1

Stephanie Chuang

Professor Susan Glenn

HSTAA 365

9 June 2020

The Pressures of HUAC and its Presence in ​On the Waterfront

On the Waterfront​, directed by Elia Kazan, follows the story of Terry Malloy, a dock

worker, who eventually stands up to the mob bosses who are responsible for the death of one of

his fellow workers. Kazan was one of the prominent Hollywood members who was interviewed

by HUAC, the House Un-American Activities Committee, and subsequently named names for

them, something that drew criticism from his colleagues. ​High Noon​, ​directed by Fred

Zinneman, is another movie with HUAC themes that follows the story of the lone Will Kane as

he tries to gather help in fighting an outlaw. Both of these films have strong anti-HUAC themes,

and involve the “lone hero,” who fights to do what is right. However, ​On the Waterfront​ ​speaks

more clearly about the political pressures of the time, due to the clarity of the “sides” of the

movie and Terry’s character development over time, as opposed to the undefined nature of the

outlaws in ​High Noon​ and Kane’s stubborn righteousness from the start.

During the 1950s, a rising fear of communist influence bore a number of new policies,

one of which was the House Un-American Activities Committees, headed by Senator Joseph

McCarthy. Eventually, HUAC got around to investigating Hollywood, and directors, writers,

producers, and actors were all blacklisted if they didn’t testify or name names (Glenn, Week 8

lecture). A group of people known as the Hollywood Ten spoke out against these hearings when

called to testify. One of these people, John Howard Lawson, a screenwriter, attempted to make a
 2

condemning statement during his hearing. “Millions of Americans who may as yet be

unconscious of what may be in store for them will find that the warning I speak today is literally

fulfilled. No American will be safe if the Committee is not stopped in its illegal enterprise”

(Lawson, “Hearings”). Here, Lawson is referring to the illegal and indecent nature of the HUAC

hearings. Those trials provided character assasination for anybody who was critical of the

government, and forced people to publicly identify any groups they were a part of; a clear

violation of privacy. People who didn’t cooperate were blacklisted from Hollywood (Glenn,

Week 8 Lecture). In relation to ​On the Waterfront,​ HUAC is clearly represented by Johnny

Friendly, the mob boss who tries to threaten Terry into silence. Even though Johnny Friendly has

manipulated the Union into benefiting himself and those around him, everybody remains “deaf

and dumb” when questioned out of fear (​On the Waterfront​, 1954). In ​High Noon​, from an

Anti-HUAC standpoint, HUAC is represented by Frank Miller, the outlaw returning for revenge

against Will Kane. The difference between these two films is that Johnny Friendly is repeatedly

displayed as outright evil. The audience gets to know him up close and personal. We see him

murder someone right at the beginning of the film, order the murder of another, and repeatedly

threaten Terry and his brother, Charley (​On the Waterfront,​ 1954). This association of Johnny

and violence makes sense, given that Kazan himself had to testify before HUAC twice and

suffered through their demeaning questions. In ​High Noon​, however, we hardly see Frank Miller

until the shootout (​High Noon​, 1952). The audience must only rely on the word of the Kane and

the townspeople that Frank is really as bad as he seems. Due to this, it’s harder to believe the

stakes raised in ​High Noon.​ Though both Terry and Will have difficult decisions to make, as
 3

your average citizen who didn’t intimately understand the pressures of HUAC, these sentiments

are much more clear in ​On the Waterfront​ than ​High Noon.​

The other important difference between ​On the Waterfront​ and ​High Noon​ is the

development of its main characters. In ​High Noon​, right from the start, Will Kane is ready to

fight to the death against Frank Miller, even if he is the only one (​High Noon​, 1952). However,

in ​On the Waterfront​, Terry is much more reluctant to do the right thing in the beginning, even

going so far as to try to convince Edie to let her brother’s death go (​On the Waterfront​, 1954).

