MovieChat Forums > On the Waterfront (1954) Discussion > Popular quasi-film noir early in Brando'...

Popular quasi-film noir early in Brando's career

posted 18 days ago by Wuchak (8278)
6 replies | jump to latest

This is an iconic B&W crime drama that won myriad awards when it came out. It's a seminal socio-political noir and one of Brando's three big hits in the early 50s, along with "A Streetcar Named Desire" and, less so, "The Wild One." I cite those movies because this is cut from the same cloth, just with the milieu of the Hoboken docks in the shadow of the Big Apple. Why it's not included on lists of film noir is a mystery.

Although it's understandably old-fashioned and a little melodramatic, there's enough human interest, especially the potential romance, and you can't beat the authentic setting. I particularly like the rooftop perspective with skyscrapers in the distance in many scenes (reminiscent of Spider-Man comics).

The flick supports being a "stoolpigeon" against corruption and was director Elia Kazan's answer to those who denounced him for identifying eight Communists in the industry before the House Committee on Un-American Activities in 1952.

Despite its renown, Brando seems pudgy and somewhat unappealing. I thought he improved in later (better) movies, like "Désirée," "The Young Lions," "One-Eyed Jacks" and "Mutiny on the Bounty," even "The Fugitive Kind," "Morituri" and "The Night of the Following Day."

[–] letess (1077) 18 days ago

I don’t know. That scene where he breaks down the door and Eva Marie was in her slip was very appealing. Brando was a very sexy man. All the movies you mention. And Sayonara. The Chase. Last Tango was a great movie. And then came Kurtz.

[–] Wuchak (8278) 18 days ago

"Sayonara" and "The Chase" are worthy Brando flicks (I never saw "Last Tango" beyond the boring first 35 minutes). By the time he played Kurtz he was in his mid-50s and had gained weight, but he looked good in an aloof, brooding, mature way (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078788/mediaviewer/rm3246533120/).

Kurtz was one of his best roles IMHO, a military genius with the gonads to do what was necessary to win the war without the sanction of the Brass, who slandered him as crazy (in order to motivate their "errand boys" to murder him). He was depressed because he had no where else to go beyond his quasi-family of Montagnard natives & American outcasts in the remote jungles of SE Asia.

[–] letess (1077) 18 days ago

Last Tango in Paris is worth a revisit. The scene where he laments over his wife who committed suicide is one of Brando’s best and Bertolucci’s. Actually, this is a great movie. A really great movie and it’s one of Brando’s best movies. There’s nothing boring about it. It’s not an action flick. It’s emotional and extremely erotic. When shown at the NY Film Festival in 1972, Pauline Karl said that that date should become a landmark in movie history.

So, if you think he was pudgy in On the Waterfront, he was absolutely behemoth and a little too Capote for me in Apocalypse Now. Brando’s stature figuratively is enormous, but for this movie, it should not be literally. He’d have to eat all of the natives’ food or them and that alone would be the their reason for starvation or demise, depending how you look at it. But then who would play Kurtz? Kurtz’s story is straight out of Heart of Darkness, which was meant not to be as noble as you’re saying, but the horrible effects of colonialism. The natives’ heads on pikes, rolling heads like bowling balls, I don’t think that is a military genius at work. But we’re talking about Brando, not the character. The character was great. But I think Brando was godawful. Having to film in shadows because of his enormity, and he didn’t know the script and never read the novel were obstacles for Coppola when filming. When Brando said “the horror,” he sounded like Capote. I can’t help but snicker. For me, he was the weakest part of this great movie which I loved btw - I think he almost ruined it. I actually like the Redux version more than the original which was shown last year - the original that is, Scorcese’s 70 mm print.

[–] Wuchak (8278) 18 days ago

I'll probably see "Last Tango" sooner or later. I just found the first 35 minutes dreadfully dull when I tried to view it a year ago. The hoopla at its time of release, which you emphasize, hasn't stood the test of time. The flick's rarely mentioned anymore and relatively obscure.

As noted in my original post, I thought Marlon was a little pudgy and somewhat unappealing in "On the Waterfront" (yet not exactly Quasimodo). He got better and looked better as time went on (often, not always), at least until the 80s. "The Young Lions," "One-Eyed Jacks" and "The Night of the Following Day" are good examples.

