We're excited to present a great new set of boards to classic movie fans with tons of new features, stability, and performance.

If you’re new to the message boards, please “Register” to get started. If you want to learn more about the new boards, visit our FAQ.

Register

If you're a returning member, start by resetting your password to claim your old display name using your email address.

Re-Register

Thanks for your continued support of the TCM Message Boards.

X

Kyle Kersten was a true friend of TCM. One of the first and most active participants of the Message Boards, “Kyle in Hollywood” (aka, hlywdkjk) demonstrated a depth of knowledge and largesse of spirit that made him one of the most popular and respected voices in these forums. This thread is a living memorial to his life and love of movies, which remain with us still.

X

Jump to content


Photo

Why no Labor Day Movies?


  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

#1 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,237 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 18 September 2017 - 12:54 PM

Is it time to change the title of this thread since it no longer has anything to do with Labor Day movies?

 

So you agree that On the Waterfront doesn't have anything to do with Labor Day movies;  welcome to the club.    :lol:



#2 slaytonf

slaytonf

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,969 posts

Posted 17 September 2017 - 07:04 PM

So long as 93.56 % of the threads in this forum are also changed because they are no longer about their original topic.


  • Sepiatone likes this

#3 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,727 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 17 September 2017 - 05:19 PM

Is it time to change the title of this thread since it no longer has anything to do with Labor Day movies?



#4 Sepiatone

Sepiatone

    Enhanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,085 posts
  • LocationLincoln Park, MI

Posted 16 September 2017 - 04:52 PM

Well I'm sticking with Pete Townshend;   in comes the new boss,  same as the old boss. 

 

So yea, they (the workers) will get fooled again.   :lol:

 

Y'know, in a case like this that logic isn't relevant.  The workers already know that Terry or anyone else from among them is far different than Johnny Friendly, and as typically, union reps are elected from those among the rank and file, it wouldn't happen.

 

But let's finally get down to what the movie was actually about.  Which wasn't an indictment on the "compliance" of the dockworkers, nor the film maker's attempt to make an "anti-worker" opinion piece.

 

The story was suggested by a series of Pulitzer prize winning articles titled "Crime On The waterfront" by Malcom Johnson.  But Budd Sculberg's screenplay was his own fiction using those article's stories as a backdrop.  And it wasn't about being against the workers as it was about being against the criminal aspect of the union.  But mostly, to me, about Terry Malloy struggling with his life long loyalty to Friendly, who he disgusted Father Barry by whining about Friendly taking him to ball games when he was a kid, and loyalty to his fellow dock worker friends.  and his introspectively questioning that loyalty after the murder of his brother Charlie by Friendly's instruction.  And his finally achieving redemption and self actualization through that event and the influence of his developed love for Edie Doyle, whose brother's murder by Friendly also served as a catalyst for Terry's change of heart, mind and loyalty.

 

It was a hard shelled crime drama with a soft, chewy love story center.

 

 

Sepiatone


I started out with NOTHING...and still have most of it left!


#5 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,237 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 16 September 2017 - 01:29 PM

As the movie is a fiction to begin with, we're allowed to draw any conclusions we like as far as the story goes.  In a "real life" situation, it might BE Terry that takes Johnny Friendly's place as head of the local.  But not run it Friendly's way of course.

 

And I disagree that the new leadership will still have mob connections.  Remember...

 

The CRIME COMMISSION is already on the scene and would likely see to it that it doesn't happen.

 

 

Sepiatone

 

Well I'm sticking with Pete Townshend;   in comes the new boss,  same as the old boss. 

 

So yea, they (the workers) will get fooled again.   :lol:



#6 Sepiatone

Sepiatone

    Enhanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,085 posts
  • LocationLincoln Park, MI

Posted 16 September 2017 - 08:07 AM

I agree with you that the union will remain and this local will continue to function with new leadership, but the new leadership will still have mob connections;  the new leadership will just go about their business in a less overt, clumsy way, than the prior leadership.

 

As the movie is a fiction to begin with, we're allowed to draw any conclusions we like as far as the story goes.  In a "real life" situation, it might BE Terry that takes Johnny Friendly's place as head of the local.  But not run it Friendly's way of course.

