I watched On the Waterfront which was setting in the period of the 1950's. I feel that this movie is relevant today even with the time gap. The main plot of this movie was about corruption within the union. Today there is still much controversy regarding unionization. In this particular film the result was the mob had taken control of the work force and wages. As a result of many killings the main character Terry (Marlon Brando) reluctantly decided to fight back. In today's world less killing and more picketing is seen and heard about.
Overall I did like the movie. I felt that it had great acting and it was sincere. Some times you can be watching a great movie that you are really enjoying until one actor or actress plays their role poorly and I just about ruins the entire experience of watching the movie. I was glad to see that that was not the case in this movie. Not one single actor or actress played their part poorly. I believed that what was happening to them in the movie was real and not just someone acting as though it was. It is a refreshing thing to watch.
Another thing that I liked was the grit of the movie. In my last blog I wrote about how enjoyed the glamour of Casablanca but, sometimes you really need to get down to the nitty gritty to feel the full effects of the story. What I thought was interesting about the stark differences between the two films was how different they were and yet they were made so close together. The difference between the movies is roughly 10 years. They may have both been in black and white but the acting was so very different.
I didn't notice as much intentional shadowing done with the lighting as I had in Casablanca. I noticed the use of mist being that this was taking place at a harbor. The movie focused on two classes of people. It had the workers who had to struggle just to find a days work and it also had the wealthy mobsters that didn't trust anyone. In many of the scenes I noticed how the workers would be below deck on a ship and the mobsters would be controlling things from on deck looking down upon the workers. Though it doesn't really make sense to have the mobsters below deck it said something and symbolized the roles each class played. The mobsters calling the shots from above and the workers doing as they were told and working in the dirt.
When Terry told Eide what happened with her brother the words were blocked out by the sound of the ship horns blowing. By the director choosing to do this it really emphasized the emotion of what was happening. The audience didn't need to hear the words they knew what happened the Eide's brother. The director wanted the focus of that moment not to be interfered by words. The audience was waiting for Eide's reaction and that is what they got. The horns blew loud as the director took close up shots of Eide and Terry's faces as the confrontation ensued. It was a heart wrenching moment and the feelings could be seen on the actors faces.
The moment toward the end of the film when Terry had been badly beaten up had to walk to the front of the dock declaring his victory and the imancipation of the workers. I felt that this moment was one of the strongest of the film. The workers had been terrified to stand up to the mob for their rights. Terry had had enough and stood up to Johnny Friendly and won. Terry would no longer be seen as a canarie for ratting out the mob and he would have the friendship of the workers once again.
Overall the movie did not have much in the way of cinematography but I think that it was intentional. It was a dramatic movie that was focusing on a hot issue among the country. Fancy lighting and various other decorative settings would have taken the focus away from the key issue. In fact cinematography was used more to block out the actors in order for the issues in the main story to be even more dramatic such as with the ships horns. I felt that this was a very cleverly filmed movie that got the point across without discuissing it with fancy things.
Overall I did like the movie. I felt that it had great acting and it was sincere. Some times you can be watching a great movie that you are really enjoying until one actor or actress plays their role poorly and I just about ruins the entire experience of watching the movie. I was glad to see that that was not the case in this movie. Not one single actor or actress played their part poorly. I believed that what was happening to them in the movie was real and not just someone acting as though it was. It is a refreshing thing to watch.
Another thing that I liked was the grit of the movie. In my last blog I wrote about how enjoyed the glamour of Casablanca but, sometimes you really need to get down to the nitty gritty to feel the full effects of the story. What I thought was interesting about the stark differences between the two films was how different they were and yet they were made so close together. The difference between the movies is roughly 10 years. They may have both been in black and white but the acting was so very different.
I didn't notice as much intentional shadowing done with the lighting as I had in Casablanca. I noticed the use of mist being that this was taking place at a harbor. The movie focused on two classes of people. It had the workers who had to struggle just to find a days work and it also had the wealthy mobsters that didn't trust anyone. In many of the scenes I noticed how the workers would be below deck on a ship and the mobsters would be controlling things from on deck looking down upon the workers. Though it doesn't really make sense to have the mobsters below deck it said something and symbolized the roles each class played. The mobsters calling the shots from above and the workers doing as they were told and working in the dirt.
When Terry told Eide what happened with her brother the words were blocked out by the sound of the ship horns blowing. By the director choosing to do this it really emphasized the emotion of what was happening. The audience didn't need to hear the words they knew what happened the Eide's brother. The director wanted the focus of that moment not to be interfered by words. The audience was waiting for Eide's reaction and that is what they got. The horns blew loud as the director took close up shots of Eide and Terry's faces as the confrontation ensued. It was a heart wrenching moment and the feelings could be seen on the actors faces.
The moment toward the end of the film when Terry had been badly beaten up had to walk to the front of the dock declaring his victory and the imancipation of the workers. I felt that this moment was one of the strongest of the film. The workers had been terrified to stand up to the mob for their rights. Terry had had enough and stood up to Johnny Friendly and won. Terry would no longer be seen as a canarie for ratting out the mob and he would have the friendship of the workers once again.
Overall the movie did not have much in the way of cinematography but I think that it was intentional. It was a dramatic movie that was focusing on a hot issue among the country. Fancy lighting and various other decorative settings would have taken the focus away from the key issue. In fact cinematography was used more to block out the actors in order for the issues in the main story to be even more dramatic such as with the ships horns. I felt that this was a very cleverly filmed movie that got the point across without discuissing it with fancy things.
No comments:
Post a Comment