Brando's size in "Apocalypse Now" actually fit the movie: He "got off the boat" of the US military and was independently winning the war with his own troops. Unfortunately, he painted himself into the proverbial corner and could never go home now, which resulted in his depression and weight gain. Being a jungle paramilitary leader in his mid-50s, he had his minions doing the footwork while he was lying around reading, brooding, eating and gaining weight. This is clearly shown in the film. That said, he wasn't grossly overweight, as observed here https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078788/mediaviewer/rm859546625/.

The flick was inspired by Conrad's book, yes, but it's definitely its own entity with its own message(s). There's the anti-colonial moral, of course, but it's more about Willard coming to identify with Kurtz; they were kindred spirits, it turns out. While there was some ambiguity about Kurtz being mad or a military genius, Willard slowly realized his bold genius contrasted by the insanity of those who were intent on just playing the game of war and perpetuating the misery, "the horror" (Kilgore and the officers back in Nha Trang). The severed heads lying around the camp illustrated Kurtz' intent to do whatever was necessary to end the horror of war ASAP, obviously done with artistic license (since heads & bodies lying around would start to stink in a matter of a few hours in the hot jungle).

Like Kurtz, Willard decided to depart the game of war at the end because he smelled the "stench of lies." Unlike Kurtz, he wasn’t going to futilely stay in Southeast Asia and try to accomplish America’s stated mission by himself along with whatever motley paramilitarists he could assemble in the jungle. He had a home to go back to, America, not to mention a message for Kurtz' son.

Marlon's Kurtz is an amazing character and the heart of the movie. Duvall's Killgore is entertaining, but he's a comic book character who kisses the Brass' butt. Kurtz, on the other hand, is the meat 'n' potatoes of the story and Willard wisely learns from his wisdom and mistakes. Coppola pointed out in the documentary "Hearts of Darkness" that he always thought John Milius' original ending was weak because it didn't top the helicopter raid on the village. The answer Marlon & Francis came up with was to go heavier, darker and moodier. It was the only way to match the greatness of that earlier action sequence -- take an altogether different route. Imagine if Francis got Jack Nicholson for the role of Kurtz (he was, in fact, a secondary contender); it would've likely been as one-dimensionally unimaginative and cartoonish as his portrayal of the Joker (not that there's anything wrong with that, lol).

By contrast, we get something from Marlon's Kurtz that is potent and remains relevant: If you want to get something effective done in your chosen craft and make real progress, you'll have to "get off the boat" of the system. Those in power aren't going to like it, of course. They'll slander you and try to take you out, one way or another. You can never go "home" again.

Brando showing up completely unprepared for the shoot is a cinematic myth explained in this thread https://moviechat.org/tt0078788/Apocalypse-Now/5e711e578396c32c28e7c2b5/Coppolas-claim-that-Brando-showed-up-completely-unprepared-is-a-MYTH.

[–] letess (1077) 12 days ago

All of your comments are really good. I looked at some stuff because I was interested in the actual script. It seems Milius wrote it with a Green Beret in mind (Rheault - not Tony Poe) who was up against a military scandal but who was a decent guy and somehow, according to Milius, Coppola rewrote the script and made it like the musical Hair. And then Brando said he rewrote his part. In a way this might be truest, because we know he ad libbed. I recently saw a documentary done in 2015, “Listen to Me Marlon” by Stevan Riley. And, I am wondering if you saw it because it has a segment in it about Coppola and Apocalypse Now. Brando was miffed at what Coppola said about him. Brando claims he saved Coppola’s movie by rewriting his part. I do believe Marlon Brando showed up NOT reading Heart of Darkness. I can tell you this because Brando couldn’t understand why his character was named Colonel Kurtz. “American generals don’t have those kind of names. They have flowery names, from the South. I want to be ‘Colonel Leighley’.’’ And so they had to call him Leighley for awhile to appease him. He eventually read the novella, and now understood his name and the character and wanted to play him as a monster, which is probably what you read about Brando and researching CIA operative, Poe. But Milius and Coppola insist he wasn’t the guy they based it on. And Ellsberg mentions Pentagon Papers had a lot to do with Rheault who he thought was a victim “of an unholy system … to conceal murder.” But if Brando reimagined his role and ad libbed, then maybe Tony Poe won out as he was the “monster” (sending severed heads and ears). Brando saw the military leader probably much like the US government and the war on Native Americans. Coppola had to endure the humidity and a typhoon and Brando’s demands. Sheen had a heart attack. Sam Bottoms and Hopper were doing drugs. Coppola’s budget was gone. Brando’s mumbling with improvisational dialogue and filming in dark shadows is the performance now being credited as genius. Coppola managed to come out ahead professionally and financially. Jack Nicholson would not have been right as Kurtz. I read that Lee Marvin and Orion Welles were the only other ones - Welles, the only actor bigger in girth than Brando. Next time this movie is at a theater, I will go and see with new eyes in part by what you said. I think the Redux version is better bc of the French part. Also, watching this along with the film Indochine and also the one with Michael Caine, The Quiet American, set in 1952 Saigon, a novel by Graham Greene would make it all the more interesting. French rule was especially cruel (also seen in Papillon) and hugely responsible for the state of things before US involvement. I just think Brando got lazier and crazier later on and some of the stuff he did didn’t merit all this glowing admiration but during “his” time, there was nothing like him.

