When considering what way Elia Kazan uses On the Waterfront to comment on his participation in the HUAC or the House Un-American Activities Committee hearing: what stands out most prominently is the films final scene. It is here that we see our main character of Terry Malloy return to docks were, once he is refused work, confronts union boss John Friendly and then before a vicious brawl ensues states, “I’m glad what I done,”. What this is erring is how he has ‘ratted’ on Friendly which can be seen in parallel with Elia’s testimony to the HUAC where he named eight former friends who had been in a communist party with him. Or as outlined in his autobiography, Elia Kazan: A Life, “ ‘I’m glad what I done, you here me, glad what I done!’ That …show more content…
As stated in, The Rough Guide to Gangster Movies, “when Malloy testifies he is told that he will never get work in America again; Kazan and all those who testified easily found work afterwards and, allegedly, were often able to command larger fees. It was the people who were named who found it difficult to work in cinema again.” `(Hughes, 2005, p.143) So in this sense it is both a kick in the teeth to his former party members as well as commentary on his participation in the HUAC hearings. The dock workers who shun Terry, to a large extent subsequent to his testimony, can be seen in parallel to Elia’s shunning from certain Hollywood co-worker of his, including playwright Arthur Miller, who purposed the early screenplay Hook, which later became On the Waterfront. In a sense Arthur Miller can be seen to be somewhat representative of the character Charley Malloy. Who tries to prevent Terry from testifying. Their difference of opinion can be seen as a direct representation of both Elia and Arthur’s difference of opinion as well, when both bought forward by the committee. This is highlighted quite well in, American Masters, “Arthur Miller, was a hero of the left, someone who defied the committee, refused unlike Kazan to name names. For this he had been held in contempt of congress, fined and sentenced to jail time.” (American Masters, 2002) This again can be seen as a commentary of Kazan on the affect his testimony had on his occupational ties in
In the final paragraph, President Kennedy connects everything together to reach the conclusion. He creates a judgemental and disappointed tone when discussing what “a few gigantic corporations have decided to” do rather than what “they could” do. He once again paints this narrative that steel companies don’t act out of public interest, and that the the audience must force them to. The “Steel Workers Union”, “Department of Justice”, “Federal Trade Commission”, and “the Department of Defense” can “be proud” of what they are doing, however, it is not enough. This is key in Kennedy’s speech, because it is the final reason why the public needs to retaliate against the recent greedy actions of steel corporations.
In the article, Miller discusses the rise of McCarthyism, and how it affected the American people and him personally. Being that Miller lived in the time of McCarthyism and was interviewed by the committee in charge of “Un-American Activities”, Miller is a very credible source on the effects of mass hysteria and paranoia. The article “Are You Now or Were You Ever” can be used as a source when discussing McCarthyism and its effects, and other studies of the era. This article is a valuable resource for studies of The Crucible and studies of Arthur Miller
To begin with, Joseph McCarthy wasn’t accusing unimportant people of being communists. In fact, “McCarthy claimed that he had a list of 205 people in the State Department that were known to be members of the American Communist Party.” (Spartacus Educational) Arthur Miller himself was put on a blacklist of the House of Un-American Activity Committee for not giving up names. That begs the argument that Miller had a personal vendetta against McCarthy and would ha...
Accused reds could only prove honesty if they named other reds. The Red Hunt that reached Hollywood was led by the House Committee on Un-American Activities. They cleared artists’ names before employing them. Their goal was to destroy all ideas associated with communism. People were told by the HUAC that they needed to name others apart from the communist party or they would lose their careers.
Herbert Block, a cartoon illustrator during McCarthyism, depicts the absurdity of the communist accusations during the 1950s through his drawings of fictitious evidence and the power hungry government. Despite the lack of evidence, the influence of the government’s spurious claims causes unnecessary hysteria and chaos within America. Likewise, these events are prevalent within Arthur Miller’s play, The Crucible. The witch trials symbolize the court hearings during McCarthyism, and an identical absence of feasible evidence and a town overridden by fear lead to fallacious convictions. Block’s political cartoons embody the fraudulent evidence and hysteria over communism during McCarthy’s reign, which relates to the witch trials that Miller describes as The Crucible.