 

And I disagree that the new leadership will still have mob connections.  Remember...

 

The CRIME COMMISSION is already on the scene and would likely see to it that it doesn't happen.

 

 

Sepiatone


I started out with NOTHING...and still have most of it left!


#7 slaytonf

slaytonf

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,969 posts

Posted 15 September 2017 - 10:14 PM

See, there's the rub.

 

YOU see the movie as "anti worker" while everybody else(I bet) and probably the movie's intention was as an "anti crime" movie.

 

And you can't say for sure that NOBODY had the ability to step up and run the union local competently.  After all, it doesn't require strongarm tactics and violence to successfully administrate organized labor functions.  Just mostly an ability to memorize all sorts of contractural details and a willingness to spend days pushing around PAPER instead of people.  NOT use guns and threats of physical harm.

 

Maybe in the union local YOU belong to they do things that way, but for the large part, most union locals don't.

 

 

Sepiatone

 

 

Yes, that is the way I interpret the movie.  I've given my reasons based on what's in the movie.  I can be sure that nobody in the movie was presented so as to give confidence they could run the organization.  I acknowledge it may not be a widely held view.  I hope some people will be led to at least consider looking at On the Waterfront differently.

 

There are many topics which came up in this conversation which I might have addressed, but I tried hard to keep my focus on the movie.  That's what's important to me.  But you brought up a lot of things that were interesting and informative, so I'm grateful for that, Sepiatone.



#8 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,237 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 15 September 2017 - 12:00 PM

See, there's the rub.

 

YOU see the movie as "anti worker" while everybody else(I bet) and probably the movie's intention was as an "anti crime" movie.

 

And you can't say for sure that NOBODY had the ability to step up and run the union local competently.  After all, it doesn't require strongarm tactics and violence to successfully administrate organized labor functions.  Just mostly an ability to memorize all sorts of contractural details and a willingness to spend days pushing around PAPER instead of people.  NOT use guns and threats of physical harm.

 

Maybe in the union local YOU belong to they do things that way, but for the large part, most union locals don't.

 

 

Sepiatone

 

I agree with you that the union will remain and this local will continue to function with new leadership, but the new leadership will still have mob connections;  the new leadership will just go about their business in a less overt, clumsy way, than the prior leadership.



#9 Sepiatone

Sepiatone

    Enhanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,085 posts
  • LocationLincoln Park, MI

Posted 15 September 2017 - 08:01 AM

See, there's the rub.

 

YOU see the movie as "anti worker" while everybody else(I bet) and probably the movie's intention was as an "anti crime" movie.

 

And you can't say for sure that NOBODY had the ability to step up and run the union local competently.  After all, it doesn't require strongarm tactics and violence to successfully administrate organized labor functions.  Just mostly an ability to memorize all sorts of contractural details and a willingness to spend days pushing around PAPER instead of people.  NOT use guns and threats of physical harm.

 

Maybe in the union local YOU belong to they do things that way, but for the large part, most union locals don't.

 

 

Sepiatone


I started out with NOTHING...and still have most of it left!


#10 slaytonf

slaytonf

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,969 posts

Posted 14 September 2017 - 10:32 PM

NO union EVER succeeded without one true leader.  SOMEBODY had to provide the catalyst.  Be it  WALTER REUTHER, or JOHN L. LEWIS.  And in more modern times, LECH WALESA and CESAR CHAVEZ.  But once the union is in place, all that's needed are individuals with administrative skills and arbitration savvy to get things running right.  And again(sigh) in the movie, the union was already  in place.  Nothing was needed to "take it's place".  Unless of course, you're referring to the  criminal element  that was removed by film's end, then, as I just stated, the dockworkers in compliance with union proceedure, could nominate and elect who they wish to run things at the local. 

 

 

My position all along has been that the movie's message is once the criminals are brought down, there would be no organization left, as it was completely permeated with them, and as there would be no one with the ability to take up its reins.

 

 

And the movie in NO WAY intended to plant doubts in viewers minds about the legitimacy of organized labor.  But inform viewers of the difficulties labor was faced with due to organized crime interferrence with it's operations.