[–] Wuchak (8278) 9 days ago

I haven't seen "Listen to Me Marlon" yet, but I'll keep a look out for it, thanks.

There's a sequence in "Hearts of Darkness" wherein Francis is in the Philippines shooting and he's talking to a colleague on the phone about the plan to have Brando fly-in for the last act, but it wasn't a set deal yet. He says, "If Brando doesn't do it, we'll get Nicholson. If Jack's not available, we'll get..." I forget the second person he mentioned as an alternative (likely Lee Marvin), but Nicholson was the first candidate he noted.

I like it when films set the viewer up to believe one thing, but then counteract it with additional info as the story proceeds, especially when it's done subtly. A good example (speaking of Nicholson) is "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" in which the viewer can walk away thinking "Nurse Ratched wasn't that bad" or "she was only trying to do her job." Ratched's malevolence is so lowkey that the filmmakers allow for the possibility of complete misinterpretation. Not only is doing this brilliant IMHO, it takes gonads.

Something similar happens in "Apocalypse Now." Both Willard and the viewer accept Gen. Corman & Col. Lucas' take on Col. Kurtz and that it's justified to kill (murder) a kick-axx American officer because he's supposedly crazy. But as the boat team goes up the river Willard goes over Kurtz' dossier in detail and learns that he was an exceptional militarist, attending green beret school when he was almost 40 and, more recently, winning the war in his sector by discerning and assassinating double agents in important positions, politically, without the clearance of his superiors.

Unfortunately, Kurtz was now stuck in the deep jungle with the Montagnards, et al. with no possibility of going back home. He's struggling with depression and even crazy thoughts during dark moments (which explains his venting "Kill them all, drop the bomb" in his journal), but his spiritual side won out and he subtly enlists Willard to kill him while he's "standing up, not like some poor, wasted, rag-assed renegade," and inform his son the truth rather than have his family believe the Brass' official narrative, aka their "stench of lies."

For anyone who argues that a sane person wouldn't write something like "Kill them all, drop the bomb", yes, they can. For instance, I'm perfectly sane, but was shocked when I read something I wrote in a decade-old journal. I was venting negative emotions/thoughts at that particular moment for my own well-being. And it works! But I was taken aback by what I wrote when I read it 10 years later. So, I can see Kurtz at some low point in the night at his compound wanting to use the Montagnards as a scapegoat for his desperate situation, which explains what he vented. Instead, he nobly decides that he was the one who had to be eliminated, which was a safeguard for the natives & the outcasts who had joined them.

Brando’s mumbling with improvisational dialogue and filming in dark shadows is the performance now being credited as genius.

I was talking about Brando's Col. Kurtz being a military genius and fascinating character, which Brando had a lot to do with creating, along with Coppola. Marlon's mumbling, ad-libbed delivery was nothing new by that point, but he got paid the big bucks because he was so creative and did what he did so entertainingly, even if he happened to be phoning it in. Perhaps he was doing this in "Apocalypse Now," but that doesn't take away from the fascinating character of Col. Kurtz.

Speaking of whom, he was shot in a shadowy way because the story was built on creating a great mystique around him. That said, Kurtz is fully shown in broad daylight in the scene where he reads TIME articles to Willard, which just so happened to reveal that he was perfectly sane, as elaborated in this thread: https://moviechat.org/tt0078788/Apocalypse-Now/5e77cd9667f9af376a618d0f/What-was-the-purpose-of-the-scene-where-Kurtz-reads-TIME-articles-to-Willard