Washington Post. 24 April 1949 - 24. Print Miller, Arthur. A. & Co. Why I Wrote The Crucible? New York:
Many people like to believe they know what is right from what is wrong, but when it comes to the court system and the search for justice, Henry Drummond will fight for the cases that no other lawyer has the audacity to take on. Drummond exhibits an undying perseverance to fight for Bertram Cates in the Scopes Trial depicted in Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee’s play, Inherit the Wind. Through Henry Drummond’s tactfulness, open-mindedness, and determination, he is able to make a biased town see the absurdity of a law that takes away a person's right to freedom of thought. Henry Drummond’s tactfulness allows him to convince a partisan jury of the absurdity of putting a man on trial for simply expressing an unpopular viewpoint.
Arthur Miller’s political allegory of McCarthyism, in the form of The Crucible, has been adapted into a faithful companion to the play that is able to incorporate the emotions and atmosphere that may not have been available to some in the play. Miller’s screenplay is very faithful to the book, having many of the same lines and situations the character in the play experience. Because of this, we are able to make an active connection to the play, thus expanding our understanding of the play. Lead by Daniel Day-Lewis, The Crucible’s plot is portrayed by a solid cast, who, for the most part, are able to engross the viewer into the story. The film contains many captivating scenes that exemplify hysteria meant to be depicted in the play, that demands the viewers attention while also immersing them in emotions. The film adaptation of The Crucible is a well produced version of the play that not only serves as a companion to the play, but an entertaining and though provoking experience.
During Author Miller’s era of the 1950’s, the ‘cold war’ was happening. Senetor Joeseph McCarthy was completely against communism and began to arrest the communists and people assosiating with them. Those arrested were forced to either name names to identify those who were communists or thought to be, or else they would remain in jail. This was callef McCarthyism For many, being prisioned was a terrible frightening thought so they would name names including any that they could think of that could be innocent. Author Miller was arrested for associating with communists and refused to identify others, and wrote The Crucible, using it as an allegory to identify the problems of society and it’s flaws of the corrupt government.
Miller, Arthur. The Crucible. Prentice Hall Literature: Timeless Voices, Timeless Themes. Kate Kinsella, et. Al, New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2002. 1233-1334. Print.
In 1956 Arthur Miller was subpoenaed by HUAC (the House Un-American Activities Committee) and refused to identify writers that were believed to hold communist sympathies. Due to his refusal he was convicted of contempt of congress. The next year, however, the United States Supreme Court overturned this conviction. Under the leadership of McCarthy the committee had so much power that just knowing someone who was suspected of having ties to the communist party was a danger. The lives and careers of hundreds of Americans were ruined because of being blacklisted. Prison, bankruptcy, passport revocation, unemployment were threats made against people for them to testify and “name names.”
In 1956, Arthur Miller was denied to have a passport to Brussels, and he was called before the House Committee on Un-American Activities. This Committee wanted to defend and make the constitution better. The Congress asks Arthur Miller for the names of the people that he had been with in the Communist meetings, but he refused to tell the names. They wanted those names to put them on the blacklist.
12. Dillingham, B. Williams. Arthur Miller and the Loss of Conscience, Emory University Quarterly, XVI (Spring, 1960).
Arthur Miller himself was charged with contempt by a U.S Court and was faced with the dilemma of choosing to abide by the law, or accept community justice and not "rat" on his friends and family. A View from the Bridge criticizes those during the McCarthy trials (ones Arthur Miller was involved) who had "ratted" out innocent people. Arthur Miller chose to write about a community that accepted and protected unlawful people because of their own beliefs in justice and fairness, which is, in essence, what the law attempts to be based on but ultimately cannot because "All the law is not in a book". When Marco is betrayed by Eddie, he cannot accept the laws stated in America and although Alfieri states "there is no other law" outside the "law", the community has set "justices" that tell them NOT to rat on immigrants. This shows how justice and law go against each other.
Costello, Donald P. “Arthur Miller’s Circles of Responsibility: A View From a Bridgeand Beyond.” Modern Drama. 36 (1993): 443-453.