The Screenplay of ON THE WATERFRONT
Essay by Bill Phillips
This essay looks at Budd Schulberg's script for On the Waterfront. The script doesn't have anything to prove. It won Best Screenplay for 1952. The film won 7 other Oscars. It holds up well almost 50 years later. By any reasonable criteria, script and film are total successes. I am primarily a screenwriter (major studios, networks, cable), secondarily a screenwriting teacher. I got hooked on films like this one when in college. They lured many of us into this insane business. Why? Because telling stories is a lot of fun! On the Waterfront is my favorite film. I've seen it 75 times. So my approach is not scholarly, it's practical, the love of a script better than any I've ever written... (although I still try.) In case that statement sounds overly modest, please realize that, in my opinion, no one has written a script better than On the Waterfront.
WHY STUDY ON THE WATERFRONT?
In the first section of this essay, I want to test the relevance of common screenwriting learning approaches against this project. When Schulberg wrote this, there were no film majors, no MFA screenwriting programs, no self-proclaimed script gurus, no script software. Then, people worked on "the great American novel," not "the great American screenplay." Today, 100,000 scripts/year are written, most employing some of these aids. Most scripts are bad; a few are good. What can Waterfront show us about the efficacy of learning techniques? In the second section of this essay, I'll examine why this film has held up so well over the years. In the third section, I'll look at differences between various script drafts and the film. Scripts are known as blueprints. Much is often contributed by others after the writer's done. The director, actors, technicians, executives and friends often contribute creatively to a finished film. Last let's look at favorite moments, some scripted, some invented by others involved with the project. This in no way diminishes the script. Good scripts can let others embellish. But let me say what I tell every writing student: "It's always bad before it's good." Ernest Hemingway said it more colorfully: "The first draft of anything is shit." If would-be writers learn one thing, it should be that writing is hardwork; it's rarely inspiration. Good writing means rewriting.
I was thrilled to read "Crime on the Waterfront," labelled as "Final Draft" (how naive we all are that our work is ever through) dated 4/14/51. (1) (The script is on microfilm in the Schulberg files in Special Collections at Dartmouth College's Baker Library.) This didn't even have the Brando character in it! It did have a waterfront priest prominent in the story, Father Monahan. He is the result of Schulberg's research, based on the Malcolm Johnson Pulitzer Prize-winning articles. He actually found a priest like this, who frequently took his life in his hands to help the longshoremen in their struggle against the mob. Most films make a long trek from initial concept to finished product. Waterfront was no exception. First, let's view the script from a writing student's point-of-view (using the finished film as our text). Most writing instruction encourages:
A.) A COMPREHENSIBLE STORY: Coherent Beginning, Middle and End. Some teachers prefer a traditional 3-Act Structure, while some insist on multiple acts. We'll do both.
B.) GOOD CHARACTERS:
1.) Sympathetic protagonist with well-defined needs & flaws.
2.) Worthy antagonist (with needs, flaws, attributes.)
3.) Love-interest suitable to the protagonis êt and the story.
4.) Colorful and interesting Secondary Characters.
5.) Backstory for every major character.
6.) Character arcs for every major character.
C.) GOOD DIALOGUE:
1.) Original, believable, not cliched
2.) Varied voices
3.) Not expository or "on the nose"
4.) Not excessive or "speechy"
D.) Adequate and entertaining "action"
A. COMPREHENSIBLE STORY
Film is a mass medium. It must reach many viewers, not an esoteric few. Some scripts (and films) simply make little sense. This is sometimes confused with creativity, but usually just by the artist involved. On the Waterfront never suffers from this. The story of corruption on the New York Waterfront of the 50s, it is told with a sense of authenticity and close attention to dramatic basics.
BEGINNING, MIDDLE AND END (STRUCTURE)
The Writers Guild of America looks closely at two criteria when they must judge a writer's worthiness for screen credit during a credits arbitration: structure and dialogue.
SCENES (STRUCTURE)
Many films have 50-80 scenes. I tell students to have at least 30 to ensure sustaining feature length. (A scene changes when the story moves to a new location. For example, in Waterfront, Joey being pushed off the roof is a scene. The next scene is the thugs standing with Terry, noticing someone just fell.) This 30-scene minimum is just simple math. 30 X 4 = 120 pages, standard script length. If you don't have at least 30 scenes, you don't have a feature. Waterfront has 36.
1) Thugs leave Johnny Friendly's office.
2) Terry calls Joey to get his bird. On the roof, thugs wait.
3) Terry joins Johnny's cronies nearby, including Charley.
4) Joey "falls" off the roof.
5) Terry is surprised Joey got killed. Charley shrugs it off.
6) Cops and Edie Doyle and Father Barry reach dead Joey.
7) Johnny Friendly's bar. Payday.
8) On the roof wit jh the Terry's pigeons. Meet teenager Tom.
9) Terry tussles w/Edie, Barry invites others to the church.
10) Terry loafs in the loft. Charley asks him to spy.
11) The church meeting. The mob breaks it up.
12) Terry walks Edie home, remembers her from school days.
13) Pops Doyle is upset with Edie for seeing Terry.
14) Edie visits Terry on roof. They discuss raising pigeons.
