Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Why no Labor Day Movies?


Recommended Posts

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?!)

 

;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

#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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.com/article/12424/why-cant-you-wear-white-after-labor-day

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...