We see not only Terry, but multiple other dock workers claim to not know anything about Joey’s

death, evidently scared into submission. Again, this fear is in line with how people felt about

HUAC. People who previously voiced dissenting opinions or criticism of the government now

fell silent out of fear. A ​New York Times​ article from 1952 states, “Fear has driven more and

more men and women in all walks of life either to silence or to the folds of the Orthodox”

(Douglas, “The Black Silence of Fear”). Anyone with a minority opinion had to stop publicly

expressing it or risk being brought before HUAC, the ultimate punishment. Seeing as this fear

was widespread, starting Terry off as cowardly provides a way for the common man to relate to

him. The audience knows that Joey’s death was wrong, but they sympathize with Terry’s fears of

retaliation. Furthermore, as Terry is slowly convinced to speak up against Johnny Friendly, he

undergoes isolation, beatings, and attempts on his life (​On the Waterfront​, 1954). His decision to

do the right thing had clear consequences for himself. This likely is in line with how Kazan

must’ve felt after testifying. Kazan named names, defended his actions, and lost many of his

friends. In Kazan’s mind, he was trying to do the right thing, and was vilified for it (Glenn, Week

9 Lecture). In contrast, this lack of development for Kane means he’s in more or less the same
 4

situation as he was in the beginning of the movie. Arguably the corresponding development

belongs to Amy, Kane’s wife, but other than a bit of an existential crisis, Amy doesn’t really

undergo any difficulty in deciding to do what’s right (​High Noon​, 1952). Thus, Terry’s character

development and Will’s lack thereof make ​On the Waterfront​ a clearer depiction of the “price”

being paid for doing what’s right, and by extension, the “price” of testifying or choosing not to in

front of HUAC.

Overall, ​On the Waterfront​ paints a clearer picture than ​High Noon​ of the pressures and

consequences of HUAC’s agenda. Both are relevant examples of how movie makers protested

the way HUAC singled out people with dissenting opinions, but the depiction of each film’s

respective villains and the character development of Terry and not Will make ​On the Waterfront

the clearer picture. This can likely be attributed to Kazan’s experiences testifying before HUAC.

His anger and vindication really shows in ​On the Waterfront.​ ​The two differences I’ve pointed

out really come down the way the stakes are raised in each film. The clear picture of Johnny

Friendly establishes a clear and immediate fear, while Terry’s growth as a person inspires

determination despite the circumstances. This also makes Terry and ​On the Waterfront​ more

relatable to audiences, which is also imperative to its clarity. There is a lot to appreciate about

both films, but ​On the Waterfront​ is the easier representation of how people felt under HUAC.
 5

Stephanie Chuang

Professor Susan Glenn

HSTAA 365

9 June 2020

Postwar Racism, Delicate Liberalism, and Good Intentions

Once other countries started pointing to the United States’ racial strife as a point of

hypocrisy and weakness, the United States had to take action. Americans couldn’t be the

purveyor of freedom abroad if they couldn’t even maintain that expectation at home. Thus,

action was taken, the Civil Rights Movement gained steam, and the country began to confront its

own racism, albeit slowly and somewhat still in denial. Films with strong social messages, like

No Way Out,​ ​Gentleman’s Agreement​, and ​Crossfire​ were released to both praise and criticism.

While these films had liberal messages, due to the delicate nature of the polarized American state

and the films’ own ingrained issues, these films sparked a lot of controversy and were difficult to

introduce into the conversation about racism.

As countries began to condemn racism more strongly, the American South was in the

process of desegregating. Though Brown v. Board had determined that segregation was

unconstitutional, the South was dead set against desegregating (Glenn, Week 7 Lecture).