15) Terry/Edie to bar. He's subpoenaed. Edie calls him a bum.
16) Johnny/Charley accost Terry for failing to report Dugan.
17) Kayo Dugan gets killed in a loading "accident."
18) Barry draws comparison between Dugan and the crucifixion.
19) Roof: Edie to Terry, gives him Joey's jacket. They kiss.
20) Terry tries to confess to Barry, who says, "tell Edie."
21) Outside church, Terry tells Edie. She runs off.
22) Roof. Cop finds Terry, discusses his fixed fight.
23) JP tells Johnny he saw Terry wi :th a cop.
24) Famous cab scene. "I coulda been a contender."
25) Terry breaks into Edie's place, is called out by thugs.
26) Terry saves Edie, sees Charley hanging on grappling hook.
27) Barry finds Terry after Friendly, suggests he testify.
28) Court. Terry testifies. Big Boss watches on T.V.
29) Terry suffers for breaking waterfront code by talking.
30) Terry finds his birds killed, needs to see Friendly.
31) At the docks, everyone works today except Terry.
32) His underlings comment on Friendly's newspaper photo.
33) Mack hires any bum he can find, but not Terry.
34) Johnny takes away thugs' guns. They must be careful.
35) Terry fights Friendly. Thugs take care of Terry.
36) Barry helps Terry stand. "If Terry works, we'll work!"
ACTS (STRUCTURE)
The traditional 3-Act structure can be simply defined as Beginning, Middle, End (Act 1, Act 2, Act 3). In Waterfront: Act One begins when Terry unwittingly sets up Joey's murder. Thugs want to be sure he doesn't go to the cops, so they kill him. Terry's brother, Charley, can't assuage his guilt. Act Two begins when Terry's smitten with Joey's sister, Edie. She wants to find Joey's killer. Cognitive dissonance sets in. He questions his previous involvement with the mob. "There's more to this than I thought, Charley. I'm telling you, there's a lot more." Act Three begins when Charley, unable to reign in Terry, is killed by the mob, a signal that they aren't kidding around. The same will happen to Terry if he talks. This begins Terry's war with the mob, resolved in the last scene. Many writers employ 3-Acts simply to survive script meetings with minimum scratches. "In Act One, th is happens. In Act Two, this happens. In Act Three, this happens." Some writers complain that executives have short attention spans and say the 3-Act structure caters to that need. But there is another reason for this. If you can tell a story in 3 sentences, it can be advertised succinctly. The millions these executives are responsible for stand a better chance of being recouped if the story lends itself to a quick description. Better, if you can state your movie in one sentence, it can readily be put on a movie poster. That's High Concept. There are producers, like James L. Brooks with Terms of Endearment, who prefer "Low Concept." Try telling that film's premise in a sentence. Now try telling the premise to Jaws. "Man-eating shark menaces an oceanside town during tourist season." That's High Concept. It's easier to sell. Some screenwriting professors dislike the 3-Act structure. It can be formulaic, it can encourage students to take a path of least resistance in planning scripts, it often leads to the 60-page wasteland of Act 2, and it's sometimes dramatically inadequate compared to a more ambitious "many act" structure. So let's view On the Waterfront differently.
Let's call it Eight Acts.
(This does not change the content of the script... it simply allows the writer to be more aware of dramatic blocks.)
Act 1. Joey falls off roof. Edie criticizes Barry for staying in church rather than getting engaged with workers' issues.
Act 2. At the docks, Terry tussles with Edie. Father Barry suggests the disenfranchised meet in the church.
Act 3. Terry goes .to the church to spy, rescues Edie from the mob. In the park, he says, "You grew up very nice."
Act 4. Pops scolds Edie for spending time with Terry. Terry takes Edie to a bar, wants to help, but "can't." He's subpoenaed. She calls Terry a bum. Johnny scolds him for not reporting what happened at the church. Dugan testified.
Act 5. Dugan killed in "accident." Barry hit by a thrown can; Terry punches thrower. Friendly suspects Terry's loyalty.
Act 6. Terry to Barry to confess. He urges him to tell Edie. He tells her amidst ship whistles. Bereft, she runs off.
Act 7. Charley pleads Terry's case to Friendly, doesn't get far. Famous cab scene. Terry goes to Edie's, mob guys call for him, he finds Charley killed, vows revenge, searches for Friendly. Barry says the way to hurt Friendly is to testify.
Act 8. Terry testifies, finds pigeons dead, goes to docks to get Friendly. The fight. All resume work, Terry triumphant. Although there are the same number of scenes whether 3 or "many acts," the latter lets you describe more points of action, making the story more complex (in planning) and letting you write shorter action spans before something crucial happens. It's an artificial difference, since nothing changes in content of the script, but it lets you describe things with more complexity, useful to novice writers.
B.) GOOD CHARACTERS
SYMPATHETIC PROTAGONIST (WELL-DEFINED NEEDS & FLAWS) Not every film includes a sympathetic protagonist, but most do. You want a sympathetic protagonist so the audience will root for someone. You don't want the audience to feel, "Who cares?" They'd better care, (or they won't keep watching (or reading). Several characteristics make Terry Malloy sympathetic:
1) His participation in Joey's death was unintentional. He'd be harder to like if he had known what was going to happen.
