On the Waterfront is a classic, award-winning and controversial film. It received eight academy-awards in 1954, including best-picture and director. The director, Eliza Kazan, in collaboration with Budd Schulberg wrote the film’s screenplay. Based on actual dockside events in Hoboken, New Jersey, On the Waterfront is a story of a dock worker who tried to overthrow a corrupt union.
Marlon Brando superbly portrays the character of Terry Malloy. He is a young ex-prize fighter, now a dock worker given easy jobs because his brother is the right-hand man of the corrupt union boss Johnny Friendly. After Terry unwittingly allows himself to be used in setting up a man’s death, he starts to question the basic assumptions if his life. This includes his loyalty to his brother and Johnny, who after all ordered him to take a dive in his big fight at Madison Square Garden.
The film’s controversy exists in the fact that Terry decides to testify against Johnny Friendly. His testimony attempts to show how it is fundamentally right to break group silence in a tough situation, even if a person appears to “rat” on his friends. To be at peace with oneself, Kazan seems to say, one must tell the truth, despite the fact that one will face ostracism, and, as in the film, probably be murdered. Kazan makes the hardships of testifying painfully clear. Thus, Brando’s character is a hero. However, a dark agenda exists behind the film’s plot.
On the Waterfront was made in 1954, two years after Kazan willingly testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee. In 1952, Kazan named the names of eight friends and colleges allegedly affiliated with the communist party. Kazan was an active member of the communist party in the 1930s, until he went through a violent break with the party prior to the hearings. He said that communism could override a person’s intellect and beliefs. He also stated that Hollywood and Broadway heavily financed the party. Recounting his decision to testify, Kazan said, “Communists were in a lot of organizations--unseen, unrecognized, unbeknownst to anybody. I thought if I don’t talk, nobody will know about it.”
On the Waterfront is Kazan’s justification for his decision to testify. In the film, when a union boss shouts, “You ratted on us Terry,” Brando shouts back: “Maybe from where your standing, but I’m standing over here no...
... middle of paper ...
...“You’re a cheap, lousy, dirty stinkin’ mug. And I’m glad what I’ve done to you,” disturbed some people. Critics interpreted this to mean that Kazan was not sorry for his severely damaging testimony. It appeared that he had no remorse for his actions. For other viewers, the buried agenda of On the Waterfront tarnishes the picture. The critic John Rosenbaum told Roger Ebert that he could “Never forgive Kazan for using the film to justify himself.”
In later years, Kazan did eventually have remorse for the people whose lives he ruined and the blemish his testimony left on the whole film industry. In his 1988 autobiography he says, “I have some regrets about the human cost of it. One guy I told on I really like a lot.” Twenty years later, unlike On the Waterfront’s victorious ending, in Kazan’s picture The Visitor, a man also testifies against former friends; however, that movie ends on a note of despair. Perhaps the words of a legendary character he helped to create, haunted Kazan. As Terry Malloy said, “Conscience. That stuff can drive you nuts.”
Bibliography:
References
1. Dirks, Tim. On the Waterfront: Greatest Films.
2. Cannon, Damian. On the Waterfront.
...nsible for the content of this advertising.” Citizens United, aware that the airing of Hillary during the 2008 primaries would be illegal, tried to obtain an injunction to preclude the Federal Election Commission from enforcing the McCain-Feingold Act, claiming that sections 201, 203, and 311 of the law violated the First Amendment. The Federal Election Commission, despite Citizens United’s efforts, held that broadcast of Hillary would violate the McCain-Feingold Act and proceeded to ban the film from airing on television. Citizens United, seeking injunctive relief, decided to bring its case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. However, upon discovering that the United States District Court for the District of Columbia had denied its application, Citizens United decided to appeal the case to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Federal Election Campaign Act, despite being backed by 75 percent of House Republicans, and 41 percent of Senate Republicans, caused immense controversy in Washington. Senator James Buckley sued the secretary of the senate Frances Valeo on the Constitutionality of FECA. In the end, the court upheld the law's contribution limits, presidential public financing program, and disclosure provisions. But they removed limits on spending, including independent expenditures, which is money spent by individuals or outside groups independent of campaigns. This shaped most major campaign financing rulings, including Citizen’s United.