 

That has been my position all along, and why I said I have always considered the movie anti-worker.  I have given my reasoning extensively.  I know, rather assume, it would be difficult for most who know the movie to accept my position.  That is the insidious quality of the movie.  On the surface it seems to be in favor of workers, as they are rid of a brutal oppressor through a heroic effort.  But the tacit message is a strong polemic against organization.



#11 Sepiatone

Sepiatone

    Enhanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,085 posts
  • LocationLincoln Park, MI

Posted 14 September 2017 - 07:52 AM

Then nothing more needs to be said.

 

 

 

 

  But without the victory attained by a true leader, and without those qualities displayed by any other dockworkers, there is nothing to suggest anything would take its place.  The real message of the movie is to plant doubts in the viewers' minds about the legitimacy of organizing.

 

NO union EVER succeeded without one true leader.  SOMEBODY had to provide the catalyst.  Be it  WALTER REUTHER, or JOHN L. LEWIS.  And in more modern times, LECH WALESA and CESAR CHAVEZ.  But once the union is in place, all that's needed are individuals with administrative skills and arbitration savvy to get things running right.  And again(sigh) in the movie, the union was already  in place.  Nothing was needed to "take it's place".  Unless of course, you're referring to the  criminal element  that was removed by film's end, then, as I just stated, the dockworkers in compliance with union proceedure, could nominate and elect who they wish to run things at the local. 

 

And the movie in NO WAY intended to plant doubts in viewers minds about the legitimacy of organized labor.  But inform viewers of the difficulties labor was faced with due to organized crime interferrence with it's operations.  What finally did the trick at the end of the movie was the dockworkers refusing to walk into the job despite all of Friendly's shouted threats, which had the same effect of the GM  workers "sit down" strike in Buick City in Flint, MI 1936, which forced GM to finally sign a pact with the U.A.W.

 

 

Sepiatone


I started out with NOTHING...and still have most of it left!


#12 slaytonf

slaytonf

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,969 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 11:35 PM

OK.  And it's my contention that the movie was against criminal elements trying to control the unions, and not against the unions or the workers. 

 

 

 

Then nothing more needs to be said.

 

 

remember....those dockworkers already HAD a union.  FIRST came the union, and THEN came organized crime syndicates trying to move in and control them.  

 

 

The submissiveness of the dockworkers is part of the movie's message.  The ostensible one is a victory against the criminal syndicate. That is why, and I'm guessing, most view the movie as pro-worker.  But without the victory attained by a true leader, and without those qualities displayed by any other dockworkers, there is nothing to suggest anything would take its place.  The real message of the movie is to plant doubts in the viewers' minds about the legitimacy of organizing.



#13 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,237 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 13 September 2017 - 11:30 AM

OK.  And it's my contention that the movie was against criminal elements trying to control the unions, and not against the unions or the workers.  I don't think anyone in the audience, when the movie was first run, stomped and cheered for FRIENDLY when he was beating up on Terry.  And remember....those dockworkers already HAD a union.  FIRST came the union, and THEN came organized crime syndicates trying to move in and control them.   They succeeded with the Teamsters due mostly to JIMMY HOFFA's greed and arrogance in thinking HE could control THEM.   But they couldn't budge WALTER REUTHER and the U.A.W. nor  JOHN L. LEWIS of the U.M.W.( my family, once coalminers in Pennsylvania, always referred to him as "Uncle John".).

 

And if nothing else, this debate does prove that what a film maker's intentions are when making any movie of this type,  aren't always realized by every movie goer.  Some might have seen THE HARDER THEY FALL as an anti BOXING movie, while others figured it was anti crime.  I heard Steiger once joke in an interview that for a short spell, due to that movie's premise, that perhaps they should have called it  "On The Ringside."  as he saw a parallel to it and "Waterfront".  ;)

 

 

Sepiatone

 

The Harder They Fall was an anti boxing movie.   This is why the film showed actual footage of a not-so-old boxer that was so punch-drunk he looked and sounded like he was 99 years old.     Boxing associations really protested the showing of this footage but the producers went ahead because they viewed boxing as a tainted blood sport. 

 

I can agree that OTW is NOT an anti-labor film,  but I don't view it as pro-Union by any means or pro-worker.  In the real world it wasn't just a few 'local branches' that were run by the mob but entire unions.    So to me the film was about mob control of the union with the ending showing a very minor victory (which likely did NOT result in better working conditions or pay for workers, but just the removal of ONE mobster, from ONE local).



#14 speedracer5

speedracer5

    Errol Flynn's girlfriend in a parallel universe,back in time

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,626 posts
  • LocationForest Grove, Oregon

Posted 13 September 2017 - 09:01 AM

Okay. Seein' how this discussion is still goin' on, HERE'S somethin' I'VE always liked to have had a clear and definitive answer to:

 

Am I wrong to still be wearing white almost a week and half after the Labor Day holiday has come to pass?

 

(...and if I am, why's that, and who in the hell ever came up with THIS fashion faux pas rule anyway, HUH?!)

 

;)

 

And at what point is it considered not after Labor Day and white can be worn again? Technically, isn't it always after Labor Day?


"It's not an old movie if you haven't seen it." -Lauren Bacall

 

"A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants." -Ted Baxter on "The Mary Tyler Moore Show"

 

Proud member of:

 

dxmdyx.png

 

 

My classic movie and television blog:

 

Whimsically Classic

 

https://whimsicallyc....wordpress.com/


#15 Sepiatone

Sepiatone

    Enhanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,085 posts
  • LocationLincoln Park, MI

Posted 13 September 2017 - 07:03 AM

It has been me contention all along that the movie's message was against workers, or unionization.  I have explained my reasoning extensively.  And as I said before, I realize I am in the minority in my position.  

 

 

My point was that had dockworkers had the same qualities they did in the movie, there would have been no organization in the first place.  The dangers, mayhem, and death faced by workers in forming unions was much greater than that presented by the criminal syndicate in the movie.  If they had been cowed by that, then they certainly would have been cowed by the combined forces of company thugs and the police.

 

OK.  And it's my contention that the movie was against criminal elements trying to control the unions, and not against the unions or the workers.  I don't think anyone in the audience, when the movie was first run, stomped and cheered for FRIENDLY when he was beating up on Terry.  And remember....those dockworkers already HAD a union.  FIRST came the union, and THEN came organized crime syndicates trying to move in and control them.   They succeeded with the Teamsters due mostly to JIMMY HOFFA's greed and arrogance in thinking HE could control THEM.   But they couldn't budge WALTER REUTHER and the U.A.W. nor  JOHN L. LEWIS of the U.M.W.( my family, once coalminers in Pennsylvania, always referred to him as "Uncle John".).

 

And if nothing else, this debate does prove that what a film maker's intentions are when making any movie of this type,  aren't always realized by every movie goer.  Some might have seen THE HARDER THEY FALL as an anti BOXING movie, while others figured it was anti crime.  I heard Steiger once joke in an interview that for a short spell, due to that movie's premise, that perhaps they should have called it  "On The Ringside."  as he saw a parallel to it and "Waterfront".  ;)

 

 

Sepiatone


I started out with NOTHING...and still have most of it left!


#16 sagebrush

sagebrush

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 333 posts
  • Locationwestern USA

Posted 13 September 2017 - 06:18 AM

Okay. Seein' how this discussion is still goin' on, HERE'S somethin' I'VE always liked to have had a clear and definitive answer to:

 

Am I wrong to still be wearing white almost a week and half after the Labor Day holiday has come to pass?

 

(...and if I am, why's that, and who in the hell ever came up with THIS fashion faux pas rule anyway, HUH?!)

 

;)

I'm dead in the fashion water; my entire work uniform is white! :lol:

 

Here is a not-so-serious explanation of white and Labor day:

 

http://mentalfloss.c...after-labor-day


  • Dargo likes this

#17 slaytonf

slaytonf

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,969 posts

Posted 12 September 2017 - 11:04 PM

 

Okay. Seein' how this discussion is still goin' on, HERE'S somethin' I'VE always liked to have had a clear and definitive answer to:

 

Am I wrong to still be wearing white almost a week and half after the Labor Day holiday has come to pass?

 

(...and if I am, why's that, and who in the hell ever came up with THIS fashion faux pas rule anyway, HUH?!)

 

;)

 

It depends on what the item of clothing it is you are wearing that is white.

 

(can't get rid of that extra quote.  seems like there are more superfluous things around here than u's)


Edited by slaytonf, 12 September 2017 - 11:06 PM.

  • Dargo likes this

#18 slaytonf

slaytonf

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,969 posts

Posted 12 September 2017 - 11:02 PM

#1.  The movie didn't endorse  the idea of being against workers uniting to gain power

 

 

It has been me contention all along that the movie's message was against workers, or unionization.  I have explained my reasoning extensively.  And as I said before, I realize I am in the minority in my position.  

 

 

#2.  The union was already  in place before  Friendly, with organized crime backing, took over.  And anyway....Dugan did  agree to testify, and look what happened.  But then, Dugan's death wasn't as personal to all the others as Charlie's murder was to Terry, so Dugan's death did slow things down a bit.  But Terry's "personal victory" didn't come about until after the workers convinced him that walking to the job under his own power would defeat Friendly thereby making it MORE than just his own "personal" victory.

 

My point was that had dockworkers had the same qualities they did in the movie, there would have been no organization in the first place.  The dangers, mayhem, and death faced by workers in forming unions was much greater than that presented by the criminal syndicate in the movie.  If they had been cowed by that, then they certainly would have been cowed by the combined forces of company thugs and the police.



#19 Dargo

Dargo

    An "Acquired Taste"

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,070 posts
  • LocationSedona, Arizona

Posted 12 September 2017 - 12:16 PM

Okay. Seein' how this discussion is still goin' on, HERE'S somethin' I'VE always liked to have had a clear and definitive answer to:

 

Am I wrong to still be wearing white almost a week and half after the Labor Day holiday has come to pass?

 

(...and if I am, why's that, and who in the hell ever came up with THIS fashion faux pas rule anyway, HUH?!)

 

;)


  • Sepiatone likes this

#20 Sepiatone

Sepiatone

    Enhanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,085 posts
  • LocationLincoln Park, MI

Posted 12 September 2017 - 07:25 AM

Anti-worker means against workers uniting to gain power to put them on an equal footing with employers so they can improve their working conditions.  It has nothing to do with the attitude of the workers or the quality of their work.  

 

 

 

 

That didn't stop tens of thousands of real people who worked, sacrificed, marched, struck, were falsely arrested and imprisoned, beaten by hired thugs and police, and murdered, to establish unions, and win victories to gain humane and safe working conditions.

The workers depicted in the movie are such pathetic victims one wonders how a union got going in the first place.

 

 

 

#1.  The movie didn't endorse  the idea of being against workers uniting to gain power( and BTW, you're never on "equal footing" with your employers.) and the fact that the movie depicted the cruelty  with which the workers were treated and it needed to change and made that cruelty look unfavorable  is what, in my eyes, made the movie PRO worker.

 

#2.  The union was already  in place before  Friendly, with organized crime backing, took over.  And anyway....Dugan did  agree to testify, and look what happened.  But then, Dugan's death wasn't as personal to all the others as Charlie's murder was to Terry, so Dugan's death did slow things down a bit.  But Terry's "personal victory" didn't come about until after the workers convinced him that walking to the job under his own power would defeat Friendly thereby making it MORE than just his own "personal" victory.

 

In the American Revolution for example, not all  the colonists joined the Continental army and the local militias.  Only after the victories  started piling up did many others see it wasn't as futile as they first thought and then also took up arms.  It was only AFTER the  oppressors, be them the British or corporate heads, saw the futility in resisting  the onslaught of the rebellious that victory for the "downtrodden" came about.  Just like in the civil rights movement, not ALL African-Americans joined in the marches and other protests at first.  It was only AFTER smaller victories showed that it COULD be done did they join in.  I guess at the time, you saw THEM as being "pathetic victims".

 

 

Sepiatone


I started out with NOTHING...and still have most of it left!





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users