2) He's a lovable lug. Despite being uneducated, he had a chance to become a boxing champ. Having a tough childhood and being victimized by mob greed further endears him to us.
3) An inept but charming lover, he woos Edie as a Neanderthal with a heart of gold who realizes there's a better life to be had with a classy dame. We generally like that character.
4) Affection between him and brother Charley is admirable.
5) He's a good boxer, useful in a hero if he's reluctant to use it until forced to. When he must perform, we love that.
6) This is an often-used cheat: Terry is handsome. (Young Brando.) Novice writers are told NOT to have sympathy rely on getting a handsome actor, but here, this can't be ignored.
WELL-DEFINED CHARACTER NEED
Terry doesn't want to be called a bum. Ever since he took a fall in a mob-fixed fight years ago, he has wanted to reclaim his self-respect, what Kazan addresses as his "dignity." This makes his fight at the end inevitable.
CHARACTER FLAWS
Terry's flaws make him human, let us sympathize with him. He can't help that his childhood led him into a life of crime and corruption. It isn't until he is inspired by Edie and Barry that he tries to do better with his life. If he didn't have these flaws, he'd have nowhere dramatically to move.
WORTHY ANTAGONIST (CLEAR NEEDS, FLAWS, ATTRIBUTES)
Friendly doesn't suffer disloyalty lightly, has Joey thrown off the roof, humiliates Skins, has Dug |an and Charley killed. He's paranoid, street-smart, "earned" his lofty position. He shows Terry a scar he got coming up through the ranks. Friendly's character need is simple: to remain in charge. We're given specifics about the financial incentive for this. Friendly's flaws are evident. It's a basic tenet of good drama that no bad guy wakes up thinking, "How can I be bad today?" (Unless it's a parody like Dr. Evil in the Austin Powers films). So it is useful to invent attributes that soften his "badness," make him human. He gives the $50 he gets back from Skins to Terry... a reward for his loyalty. He makes sure Terry gets a cushy position in the loft at work, again showing generosity for loyalty.
A LOVE-INTEREST SUITABLE TO THE PROTAGONIST & THE STORY
Edie just wants to find her brother's killer. This makes her more attractive, because the romance she gets isn't what she's seeking. She's also relatively protected. Her dad is a dockworker, but he and his deceased wife have saved to allow her to escape the tribulations of this kind of life. When Edie gets involved with Terry, two things happen: 1) she gets involved with someone she's known since grade school and 2) she gets involved with someone from the "other side of the tracks." It helps that it's Brando, but the script further
helps, because Terry's character is sympathetic, regardless of looks. Edie propels the story. If she weren't trying to uncover Joey's killers, there wouldn't be a story.
COLORFUL AND/OR INTERESTING SECONDARY CHARACTERS
One of the richest elements of Waterfront is the interesting secondary characters here. For example: Father Barry - based on a real waterfront priest who daily endangered his life to minister to those on the docks, he became a character as a result of Schulberg's research, even (with another name) in his earlier Crime on the Waterfront. Pops Doyle - he toted bails every day for so many years that he can show Edie that one arm is longer than the other. Charley Malloy - two years of college give him an intellectual edge over the rest of the gang. Charley the Gent in his camelhair coat is palpably real. He has a tender spot for his brother, which ends up being fatal for him. Mack - gang boss loyal to Johnny, shows human side by giving a job to his lazy brother-in-law or his "wife will kill me." Jocko, the Bartender - his best moment is when he responds to Terry, who is looking for Friendly, "He's not here right now." Without Terry seeing, he picks up a club, and we get the sense he would have used it if not interrupted by Barry. JP, the Shylock - "When you're dead and gone, you'll remember me." Sometimes a character can be given memorable dialogue, and that can help ensconce him in the audience's mind. Truck - "Hey, somebody fell off the roof." Understated lines define him. Always there for Johnny in a threatening way, like when he keeps the men from helping Terry in the fight. Tullio - a thug. "Definitely" is an enjoyable line. Minimal dialogue nevertheless allows him into our minds. Kayo Dugan - This Irish firebrand helps flesh out how the workers are portrayed, when he's given Joey's jacket and passes his down the line, when he's beaten by thugs at the church, when he steals the whiskey, and when he's killed. Moose, the black dockworker - another character who doesn't have very many lines, but they are memorable.
MOOSE
Y'know how a trigger local works, Father? Get up in a meeting, you make a motion, the lights go out, then you go out. Near the end, he says: Hey, that boy fights like he used to.
Glover, Crime Commission Cop - that he saw Terry in the fight that ended his career endears him to Terry and to us.
Gillette, the 2nd Cop - the "girlfriend," as Terry calls him, has little to say, but he's a memorable fly in the ointment.
Tom, kid on roof - Schulberg knew about pigeons because he raised them in L.A. The use of the bird is a metaphor for Terry's involvement with the cops. It also helps the backstory.
Terry founded the Golden Warriors.
Slim - Fred Gwynne - appreciated because of subsequent roles. Even in this small role, his unique looks provide a richness to Friendly's entourage that makes it credible and memorable.