Ancient Egypt was a single tightly organized state for much of its history (Centanni, n.d.). In all its phases, the Egyptian government was led by the pharaoh. The pharaoh was held to be descended from gods, with the power to assure success and control the rituals that assured the flow of the Nile and the fertility derived from irrigation. Wanting gods to favor Egypt, the entire population of people did not hesitate to carry out laws that the pharaoh placed upon them. Egypt’s pharaohs claimed additional power and authority as actual incarnations of the gods
Thank you Viola for your detailed comments about the HUAC committee activities that created a devastating situation for the film industry. The issue with communistic events indeed interfered with the lives of many and destroyed the careers of actors, especially those who firmly refused to cooperate with that committee. The film Spartacus is one of the most successful films in the history of Universal Studios not only in terms of box office appeal, but it also received six Oscar nominations and was accredited for breaking the Hollywood blacklist. This film was based on Howard Fast's novel, which narrates the story of professionals who refused to collaborate with HUAC committee officials.
Campaign finance reform has a broad history in America. In particular, campaign finance has developed extensively in the past forty years, as the courts have attempted to create federal elections that best sustain the ideals of a representative democracy. In the most recent Supreme Court decision concerning campaign finance, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court essentially decided to treat corporations like individuals by allowing corporations to spend money on federal elections through unlimited independent expenditures. In order to understand how the Supreme Court justified this decision, however, the history of campaign finance in regards to individuals must be examined. At the crux of these campaign finance laws is the balancing of two democratic ideals: the ability of individuals to exercise their right to free speech, and the avoidance of corrupt practices by contributors and candidates. An examination of these ideals, as well as the effectiveness of the current campaign finance system in upholding these ideas, will provide a basic framework for the decision of Citizens United v. FEC.
First, the Court reiterated its belief that political speech with regard to campaign spending is undoubtedly protected by the First Amendment’s “Free Expression” clause. Next, the Court de-linked the connection between the spending of money and speech, asserting that spending money to further political communications is an integral component of protected speech. Taking into account the fact that political campaigns are indeed expensive to run — and indeed, are even more costly in today’s day in age than the 1970s, during which the Court’s verdict was rendered — and blocking contributions would hinder expression with regards to campaigns, the Court held that political contributions constitute speech. In summation, the Court felt that the institutional of political contribution limits was in accordance with the Constitution, but expenditure restrictions for corporations violated the First Amendment, and as such, were nixed by the Supreme Court’s decision in the
“There once was a time in this business when I had the eyes of the whole world! But that wasn't good enough for them, oh no! They had to have the ears of the whole world too. So they opened their big mouths and out came talk. Talk! TALK!” (Sunset Boulevard). The film Sunset Boulevard directed by Billy Wilder focuses on a struggling screen writer who is hired to rewrite a silent film star’s script leading to a dysfunctional and fatal relationship. Sunset Boulevard is heavily influenced by the history of cinema starting from the 1930s to 1950 when the film was released.
In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) was passed with the intent of constraining the ability of corporations and other wealthy organizations from exerting undue influence on federal elections. During the campaign for the 2008 presidential election, a conservative political organization called Citizens United attempted to release a movie denouncing Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, but was required to request an injunction against the Federal Elections Commission, or the FEC. This federal agency imposes campaign finance law, due to restrictions of the BCRA- specifically, section 203, which prohibited the use of general treasury funds to fund electioneering communications, and sections 201 and 311, which mandates that the corporation
Also, the movie place the famous Five Points built on the site of the filled-in Collect Pond. In the film it was really low and damp area for the kind of tunnels that were depicted in the film. In the finale of the movie the scene inspired by the great draft riot of 1863, was a complete exaggeration of what really happened. The film showed explosives going off from every direction, especially coming from the boats that were on the dock. They completely bombarded the entire city leaving everything in dust and people not being able to even see their own hands. This is just the illusions that Hollywood wanted to portray to make everything seem much more believable and realistic. Along with exaggerating the explosives in the film, the neighborhood was also very exaggerated when it came to the violence and it being god awfully dangerous. In fact, it is said that other than public drunkenness and prostitution, there was not much more crime being committed in Five Points than in any other part of the city. As well as, the hanging of many people for no reason just to prove a point that some people are more superior than
Justice is achieved by telling the truth and being courageous. The path to achieving justice is explored in both the play 'Twelve Angry Men' by playwright Reginald Rose and the film 'On The Waterfront' by director Elia Kazan. While triumph can result through challenges and conflict, it is not possible to achieve without justice. However, when faced with inequality and an oppressed society it can be hard for individuals to act courageously to achieve justice. Lastly, when faced with a lack of remorse and empathy it can be difficult to achieve justice. Each text demonstrates the difficulties individuals can be faced with when striving for justice.