Americans’ prejudices didn’t just turn off on a whim; there was still a long way to go. This was

part of what was so difficult about the releases of ​No Way Out,​ ​Gentleman’s Agreement,​ and

Crossfire​. These films just having liberal messages could push more people to be less racist, but

it could also have the opposite effect. An article in ​The Study of Man​ states, “The problem of

how to state the moral case without risking such a ‘boomerang’ reaction is of course involved in
 6

most efforts to cure prejudice” (Wolfenstein and Leites, “Two Social Scientists View ​No Way

Out​”). What Wolfenstein and Leites are saying here is that just because ​No Way Out​ tried to

favorably portray blacks, that didn’t mean that the audience would immediately catch on and

agree with it. In fact, ​No Way Out​ risked further angering racists who were already furious at

what was going on in America at the time. This sentiment is repeated in an article in the ​Chicago

Defender​, “All the bigots and faint-hearted are going to be infuriated by this film. Thus decent

people will have to make up for the attacks with uncompromising courage” (White, “‘​No Way

Out​’ A Picture Scarcely Without Equal). However right or correct the film might have been, it

was bound to inspire anger from its audiences. White also mentions that decent people have to

“make up for the attacks,” which seems to suggest that movies like ​No Way Out​ are making it

tougher for people to fight against racism. In reality, the film wasn’t the problem, it just caused a

reaction with the real problem: white audiences who detest the idea of equality for blacks. Thus,

no matter how just films like ​No Way Out​ were, the delicate egos of the white audiences at the

time made it incredibly difficult and controversial for these films to do what they intended.

The second aspect that makes films like ​No Way Out​ so controversial is the fact that some

of the aspects of the movie are inherently problematic. There’s no denying that ​No Way Out​ was

written with good intentions in mind. The film features a black doctor who must prove his

innocence in the death of one of his patients despite the racist outcries of the patient’s brother

(​No Way Out,​ ​ 1​ 950). With the black doctor as the main character and clearly in a good light, the

film attempts to raise him, and by extension, his race, into a better light. However, if you take a

closer look at the film, it is more than it seems. The article in ​The Study of Man​ states that “The

central issue about the autopsy presents us with the following alternative: In order to save the
 7

Negro, a white corpse must be ‘violated’ (Wolfenstein and Leites “Two Social Scientists View

No Way Out”​ ). The only way for the black doctor in the film to be exonerated from the death of

his patient is if an autopsy is performed on him, something which is painted as a horrible

violation of his peace. In this sense, it is implied that the equality of the black man comes at the

expense of the white man. This isn’t the only suspicious instance in the film. Later in the film,

there is a fight between mobs of white and black men, except there is a cut of an unidentified

white woman screaming in between the fight (​No Way Out,​ 1950). She had never appeared in the

film before, nor was seen anywhere else in the fight except the close up of her screaming. This

unexplained shot appears to be an echo of the illogical and common fear that a white woman’s

purity would be sabotaged by the evil black man. From a larger perspective of other films which

also fall into the same category of ​No Way Out,​ “... for the continued treatment of the ‘Negro’ as

a problem forces him into a new stereotype” (Weales, “Pro-Negro Films in Atlanta”). Weales

also points out another unfortunate aspect of the influx of films that try to do justice for blacks,

which is the fact that these films more or less force blacks into the social arena of always being a

problem or causing a problem. Without films of blacks just being normal people, the idea that

comes across is that all blacks are always making a disturbance about their race, whether

justified or not. This doesn’t help the efforts of blacks to achieve equality, but rather

delegitimizes it. Thus, it would be inaccurate to say that the good intentions of films like ​No Way

Out​ were alone sufficient enough to fight racism, for they had their own problems and

unintended consequences that made certain audiences unreceptive to them.

To summarize, anti-racists films from post World War II suffered through a lot of

controversy. This was not only due to those films’ inherent racism despite good intentions, but
 8

the delicate nature of the audiences’ biases. Those audiences were not always readily accepting

of whatever the film was trying to “teach” them, and in some cases, would angrily go the

opposite direction. The inherent racism of the films also didn’t help their case. Together, they

explain the difficulty the films experienced in being introduced and the controversy surrounding

them.