Mutt, the Bum - few lines, but there to establish Terry "will always be a bum," speaks highly of Joey. When Terry is kept out of work at end of film, even Mutt is hired to demonstrate how unwelcome Terry is on the docks now that he has "ratted."
BACKSTORY FOR EVERYONE
Backstory is needed to make characterization believable, both for the audience and for the actors who must portray characters we see for only a brief period of their lives. There are two types of backstory:
a) the type writers and actors use to enable them to portray characters as complete human beings, even though much of this type of backstory never makes it onto the page. b) the type that DOES make it to the page, however cryptic. A writer creates an elaborate backstory for main characters, even if very little of it makes it into the film. Indeed, sometimes a writer invents a different backstory than an actor does for the same character. This backstory is simply a way for that character to seem real: for the writer, the actor, the audience. For example, a writer may decide Terry and Charley’s father was killed by a mob hit man and build a whole backstory on how this happened. The actor playing Terry may decide he was killed in a car accident. The actor playing Charley may decide he fell in the shower and died in the hospital. It doesn’t matter to the audience as much as it does to whomever is using the backstory. It helps the writer believe these people are real, and as a result, many of the lines they have and the business they have will be consistent. When the actor is given a character, he/she may invent a totally different backstory. Its main value is to permit a fictitious character to have a credible consistency.
The other type of backstory shows up in the film. Terry’s taking a dive for the mob, doing a favor for Johnny and for Charley, is an important element to On the Waterfront. It symbolizes the mob’s indifference to Terry’s personal needs, their willingness to subordinate his interests to their own, and ultimately helps justify his testifying against them.
CHARACTER ARCS
Most films (there are always exceptions) have a protagonist travel through a character arc. That is, he/she moves from one state of being to another over the course of the film. He/she learns something. This lets the audience participate vicariously in the character’s transformation, making the experience more rewarding, because something has happened. Terry’s character arc goes from unquestioning mob pawn to someone who stands up to them and brings them down, even at the risk of being a “cheese-eater,” which he used to revile.
Johnny Friendly’s character arc brings him from wellensconced head of his local to discredited thug. Edie’s character arc brings her from protected conventeducated naive girl to street-wise lover who fights the mob. Charley’s character arc brings him from lawyer and resident intellectual for the mob to murder victim. Father Barry’s character arc brings him from sheltered priest to brave waterfront champion of justice.
C.) GOOD DIALOGUE
WGA judges scripts for arbitration on two criteria: structure & dialogue. We’ve discussed structure. This film’s great dialogue is famous. Schulberg captured the way dockworkers speak. There are some instances, as will always be with talented cast and crew, where additional gems appear that were unscripted. But for the most part, the script had it.
ORIGINAL, BELIEVABLE, NOT CLICHED
Schulberg researched his subject thoroughly, lived on the docks, learned the patter of various voices.
VARIED VOICES
There are several distinct character voices in this film:The thugs, epitomized by Tullio, who chimes in, “Definitely.”
Father Barry - memorable things, like, “I’m just a potatoeater, but...” His speech about Dugan’s killing being a crucifixion is memorable and brave, considering the film industry’s inclination to soft-pedal religion.
Edie - her speech was much more refined than Terry’s, which set up a nice contrast between them. The dockworkers - the vernacular was consistently authentic.
Charley the Gent - his apologetic nature is epitomized by, “... Why shouldn’t we? We’re entitled to it?” His education puts him above his less graceful brother, Terry.
Terry - is barely articulate, but touching, truthful and insightful. A good example of a writer imbuing a character voice with the writer’s wisdom, but not writer’s voice.
NOT EXPOSITORY OR “ON THE NOSE”
Exposition is needed. Expository dialogue happens when it’s obvious and goes against the grain of how people talk. When dialogue sounds like a soap opera, you’re breaking a cardinal rule: “Show, don’t tell.” Schulberg’s too good for this.Novice writers are told to avoid “on the nose” dialogue, that says just what it means, with no artistry. If Terry had said when first attracted to Edie: “Hey, you’re cute. Wanna hang around?” it wouldn’t have been refreshing. Instead, he talks about how her hair used to be like a hunk of rope, she had wires on her teeth and was a real mess. When Edie tries to end the visit, he says, “You grew up very nice,” one of the most romantic lines in film history.
NOT EXCESSIVE OR “SPEECHY”
A rule of thumb I give novice writers is to avoid speeches longer than 8 lines. With first-time writers, soliloquies usually end up being about how to change the world. There’s an old Hollywood saying, “If you want to send a message, use Western Union.” Waterfront really does do some preaching... with a priest! And the scene that is one of the most famous in movie history, “I coulda been a contender,” is wonderful, but wordy. The message here is: if you write really well, then you’re allowed longer than 8 lines, once in a while. Schulberg and Kazan accomplished this preaching with great writing and great acting. We should all be so lucky!
