Study Questions: Week Three

Innocence Betrayed: The Rebel as Communist Dupe

On the Waterfront (1954)

High Noon (1954)

High Noon and On the Waterfront have been long regarded as films reflecting the ideological battles of the Cold War. The connection between these films and Cold War politics depends less on their manifest content than on the political circumstances of their filmmakers. High Noon's screenwriter, Carl Foreman, was blacklisted for his connections with the Communist Party after completing the screenplay and, in later years indicated that the film was a comment on the timidity of Hollywood studios in the face of anti-Communist attacks on the industry (see Whitfield, pp 146-50). Conversely, Elia Kazan and his screenwriter, Budd Schulberg, testified before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, informing on friends and colleagues, and their experience shaped their heroic treatment of informing in the film (see Whitfield pp. 108-17).

Neither film, however, makes any explicit statements about communist activities in the United States or about collective ideologies (as do Big Jim McClain and The Fountainhead). They are first of all examples of two of Hollywood's most popular film genres: the western and the gangster film. One problem of interpretation we should consider is whether of not their connection to Cold War politics would be understood by viewers who knew nothing of the politics of their directors and screenwriters. We should ask if any variations in the way each film uses the generic conventions point, if only indirectly to the ideological conflicts of the Cold War.

1. High Noon contains most of the conventions of the classic western. Describe briefly how these conventions appear in the character of the hero (his clothes, his behavior, his ideals, etc.), in the nature of the villains, in the film's climax, and in the nature of the heroine (often presented in contrast to the hero).

2. In what significant way does the conclusion of the film reverse the ending of most westerns? Consider Will Kane's last act before leafing town with his wife.

3. Why do the townspeople fail to support Kane? There are several reasons offered. What are they? Why, for example, are they ambivalent about the way he cleaned up the town and got rid of men like Miller?

4. How is Frank Miller regarded by the town of Hadleyville? Why do some welcome him back?

5. Why, in your opinion did Kane leave Helen Ramirez for Amy? Why does he seem so troubled about his past? What does his marriage indicate about his changing social status?

6. How do the excuses offered by the townspeople who refuse to help Kane reveal their failures as citizens (and particularly as American citizens)? Consider Harvey the deputy, the judge, the former Marshall, the clergyman and his congregation, the men in the saloon.

7. If High Noon ends with the hero abandoning an unworthy community, how does On the Waterfront reverse that pattern by welcoming an estranged hero into a deserving community?

8. How does the film link the labor racketeer, Johnny Friendly, to some unseen social or political elite. What other films have made the same connection?

9. Describe the ways the Doyle's are presented as a model American family (consider political, social, and religious views)? How does the film establish the importance of such families for the well-being of a larger society? How are the Doyles contrasted to the Malloys?

10. How does Terry's decision to testify before the crime commission (to inform that is) become the basis for redemption? How does he reconcile his decision with his distaste for stool pigeons? What three influences persuade him to turn on Friendly and his followers?

11. Why is Father Barry so important a figure both dramatically and thematically? What is significant about having the longshoremen organized by a priest instead of a labor leader or a pro-labor politician?

12. What is the thematic significance of the film's final shot of the men being ordered back to work and the warehouse door slamming shut. Is it to be seen as a new beginning or just another form of bondage? Or, it it deliberately ambivalent?