Kanzan's film "The Dock Storm" is a good example of myth making. Everyone knows without a doubt that it represents a handsome docker (played by Marlon Brando), lazy and a bit rough, whose sense of responsibility (belief) is due to love and the church (in the face of a vigorous priest, Spelman) The style of ① is presented) and gradually stimulated. The origin of this belief coincided with the eradication of misbehaving and fraudulent unions, and it seemed to have prompted the dock workers to resist certain exploiters. It made people wonder if this was a revolutionary film or a movie. The "Left" film is intended to reveal workers' issues to American audiences.
This actually involves the prevention of being affected by the truth again. When discussing other American movies, I have already pointed out this completely new technique: we transferred the exploitative activities of the management to a small group of villains, which was publicly revealed. Little evil, like a subtle and ugly pustule, is focused on, but the real evil is temporarily ignored. We don't name it, we eliminate it.
However, only an objective description of the "character" of Kazan's film is enough to determine its ability to create myths without any dispute. The proletariat is woven here into the image of a group of cowards, succumbing to slavery. They are very clear about their own state, but they have no courage to break free from it; the (capitalist) state is confused with absolute justice, it It is the only possible reliance against crime and exploitation: if the worker can reach the state and the police station and the investigation committee, he will be saved. As for the church, under its ostentatious modern appearance, it is nothing but a mediating force between the fundamental suffering of the workers and the paternal authority of the state-management. Besides, all these small but strong desires for justice and faith finally calmed down quickly, and were dissolved in the great stability of a good hierarchical order, in which the workers worked, the management stood by, and the priests performed their duties for both parties. bless.
In addition, it is the ending that reveals the true meaning of the film. It is just as many people think that Kazan has cleverly left the mark of progressivism: in the last set of shots, we can see Brando's extraordinary efforts as a responsible and responsible person. A good worker of conviction came to the capital waiting for him. And this boss is obviously a comic-style image, people say: Look, how Kazan viciously vilified the capitalist.
Here is the best place to use Brecht's démystification method, and to test the results of mutual adhesion that we have drawn from the protagonist from the beginning of the film. In our eyes, Brando is a real hero. Despite his flaws, he won the hearts of the audience. This is related to the audience’s participation and response. Without this, we generally don’t want to watch performances that are just decent. . The hero rediscovered his sense of responsibility and courage. At this time, he became stronger and more powerful. Although he was wounded and exhausted, he was still indomitable and walked towards the capitalist, who would resume his work. Our sense of commonality is unrestricted. We are completely integrated with this new Christ without thinking. We share his suffering without reservation. However, Brando’s painful and noble spirit of responsibility actually leads to the passive confirmation of the ever-changing status of the capital: despite using various comic-style satires, weaving it for us, it still returns to the hierarchical order; and Bailan With a sense of victory and relief, we put ourselves back into the grip of capitalist power. At this moment, painting the decadent appearance of capitalist power will no longer have any effect: we have long ago. Captured by the sense of commonality with the fate of the docker, he rediscovered the meaning of social justice, just to pay tribute to it, and gave this meaning as a gift to American capitalists.
As we have seen, it is precisely this kind of participation characteristic of the theater scene that objectively makes it a plot of myth production. We were taught to love Brando from the beginning, and we can no longer criticize him at any time, and we no longer even realize that he is actually stupid. We know that it is precisely in order to eliminate the danger of this mechanism that Brecht proposed the method of separation of roles. Brecht may ask Brando to show his innocence and credibility, so that we understand that although we have a sense of sympathy for his misfortune, the most important thing is to understand the cause of the misfortune and the way to eliminate it. We can sum up Kazan’s mistake in this way: Brando should be evaluated, and capitalists should be less judged. Because we expect more of the sufferer to resist, rather than the caricature of the abuser.
① Spelman, the bishop of the Catholic Church of the United States, served as the agent of the priests accompanying the US military, defending the policy of the US war of aggression against Vietnam.
View more about On the Waterfront reviews
