Edie’s love and kindness towards Terry encouraged him to see life differently without death and violence. Charley’s brutal murder is the main catalyst for Terry’s transformation. Their brotherly bond was too strong and not one to be without consequences for Johnny Friendly and his mob. Terry’s attitude and behaviour at the beginning of the film was developed by Johnny Friendly and his ways of how a stable life on the docks should be, however, Terry’s realisation of Johnny’s wrong doing motivates him to follow what his conscience tells him. In the end it was not only Charley’s death but Father Barry and Edie’s moral persuasion that helped Terry find himself again, follow his own beliefs and destroy Johnny Friendly with the truth.
It's not going to happen. But the Code is well known by all – from the chief on down. It allows some cops to operate unethically, even criminally, and it prevents good cops from stopping them.” (Quinn, 2005) Quinn claims that the code is the predominant motivator behind police behavior. Quinn also claims that there is a component of self-preservation in police using the code. It may allow them to forget some of the more horrific scenes they have experienced.
Alongside the affection and guidance exemplified by Edie Doyle and Father Barry, Terry is able to find moral stability and a sense of self in order to testify. However, it is Terry’s loyalties with the mob and Johnny Friendly that prevent him from having a sense of moral righteousness. Furthermore, Charley proves that being true to oneself is more important than being loyal to one’s friends as he proves to be the ultimate sacrifice to stay loyal and true to himself. It is through the use of various cinematic techniques and film noir of light and dark, that viewers are able to explore and delve into Terry’s emotional and moral struggle between being true to oneself and being loyal to one’s friends. Throughout the film, Terry undergoes a slow transformation from remaining ‘D ‘n’ D’ and keeping silent about the corruption that surrounds him, to becoming a ‘stool pigeon’, testifying against the criminally corrupt union officials, and in doing so, risking the acceptance of the men on the waterfront.
This suggests that Crooks must struggle to work through his pain yet does not complain as realistically he has no choice. By creating a crippled character, Steinbeck ensures that almost immediately we sympathise with the character of Crooks which is necessary in order for us to sympathise with him. In addition to his own appearance, Steinbeck cleverly uses pathetic fallacy in order to describe the
In doing so I will extrapolate on the ideas of the initial article and reveal the ways in which Kazan uses the formal qualities of the film to reinforce the ideas. Given the three-act narrative structure of On the Waterfront, I want to look closely at a number of sequences from each act. From the opening sequence in which Terry Malloy (Marlon Brando) is complicit with the corrupt (Act 1), to his emerging understanding of the corruption characterised by his growing ambivalence (Act 2), to the fight for ‘rights’ (Act 3), the film is rich in its imagery, dialogue and design. There is a careful fusion of all these cinematic elements in the ways that the narrative of conscience, confession and catharsis is played out. For example, throughout the film a strong sense of place is evoked.
The audience is initially memorized by the Brutus they love, and are grateful for the ‘honorable acts’ he committed. This element of coercion helps him achieve his intentions of blindsiding the people to all aspects of the truth. But no worries, Brutus’ kind friend Antony will be sure uncover all and nothing but the truth for the commoners to second guesses Brutus’ words. 2nd Textual Quotation: “If, then, that friend demands to know why I rose up against Caesar, this is my answer: it’s not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more. Had you rather Caesar were living and die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live all free men?...Who is here so rude that would not be a Roman?
However, the lack of an explanation can make the story more personal because it is left up to the audience to make their own assumptions as to why he is being hung. Without the knowledge that Farquhar’s execution is the result of his attempts to commit crimes against the Union army, the story becomes more universal because the audience is free to make their own personal assumptions. The rest of the movie is extremely accurate to the story in most other aspects because the movie does a great job at conveying the sharpened senses that Farquhar experiences in his imagination. At one point in the story it is said that “He had been caught in a vortex and was being whirled on with a velocity of advance and gyration that made him giddy and sick”, and this passage is referenced in the movie when is shows the circular whirling that he experiences in the water. The movie also shows his heightened senses when it focuses on certain details of nature like the spider and the water snake.
This leads to Amir listening and following the foot paths of Rahim Khan who is like a father figure to Amir as he gives advices to Amir rather than his father giving him the advice he seeks for. Amir seeks for love and approval from his Baba but, instead finds it in Rahim Khan who always gives instructions that will benefit Amir. However, Amir ends up taking the place of Rahim’s Khans father as he ends up thinking of “one of us had to go” in this case Hassan. He thinks that Hassan would have suffered if he was to stay. The reader can suggest this us Amir feeling guilty and wants Hassan to leave, so that he can stop suffering from what he had done wrong and look into his future.
The dialogue also helps foreshadow the story. This is because Millar has them speak as if they’re telling fate. How John speaks like a hard worker, one who regrets his bad choices in life and he speaks as if he would do any thing for a second chance to prove his loyalty to all around him; foreshadows how he refuses to sign a contract that will betray his friends. In the crucible three characters are introduced and they hold their ways of doing things through the story. This shows great characterization in the play.
Jack takes his anger out on Piggy, who stands in plain contrast to Jack’s character: “I’m scared of him…but if you stand out of the way he’d hurt the next thing. And that’s me” (Golding 93). Piggy handles this fear by avoiding Jack and remaining loyal to Ralph. Another fear that Piggy experiences is a fear of being ignored or shunned by others. Above all else, Piggy wants acknowledgement of his opinions and thoughts, as proven by his statement: “I got the conch…You let me speak!”(Golding 42).