SEEMINGLY CANDID
Film at its best shouldn’t seem like hundreds of technicians slaved thousands of hours. It should look like someone had the good luck to capture candid behavior, so the audience doesn’t feel manipulated. (This isn’t to say a film shouldn’t manipulate. It just shouldn’t be caught doing it.) On the Waterfront is so superbly crafted (written, acted, directed, shot) that one doesn’t consciously feel the manipulation. Some of the dialogue is matter-of-fact, some profound, some sad, some illiterate, but it all has one thing in common: it works. Why? Credibility, character, originality, dramatic growth... it works in different areas for different reasons.
JOHNNY
Takin’ over this local, it took a little doin’. Some pretty tough fellas were in the way. They left me this (shows scar) to remember them by. In this scene, we learn Johnny fought hard to get where he is. He doesn’t take his position for granted. He faced lethal violence to attain his standing... useful to know later. In another example, when the cops gets nowhere with Terry, in terms of his testifying, one of them says:
GILLETTE
We may be seeing you again, Mr. Malloy.
TERRY
Well, never’s gonna be too much soon for me, Shorty. This line wasn’t scripted and isn’t even “correct,” but it works because people sometimes say things wrong, especially when under pressure. We know Terry isn’t the most clever wordsmith, and this line plays into his personality.
D) ACTION
There are two ways to define action: 1) the part of the script (business) that helps balance out the dialogue, to keep a story from being too talky, that ensures visually interesting and crucial activity takes place throughout. 2) those explosive moments when all hell breaks loose. On the Waterfront is replete with both examples. a) Joey falls off the roof. b) Friendly beats up, kicks out Skins for shortchanging him. c) The fight for chits, Terry giving Edie one for her dad. d) The mobsters break up the church meeting. e) Kayo Dugan is killed. f) Can thrown at Barry. Terry punches out thug who did it. g) Attempt on Terry/Edie, Charley seen hanging on hook. h) Terry looks for Johnny in bar, is confronted by Barry. i) Courtroom. j) Dead pigeons. k) Fight with Johnny Friendly. l) Lame Terry walks into work, followed by the dockworkers.
“MILLION DOLLAR MOMENTS”
The late Dawn Steele, while V.P. at Paramount, talked about how most hit films have at least five “million dollar moments,” which audiences quote when leaving the theatre, saying, “That was great when...” Using this theory, let’s examine On the Waterfront for its “million dollar moments.”
1. Terry and Edie in the park... “You grew up very nice.”
2. The “I coulda been a contender” speech.
3. Terry finds Charley hanging dead on a hook, vows revenge.
4. Terry fights Friendly, then is beaten by the thugs.
5. Terry walks in triumphant at the end. “Let’s go to work!”
(I think there are more, but I wanted to prove Dawn’s point.)
In the second section, let’s examine why this film has held up well over time. Some films are dated a year after their release; others are timeless. Easy Rider didn’t make the transition well. It was too dependent on the vernacular of the day. Nobody says, “Groovy” now, unless in a parody. It’s mostly a matter of luck, but writing that captures an era accurately need not seem dated. Costuming, hair styles, language: these are time-sensitive. Who says, “Swell,” today? On the Waterfront does have a few things that seem dated:
1. It’s B&W. True, once in a while there is a B&W film made today, but it’s rare. Too much is at stake in the commercial aftermarket of TV, VHS & DVD to allow all but the most artistic statements to get away with B&W, which is a shame. It’s becoming a lost art. I don’t think this film being B&W ruins it for anyone. It might even help capture the period.
2. Hair, Costumes, Dialogue. Certain fashions, grooming and speech pinpoint a time in a film. Usually this is fine, because even if period, we’re accustomed to seeing period films in the present, and authenticity enhances the picture.
3. Special Effects. Audiences today are sophisticated aboutthis. Phantom Menace, Matrix, Twister: if we want special fx, we can get them. Companies like ILM specialize in good special effects. But despite its age, On the Waterfront works because the story works, despite antiquated effects. a) Joey thrown off the roof. The obvious dummy seems fake. Because of this, one could reject the story today, but I think people recognize the limitations of the industry then, and I don’t think anyone faults this “gaffe.” b) Cab Process Shot. People know a Process Shot when they see one. Accustomed to better work, we’re uncomfortable with them now. In North by Northwest, modern audiences get pulled out of the story when Cary Grant rides drunkenly down a road, because it looks phony. In Waterfront’s Cab scene, we see that the cab has a rear curtain. I’m not sure this was ever true in N.Y., but it looks like a disguise for a Process Shot, with grips waving lights to portray traffic. But... it doesn’t matter! The scene is well-written, well-acted, the story riveting and heartbreaking, and no one cares about hokey special effects or minor continuity discrepancies because the story works beautifully.
4. Social conventions.
a) It was probably intended to be shocking to have a priest light up a cigarette at moments of stress during this film’s initial release. Today, it merely looks quaint. b) Less benign is when Barry enters the bar to take thegun from Malloy and talk him into testifying. When he says, “Gimme a beer,” I want to cut that out of the film. That moment did not date well. Priests, I’m sure, weren’t supposed to do that then. This one did. Perhaps there were kudos for “bravely” portraying it. Today, it is the film’s weakest moment, because it is naive. But there are so many strong moments around it one quickly gets caught up in the story.
