In his 1988 autobiography, A Life, Kazan explained the parallel between his naming names before HUAC and Terry Malloy’s testimony before the Waterfront Commission:
When Brando, at the end, yells at Lee Cobb, the mob boss, “I’m glad what I done — you hear me? — glad what I done!” that was me saying, with identical heat, that I was glad I’d testified as I had.
Having watched On the Waterfront, what is your reaction to the film’s portrayal of informants? If Kazan draws a parallel between himself and Terry Malloy, then what stands parallel to the Communist Party in the film?
I couldn’t have said it better. If Kazan considers himself the Terry of the film then that would make the mob Kazan’s communist peers. The communists brought forth were not malicious by any means nor did they terrorize locals the way the mob did. The obvious incongruency between the two scenarios is that, as Jacob states, Kazan’s testimony was bred out of self-preservation and conformity to US government’s fear tactics. Terry Malloy’s testimony had completely different motives, unlike Kazan it was not a means of self-preservation but a way of taking accountability for the truth in a community where others were bullied out of doing so. It is important to note though that Malloy’s testimony was rooted in emotion rather than undiluted altruism. Had he not fallen in love with the victim of a mob crime or had his brother not been murdered then perhaps he would not have been driven to testify. This distinction is important because it shows that while Kazan’s testimony did not service anyone other than himself, Malloy also acted from a place of personal vengeance and guilt which makes the wholesomeness of his actions questionable similar to Kazan’s. Nevertheless, considering Malloy went into his confession with the understanding that testifying could ultimately result in his death ways constitutes his actions as sacrificial. Kazan by no means believed that his testimony would bring about a greater good and is therefore unjustified in his claim.
Father Barry portrays informants as a necessary good against evil. He places Jesus on the side of the dockworkers, a man who spoke out freely against the wronging of others. I believe this portrayal speaks true for the rest of the movie and every character, and I agree with it. Whenever people are not being treated fairly, justice should be given, and if it takes an informant to come out and “rat” on the perpetrator to get that started, then that is perfectly alright. However, the informant ought to be able to judge for themselves what is not right in any situation and whether the perpetrator is actually doing something wrong. In the case of On the Water Front, Terry Malloy did the right thing testifying against the mob. Johnny Friendly was bad, no doubt, and Kazan intended for the mob and Johnny to parallel the Communist Party just as Terry is supposed to parallel Kazan. But any parallels being drawn connecting Terry and the mob to any conflict between Elia Kazan and communism is ill-founded. Terry informed on a group of people directly harming others, whereas Kazan gave names of a group of people who were possibly associated with communism. Were these people doing something to hurt others? Was communism a corrupt force shadowing peoples’ lives and having people killed? Perhaps some communists were bad, but Kazan sets up an image here portraying communism as an extraordinary threat, and I think we can now distinguish communism, and the people whose names Kazan gave, from the few leaders who truly posed a threat to the safety of the United States. Kazan drawing these parallels is either a product of an irrational fear of communism or his efforts to save face. Great film though, Elia Kazan was a truly fantastic artist.
I think that Kazan’s parallel between himself and Terry Malloy is quite off. They might have both been informants, but what they were informing on was far from the same. Terry Malloy ratted on a mob boss who murdered people to stay in power, while Kazan turned in people who were his friends, an action that destroyed some of their careers, just to to protect his own. Like Jeffery Shaman says in his piece on the issue, “There simply is no parallel between informing on an unquestionably evil monster like Johnny Friendly and informing on former colleagues who at worst were misguided in their political views.” Given Kazan’s parallel between himself and Terry Malloy, he must also be implying a parallel between the things they are informing on: friends who are communists, and a mob boss who kills people. Of course, in actuality, there are very few, if not any parallels between the two, and it makes Kazan’s parallel between himself and Terry Malloy even weaker.