaposing the protagonist against a clear and blue sky, suggesting his conscience is at last clear, perhaps echoing Kazan’s own situation. Therefore, Terry’s moral journey difficult and challenging and is indicative of the complex moral conflict found in the film.
Hence, undoubtedly Edie, Father Barry and Johnny Friendly are in many ways simplistic binary opposites who represent the struggle between good and evil. Edie and Father Barry are “unbelievably” good, whilst Johnny Friendly is indisputably evil. Hence in many ways their struggle makes the conflict in the film overly simplistic and stereotypical. However Terry’s own journey and moral conflict is what makes the film more than just a fight between “good” and “evil”.
Home
Help
Search
Login