5. Censorship. a) When Charley, on the cab ride, says, “What the hell...,” there is an unconvincing car honk designed to drown out the “hell.” I assume this is to appease the censor. The moment is unconvincing and takes the audience out of the film. On the other hand, this is one of the best scenes in film history, so not much damage is done. We quickly get back into the story, no thanks to a creaky attempt at censorship. b) Terry, in the bar, tells Barry, “You go to hell,” and gets punched, allowing the two thugs get away. Today, this phrase wouldn’t get the same response.
6) Inflation. When Friendly tucks $50 in Terry’s turtleneck, that’s a more generous offer than audiences today appreciate. Later, when Barry asks, “And what does Christ think of the easy-money boys who do none of the work and take all of the gravy? And how does He feel about the fellows wearing $150 suits and diamond rings-- on your union dues and your kickback money? Obviously, prices have risen since this film was made. It’s distracting to hear that price quoted for a suit.
7) Gaffes.
There’s nothing dated about mistakes in production. They happen no matter how modern or expensive a film is. This film has a few. It’s significant that most people don’t catch any until having viewed the film many times. That is an artifact of the story working well. Producers say, “If you notice suchand- such, you’re not paying attention, and we’re in trouble anyway.” None of Waterfront’s gaffes spoils the film. a) The length of the gun barrel Charley gives Terry goes back & forth between long & short. Someone didn’t watch closely. b) When Terry exits the cab, he gets out on Charley’s side rather than his own. Some say that’s how one is supposed to exit a cab in N.Y., on the curb. Some cite this as a mistake. c) When Terry looks for Friendly in the bar, Tullio and another guy run in, see him, start out. Terry: “Stick around, Tullio.” They stay between Terry and the juke box. When J.P. goes for the phone, camera goes close on Terry saying, “Get outa that phone booth!” In b.g., Tullio and partner aren’t there. They must have filmed Brando’s CU when they were gone. d) Most curious, noticed by me only on the 75th viewing:
BARRY
You wanna be brave?
TERRY
And it’s none of your business!
BARRY
You wanna be a brave man? Well, firing lead into another man’s flesh isn’t being brave.
TERRY
It’s none of your business! (Now we get a different angle.)
BARRY
Well, firing lead into another man’s flesh isn’t being brave.
TERRY
It’s none of your business!
I contend Barry’s line is too long to bear repeating. It’s not like DeNiro in Taxi Driver saying, “You talking to me?” It’s too long to be repeated credibly the way it is here. Someone decided to keep the intensity of the scene going longer than written and employing another take to prolong it. I think it’s a mistake. (If you notice it after 75 viewings, it might bother you, too. On the other hand, how many films will you ever view 75 times?) It is not repeated in the script, so it’s clearly a decision made in the editing room.
In the third section of this essay, let’s examine some differences between various drafts and the final film. Some things survive the writer’s original thought process, even if strangely changed. Here are some items from the 4/14/51 draft of Crime on the Waterfront that made it, in some form, into the film. Note also that Schulberg hand-scrawled on the cover of this draft, “1st 50 pages... super week.” That’s prolific!
1. Terry is Brando’s first name in the film. In the first script, Terry was Edie’s brother. He was murdered in this script, too, but much later in the story.
2. In the earlier script, Edie lived with her sister May, her daughter, Pop and her brother. Here, too, she tries to find out who murdered Terry, killed by thugs to silence him.
3. Early in the Crime script is the murder of Petey, who in the later script is Kid Nolan and in the film is Kayo Dugan. In the earlier story, a pallet of fish crashes down on him. That’s changed to Irish whiskey in the film. The reason for his death is the same. He threatened Johnny Friendly’s gang.
4. “J.P.,” Johnny’s “banker” in the film, was there from the first. He even has the same line as in the film: “When I’m dead and gone, you’ll know what a friend I was.” The response in the film, from Dugan, is much the same in the original, from a character named Murphy, but the wording isn’t as clever: “Drop dead so I can see if you’re right.” Dugan says, “Why don’t you drop dead now so we can test your theory?” 5. The character at the end of the film, who says, “Let’s go to work!” is only seen by us as a Mr. Big type. In the early script, he’s Leland P. Foley, looks like Warren G. Harding, “commits suicide” when the corruption story breaks.
6. Instead of the Brando character from the film, Crime has Al Chase as Edie’s love interest. A waterfront reporter eager to seduce her, he’s afraid to tangle with the mob, because he tried before and had a kneecap broken. He finally comes forth with corruption information, is shot for his trouble, but survives to get together with Edie (when the film’s over). It was right to change his character to that of Terry Malloy. Schulberg’s first impetus was to tell the story that Malcolm Johnson broke. Johnson won a Pulitzer for articles on waterfront crime, and Schulberg wanted to celebrate this inthe film. I’m glad he reconsidered, or we’d never have that cab scene.
7. Al Chase and Edie meet in a club in the original script. Terry Malloy takes her to a dive in the finished film.
8. There’s a meeting in church in the original. Barry is Father Moran here, but he presides over a Memorial Service for the slain Terry Monahan (Edie’s brother). When Edie throws back a $500 contribution from a mobster, the women speak out against what’s happening on the waterfront, a fight breaks out, all hell breaks loose, and Al Chase rescues Edie from the Parish Hall, as Terry Malloy does in the film.
9. Other pet names are kept and recycled for the revised script. Moose, later a dockworker, is a thug in the original.
10. There’s nothing important about boxing in the original: no Charley, no Terry, no fix. Schulberg wisely rethought his story. It wasn’t bad; it just wasn’t great. Most aren’t. He kept at it ‘til it was. This is what writing should be about. Once Schulberg revised Crime on the Waterfront, he still had discrepancies between the first draft of On the Waterfront and the film.
Here are a few of the more interesting points.
1) Johnny Friendly was Mickey Friendly.
2) Edie/Terry’s walk home after he rescues her from church was different in the script. The romance was not as strong in the early draft. Somewhere, a decision was made to give Edie and Terry sparks between them. It was the right decision.
3) Edie and Terry on his roof add this dialogue in the film:
EDIE
I wouldn’t’ve thought you’d be so interested in pigeons.
TERRY
I just go for it. You know, this city’s full of hawks. That’s a fact. They hang around on top of the big hotels, and they spot a pigeon in the park. Right down on ‘em.
He’s talking about the mob and Edie, of course.
4) Edie/Terry’s “date” in the saloon is also different. In the first draft, this “on the nose” dialogue was included:
TERRY
Listen, Edie, don’t get sore now-- but I think we’re getting in love with each other.
EDIE
(fighting against it) I can’t let myself fall in love with you.
TERRY
(fervently) This goes double for me. He did a much more subtle job of conveying this in the film.
5) Terry’s attempt to confess to Edie differs. In the first draft, we actually hear him start to explain things to Edie. In the film, this is distant and inaudible until we cut close and can’t hear because of boat whistles (also in 1st draft.)
6) The cab ride is different. This shouldn’t be surprising. Hemingway rewrote The Old Man and the Sea 27 times. We don’t get to see those drafts. The fact that we can see Schulberg’s first draft is partly an artifact of the public nature of screenwriting vs. any other type of writing. But what was in the first draft was not substantially changed. Most lines were polished, but the heart of the scene was there before.
7) One change between first draft and film comes with the discovery of Charley’s corpse. In the Crime on the Waterfront “final” draft, Edie’s murdered brother was seen by a bum, who is singing, “Tippi Tippi Tin- Tippi Tin.” This stays the same in the first draft of On the Waterfront. In the film, this is dispensed with in favor of a more emotional scene for Terry to play. For one thing, he rescues Edie from being run over by mobsters. Then, in the wash of their headlights, he sees Charley’s murdered body hanging from a grappling hook. Apparently, the change was Kazan’s idea.
8) The court scene is changed. The original intent is preserved from first draft to film, but a funny addition is:
JUDGE
Before you call the next witness, are all the officers of Local 374 present this morning?
ANOTHER JUDGE
Call the roll.
BAILIFF
Will the following please rise as the names are called? Mr. Michael J. Skelley, also known as Johnny Friendly, president; Mr. Louis Ojunata, Vice President; Mr. Daniel D. Hoogan, Financial Secretary; Mr. Vladin Siculovich, Delegate; Mr. Tullio A. Redelli, Delegate--
TULLIO
Recording Secretary!
Laughter.
REPORTER
(aside to colleague)
Yeah, Recording Secretary.
This light moment of ego makes the heavy scene more bearable. It’s good to supply emotional contrast like this. Kazan’s notes at the Wesleyan University Archives (2) indicate he added this touch at the last moment.
9) When Terry confronts Friendly before the final fight, this was added:
JOHNNY
You ratted on us, Terry.
TERRY
From where you stand, maybe, but I’m standing over here now. I was ratting on myself all them years, I didn’t even know it.
JOHNNY
Come on!
TERRY
You give it to Joey, you give it to Dugan, you give it to Charley, who was one of your own. You think you’re God almighty. But you know what you are?
JOHNNY
Come on!
TERRY
You’re a cheap, lousy, dirty, stinkin’ mug, and I’m glad what I’ve done to you. (to the others) You hear that? I’m glad what I done!
Some construed this as Kazan’s and/or Schulberg’s comment on the Blacklist. That issue aside, it works wonderfully in this film, and it precipitates the final fight. 10) The fight is changed from the first draft. It’s more cinematic in the film, longshoremen prevented from helping Terry by being blocked by thugs at the base of the gangplank. The scene is less verbal in the film, and it works.
Finally, we all have favorite moments from this film. Here are mine, not already discussed, some scripted, some not.
1. The tilt to the roof, revealing that Joey is in for trouble when he gets up there. (This was not scripted.)
2. Edie, coming upon the scene where her brother lies dead, tries to remove the newspapers from his body. She says, “Stay away from him, stay away from him, stay away from him...” The sheer power of Saint’s acting here is thrilling to watch.(Kazan’s director’s notebook shows plans he made for Edie to rip off Joey’s covering, so we have him to thank for this.)
3. When Friendly kicks Skins out of his gang for cheating him of 50 bucks (a favorite moment partly for the great acting of Lee J. Cobb), he then gives the money to Terry, sticking it in his turtleneck collar. The wince given by Brando at this moment sums up all you need to know about Terry vs. Friendly. This is an actor’s moment, not scripted, but one longed for by every actor, director, or writer. It is always a welcome thing to have an action replace or augment dialogue. Brando’s wince is my favorite moment of the entire film.
4. When Terry is first being looked for by the cops, noticed now because of his former prowess as a fighter, he says, “Without the bird seed, whattaya want?” A scripted moment.
5. When Barry addresses longshoremen in the church basement, he gets around to: “I’m just a potato-eater, but isn’t it simple as one-two-three? One, the working conditions are bad. Two, they’re bad because the mob does the hiring. Three, the only way to stop the mob is to stop letting them get away with murder.” This was a combination of writing and acting.
6. When Terry sneaks into the back of the church, he is accosted and exchanges words with Kayo Dugan, the punchline of which is, “One of these days.” The combination of the writing and the acting make this an indelible moment.
7. When Terry wears Edie’s glove in the park, it’s such an intimate, surprising turn that it is arresting. Not scripted.(This wasn’t in Kazan’s director’s notebook, either, so it was probably invented during shooting, perhaps by Brando. Also included in the shooting script, and vastly improved in production, was this on-the-nose dialog, which wasn’t used:)
EDIE
I can get home all right from here--
TERRY
The thought I’m tryin’ to get over is you grew up beauteeful. Remember me?
8. When Dugan’s given a eulogy by Barry on the docks, Barry’s speech, scripted, is very effective, augmented by the acting.
9.
When Friendly sees Barry’s sermon in the ship’s hold is effective, he nonverbally signals his thugs to lay off, so more martyrdom doesn’t accrue to him. It’s a good moment, not scripted, portraying Friendly’s street-smarts and power.
10. When the cop, Glover, discusses Terry’s boxing, Brando’s portrayal of a frustrated fighter sells the moment when he turns against the mob. He punctuates it by acting out boxing moves. This is a combination of writing, directing and acting. Kazan had notes about how important a moment thiswas to Terry. He surely influenced how this was played.
11. When Charley learns Johnny is willing have Terry killed, things get very silent in the room. This is broken by Barney, who, reading the racing form, asks, in the background, “Who do you like in the third?” This counterpoint to the scene’s drama makes it even more chilling. It was not scripted. It was not mentioned in Kazan’s directing notes, either, so it was probably invented on the day of shooting.
12. At the end of that scene, once Terry is out of the cab, Charley says, “Take me to the Garden.” The Cabbie has no intention of doing so, drives Charley into a warehouse. This is just good filmmaking. The scene wasn’t written this way, but it’s chilling, capped by our seeing thugs in the windows.
13. When Terry breaks into Edie’s apartment, he insists she loves him. “I didn’t say I didn’t love you. I want you to stay away from me!” Good drama plays against the moment. She really does love him, but something more important is going on now. It’s the opposite of expository writing.
14. After Terry is silenced by Friendly’s mugs, there are several “candids” of longshoremen. It’s a “non-Hollywood” moment that has realism and underscores the truth of the story. It makes the end all the more powerful.
One thing we’re fortunate they didn’t do. Kazan has a note: “Terry slowly and with dignity puts Charley’s ring on his hand and kisses it -- then he socks Johnny -- he kisses the ring w/ tears in his eyes--” (3) But remember, creativity relies on an artist’s willingness to try things and risk things. This involves positing some pretty bad ideas. Notice this one didn’t get into the film. That’s the other part of creativity... knowing what to keep and what to cut. They did a pretty good job with this film.
Most scripts today must run a gauntlet of readers, agents, actors, producers, directors and executives before they get “greenlighted,” that is, approved for the millions of dollars necessary for production. What follows is a typical Evaluation Form used by an agency or a studio, here evaluating On the Waterfront.
SCREENPLAY EVALUATION
TITLE: ON THE WATERFRONT
AUTHOR: BUDD SCHULBERG
GENRE: CRIME DRAMA
BUDGET: LOW
SCRIPT CRITERIA :
Characterization: Excellent
Dialogue: Excellent
Story Line: Excellent
Setting/Prod. Value: Excellent
Structure: Excellent
READER’S COMMENTS: This is for you to fill in. One wonders whether such a good script would get made today. I’d like to think so. If not, it’s an indication that we’ve slipped, far. The Writers’ Guild will tell you no film can succeed without a good script, and they’re right. But a good script doesn’tguarantee a good film. Many scripts get butchered by mediocre execution. Even a talented director is only as good as his cast and crew, which is why so many of us ridicule the auteur theory. Filmmaking is a collaboration-- a group effort. Sometimes it seems that getting any film made is a miracle. When that film is great, it’s even rarer. And when it stands the test of time, it’s a wonder. On the Waterfront stands far above most. When we get something this good, we should pay attention to it.
***
(1) Crime on the Waterfront, by Budd Schulberg, on microfilm
at the Rauner Special Collection Library, Dartmouth College,
Hanover, New Hampshire 03755.
(2) Elia Kazan’s On the Waterfront director’s notes, Wesleyan
Cinema Archives, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut
06459.
(3) Ibid.
[return to home page], [return to articles]
