High Noon & On The Waterfront

A lot has been made of the suggested subtexts present in High Noon and On the Waterfront, that they reflect the experiences of Carl Foreman (the writer of High Noon) and Elia Kazan with the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Foreman has openly assented to this and Kazan has admitted that there are parallels. However, while this can give us insight of the personal opinions of these men, I do not think that the significance of these subtexts can be played down enough. My reasons are that they are in no way “attached” to the films. That is, not evident without knowledge other than that of the films themselves; that they add nothing to the films, as a work of art and that the assumption of the subtexts is very ambiguous. By this, that point, I mean that we cannot give authorial intention any more power over our understanding of the film than that of any other interpretation. We would be just as well to say that High Noon is really about the Nazi persecution of the Jews, o

I think that the overall picture here is that there are elments of truth in the statement of question. The politics of On the Waterfront seem very confusing because while we have the positive character of Terry Malloy and the other forces that influence him do not seem to be acting in his benefit; only the corrupt union boss is called to question. This concept would be more acceptable if Kazan portrayed Father Barry and the investigators in a more romantic way but his realism is still stunning. The two were shown as: human, self interested, and ruthless. Yet they are still sided with. It is a very good film but just is confusing in a way that it seems out of joint with other elements in the film. High Noon is a two-dimensional film, creating an entirely fictional universe in which the hero is always unquestionably right. These two films are far from ambiguous, instead seeming to be a clear statement of an unflinching belief in doing the “right” thing. There is discrepancy between the two views on what is right but there is little internal conflict in the two films.

r even about the Allied attack of the Nazis, because as I have said, this kind of meaning is not produced by the film but is superimposed over it. The films are interchangeable in this aspect because they are both about people doing what they believe is right-it just happens that the idea of what is right differed between Foreman and Kazan. A better way of commenting on the socio-political climate of the fifties in Hollywood, as reflected in these films, is to take meaning from the films rather than receive a meaning from someone who claims authority over them and depreciates the role of the viewer. We must look at what the films really say about America rather than what someone tells us they are meant to say because these can be quite different things.

By this last point, High Noon its mise-en-scene, narrative, dialogue and characterization and its lack of realism, can direct us away from a literal interpretation of the events in the film. We are presented with a simplistic, black and white tale of good versus bad. Which is which is implicit throughout, and never called into question. It is a very unambiguous situation that Kane is in: a villain is coming to kill him who will not give up until one of them is dead. Because the situation is forced upon Kane, meaning is also forced upon the viewer. The film is almost propaganda; since we are given no reasonable option but to sympathize with Kane throughout. Perhaps, also, the film deliberately panders to the idyllic American rural myth in its celebration of guns, honesty, loyalty, pride, temperance, and abstinence from vice-the usual sentiments. We see that his marriage is conducted in a secular ceremony, performed by a judge in front of the flag because, although the reason given is that his bride is a Quaker, this shows the innate virtue and natural religion of Kane and that he has no need for institution liased religion for moral guidance. Importance is placed only in the lawfulness and safety of Hadleyville. Institutions of authority are dismissed: the church, politics, the judiciary, even Kane’s “tin star” of the law and true good is shown instead to be in the individual character and his actions. Society is clear-cut, black and white, good and bad. It is a deliberately anti-intellectual film emphasized by the constant repetition of how “smart” it is to give in and run. The gratification of traditional ideals is complete when the “obvious” rightness of siding with Kane is supplanted by the desire to bring big business to town. It just seems so narrow-minded and egotistic that not one person actually believes Kane is wrong-they all admit he is right, but for whatever reason does not help. We get, in High Noon, none of the complexity and ambiguity of human nature that we get in On the Waterfront. There is no time g

Some topics in this essay:
Terry Malloy, Father Barry, Waterfront Hadleyville, Johnny Friendly’s, Hadleyville Institutions, Miller Kazan, Gary Cooper, Waterfront Kazan’s, Cultural Freedom, Ideologically Waterfront, father barry, american society, corrupt union, kane’s moral rightness, johnny friendly’s, rackets criminal, ain’t america”, power workers, terry malloy, called question, elements film,