history. Most notably, when the 14th Amendment was ratified. Former U.S. Senator Roscoe Conkling argued that the “equal protection under the law” applied to corporations as well. Senator Conkling’s efforts were cited in many cases thereafter, and in the 1906 Hale v. Henkel case, it was ruled that corporations are to be protected from “unreasonable search and seizure” citing the Fourth Amendment but not from self-incrimination cited in Fifth Amendment. Since then, the issue of what rights corporations do and do not have, most importantly the right to contribute to campaigns, has been repeatedly brought to the Supreme Court. Although facing clear opposition, there has been a general ruling that corporations are protected by the First Amendment, and that limiting corporate campaign donations is impeding upon free speech. In the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, Citizens United, a conservative, corporate-backed political action committee, was able to successfully argue that limits on corporate independent expenditures are unconstitutional. In appeal to this, the SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission ruling struck down existing federal limitations. The Federal Election Committee implemented Super PACS in response, which allow individuals to accept unlimited contributions from people, unions, and
Being corporate lobbying and campaign finance the main characters in outlining the choices that politicians decides; this is because corporations as well those moneyed individuals are the major contributors and campaigns funding for elected officials. Corporations benefit from elected officials once in office as they incline to pass policies that are favorable to the corporations and the wealthy. Nichols noted that with the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Citizens United v. FEC, an estimated of ten billion dollars was spent in the 2012 election, as people are permitted to donate limitless campaign donations. High percentage of this money is used in negative political advertising, as a tactic to drive voters to vote for other party, mainly between Democrats and Republicans being the most prominent parties. Since the negative attack ads causes citizens not to vote, it provokes self-governance to be more present in society. Nichols suggested the creation of reforms to battle and disassemble the “money-and-media election” that unfortunately is shifting the United States into a Dollarocracy. Nichols mentions possible reforms such a “Constitutional amendment” which secures the right to vote for all citizens over eighteen-years-old, better communication and
Citizens United v. FEC was the landmark court case regarding the political spending of large corporations. Since this allows companies to throw as much money as they want to the political elector of their choice, essentially the Supreme Court has handed more power to the small sector of the population that dominates the economy. One year after this decision was made a poll was taken showing that spending from outside groups had jumped to $294.2 million in 2010 as compared to the $68.9 million spent in 2006 (Kromm). Almost half of that money came from just 10 groups and in 60 out of 75 congressional races, the candidate benefitting the most from outside spending won at an 80 percent win rate. The money that pours into elections is well hidden because independent groups are not required by law to disclose their donations. 7 of the 10 groups did not provide any donor information but they donated nearly $138.5 million, that’s half of the total donations in 2010! A Survey USA poll found out that, when asked whether corporate campaign contributions represent “free speech” or “bribes”, 77 percent of the American population said “bribes” (Kromm).
The two Disney films that I decided to watch and research are Robin Hood from 1973 and Toy Story 3 from 2010. I decided to choose these movies because they both have a good amount of action and adventure in them, which is what I like best in movies. Stereotypes are very common in todays’s society according to Robert Sapolsky who states, “Face it, we all do it—we all believe in stereotypes about minorities. These stereotypes are typically pejorative and false, but every now and then they have a core of truth.”(Sapolsky,1997) The Disney animated films Robin Hood and Toy Story 3 portray many issues and gendered and racial stereotypes that are still present in society today.
Reverse supply chain refers to the movement of goods from customer to vendor. This is the reverse of the traditional supply chain movement of goods from vendor to customer. Reverse logistics is the process of planning, implementing and controlling the efficient and effective inbound flow and storage of secondary goods and related information for the purpose of recovering value or proper disposal. There are various types of reverse supply chains, and they arise at different stages of the product cycle; however, most return supply chains are organized to carry out five key processes: