On the Waterfront
1954
Elia Kazan
Okay, Joey, just live in the moment.
The moment? How is that even possible?
Just try it.
Forget about the past? The future? Those are so integral to who I am and how I portray myself that it's just fucking impossible.
But you're not trying to be you. Remember, the you who exists right now is the person who doesn't feel like trying to write anything about the film you just watched. So don't be you.
Be someone else, you're saying. But also, in the moment.
Yes.
Well that seems silly.
It's called "Method." It's a way of being natural.
But I'm still acting.
Sure, but you're inhabiting the role, and thus knocking down the fourth wall that separates actor from audience.
But still acting.
You got it! Now, action!
What should I say?
It's in the script.
I don't have the script. I thought I was supposed to be living in the moment?
Okay, let me try to explain this to you. You have a script, but then you don't. The script tells you what you need to say, but only you can say it. What are you going to say here, at the beginning?
I don't know. I don't have my script.
No! You don't get it! Speak in the present. Speak from the heart!
Without my script.
More like... after the script.
Well now I'm just picturing the script.
And what do you see?
I see myself saying something like "the great thing about classic movies is that, if they've made it this far, than they're probably going to hold up."
That's great, so just say that.
But I've already said it.
You have to mean it this time.
I do mean it. Feels good to be able to trust the film's worth, due to its longevity.
Great! Now use that to inform your performance.
It's not a performance. It's how I feel.
Now you've got it!
Got what?
Speak to the nature of good vs. evil.
In the film or within me?
The point is that there is no difference between the two.
But there is. There is nuance within me. There is no nuance in On the Waterfront.
Keep going.
That's a good thing. Right from the beginning the stakes are made clear. This is a fight for Terry Malloy's soul.
Is this what you'd say if you were the blogger?
I am the blogger.
Yes! Loving it.
I'm the blogger using the idea of a "classic movie" as a shield. The nuance comes later. The lack of nuance is typical of a movie made in 1954. We don't need it. On the Waterfront is part of film's journey through the centuries. That journey being a race to what's true. What's true is me, now, here, seven decades later.
This is a great script. You're doing great.
I thought you said don't use the script?
True.
Am I going off-script or not?
Both. Neither. And—no, or.
And if I said that the moralizing lands well if we're keeping ourselves within the confines of the movie, but not if we look outward, toward a director who was clearly using the morals presented here as justification for his full participation in the House Un-American Activities Committee?
Baby, just by asking the question, you're being your true and honest self.
Can I get an answer?
No.
Does the answer matter?
Not if there is no answer.
Why in the fucking world is there no answer to the question about moralizing in a movie that seems clearly designed to moralize? Shipped into the present from a past where moralizing looked a lot different?
That's it! Yes! You've really got it now. The performance is key.
My performance, or Brando's? And don't say there's no difference. Do not give me that shit.
Joey, I'm loving what you're giving me. Of course there's a difference. Marlon Brando is Marlon fucking Brando. You are you. Two different people. Method means being yourself, not someone else. Relax, Joey. There's a difference.
But I'm not doing Method!
Perfect. Perfect Method.
Jesus fucking christ. I don't even know what Method means.
Not knowing what Method means means you're being yourself, so that's Method!
It didn't seem like the priest was doing Method.
So?
So? So that dude, Karl Malden, he should've won the fucking Supporting Actor Oscar for that crucifixion speech! So?! What do you mean, so?
Who's saying you have to do Method to find success?
I thought I was doing Method?
Are you?
I don't know!
So you're doing Method. Don't you see?
I... I think I do.
Yes. Yes. We can use this. Tell me what you see.
Method is beyond acting like a fictional character off-camera, like those creeps Day-Lewis and Leto, et al. Let's call that Post-Method. Method is instead inhabiting the character fully while on-camera, making that character "real," as opposed to acting as that character. Acting but not acting. Making yourself that character. Destroying the real you, temporarily. Is this what Method means?
Cut! Alright folks. We got the "Joey Understands Method" scene. Onto the next. But wait, you dropped your glove.
What, this thing? I didn't even notice.
Well, you've got it.
I know I've got the glove.
No, not the glove. What the glove represents.
Method acting?
No, no, no. It represents your understanding of Method acting.
That's what I meant.
Exactly.
So this glove—
No, not this glove. That glove.
Eva Saint Marie's glove? But I didn't even notice her drop it. Is that my fault or hers or Brando's?
You're asking the wrong questions. You didn't notice it. And therefore, it represents Method acting.
In the fact that I didn't notice it.
Yes.
But I thought I was supposed to notice Method acting? Is that the reason Marlon Brando won the Oscar for this role? Because he was noticed?
Oh, he was noticed. But you notice the not noticing, is the thing.
So he lives in the subconscious.
Not just "he." Method actors.
I still don't really get it.
Cut! Alright folks. We got the "Joey Doesn't Understand the '"Joey Understands Method" scene'" scene. Onto the next.
But I still don't get it.
There's nothing to get. Don't you see? There's nothing to get.
So what about the "I coulda been a contender" speech?
What about it?
Was it Method acting or not?
You tell me.
I mean, there was tenderness there. It was understated. There was beauty in how Brando gently pushes the gun away, in how the famous lines are more sad than exciting. That felt like a choice.
Or was it living in the moment? No choices, just acting, just being one's self?
If it was living in the moment, then it was still fictional. Or are you telling me that Marlon Brando really was a boxer who was told to take a dive and ended up working as a longshoreman through his brother's mob connections?
And who the fuck are you to ask who Marlon Brando was or who he wasn't at any given time?
C'mon. Get real. No. No, I refuse to believe it. I refuse to believe that the magic of Brando's performance was that he becomes Terry Malloy in those moments. I use the word "magic" but I don't believe in actual magic. This isn't some sort of transubstantiation. This is science. The man is an actor by trade. He gets paid to perform. He was given a check and asked for services. Those services rendered look like: Terry Malloy, former prizefighter, current dockworker, new to the whole "conscience" thing, convinced to do the "right" thing despite great personal pain and strife. This is his job. This isn't magic. Magic isn't real!
And there you have it.
Have what?
You just said it.
What?!
You just said what you wanted to say.
And?
And that's why you're saying it in this way. You said you couldn't at the beginning of the blog post, and now you're saying it. You're living in the moment. You found what you wanted to say. That's Method. You became the blogger you wanted to be, at least in that moment. That's magic!
That's magic?
And if it can happen here, it can happen in film. Magic. It's real, and you just saw it. You just saw it in On the Waterfront.
GRADE: 4.5 pukes out of 5
NEXT TIME: We're watching Ordinary People. No idea anything about it besides the fact that there's that one episode of Party Down where Roman's like, "Ordinary fucking People."
The moment? How is that even possible?
Just try it.
Forget about the past? The future? Those are so integral to who I am and how I portray myself that it's just fucking impossible.
But you're not trying to be you. Remember, the you who exists right now is the person who doesn't feel like trying to write anything about the film you just watched. So don't be you.
Be someone else, you're saying. But also, in the moment.
Yes.
Well that seems silly.
It's called "Method." It's a way of being natural.
But I'm still acting.
Sure, but you're inhabiting the role, and thus knocking down the fourth wall that separates actor from audience.
But still acting.
You got it! Now, action!
What should I say?
It's in the script.
I don't have the script. I thought I was supposed to be living in the moment?
Okay, let me try to explain this to you. You have a script, but then you don't. The script tells you what you need to say, but only you can say it. What are you going to say here, at the beginning?
I don't know. I don't have my script.
No! You don't get it! Speak in the present. Speak from the heart!
Without my script.
More like... after the script.
Well now I'm just picturing the script.
And what do you see?
I see myself saying something like "the great thing about classic movies is that, if they've made it this far, than they're probably going to hold up."
That's great, so just say that.
But I've already said it.
You have to mean it this time.
I do mean it. Feels good to be able to trust the film's worth, due to its longevity.
Great! Now use that to inform your performance.
It's not a performance. It's how I feel.
Now you've got it!
Got what?
Speak to the nature of good vs. evil.
In the film or within me?
The point is that there is no difference between the two.
But there is. There is nuance within me. There is no nuance in On the Waterfront.
Keep going.
That's a good thing. Right from the beginning the stakes are made clear. This is a fight for Terry Malloy's soul.
Is this what you'd say if you were the blogger?
I am the blogger.
Yes! Loving it.
I'm the blogger using the idea of a "classic movie" as a shield. The nuance comes later. The lack of nuance is typical of a movie made in 1954. We don't need it. On the Waterfront is part of film's journey through the centuries. That journey being a race to what's true. What's true is me, now, here, seven decades later.
This is a great script. You're doing great.
I thought you said don't use the script?
True.
Am I going off-script or not?
Both. Neither. And—no, or.
And if I said that the moralizing lands well if we're keeping ourselves within the confines of the movie, but not if we look outward, toward a director who was clearly using the morals presented here as justification for his full participation in the House Un-American Activities Committee?
Baby, just by asking the question, you're being your true and honest self.
Can I get an answer?
No.
Does the answer matter?
Not if there is no answer.
Why in the fucking world is there no answer to the question about moralizing in a movie that seems clearly designed to moralize? Shipped into the present from a past where moralizing looked a lot different?
That's it! Yes! You've really got it now. The performance is key.
My performance, or Brando's? And don't say there's no difference. Do not give me that shit.
Joey, I'm loving what you're giving me. Of course there's a difference. Marlon Brando is Marlon fucking Brando. You are you. Two different people. Method means being yourself, not someone else. Relax, Joey. There's a difference.
But I'm not doing Method!
Perfect. Perfect Method.
Jesus fucking christ. I don't even know what Method means.
Not knowing what Method means means you're being yourself, so that's Method!
It didn't seem like the priest was doing Method.
So?
So? So that dude, Karl Malden, he should've won the fucking Supporting Actor Oscar for that crucifixion speech! So?! What do you mean, so?
Who's saying you have to do Method to find success?
I thought I was doing Method?
Are you?
I don't know!
So you're doing Method. Don't you see?
I... I think I do.
Yes. Yes. We can use this. Tell me what you see.
Method is beyond acting like a fictional character off-camera, like those creeps Day-Lewis and Leto, et al. Let's call that Post-Method. Method is instead inhabiting the character fully while on-camera, making that character "real," as opposed to acting as that character. Acting but not acting. Making yourself that character. Destroying the real you, temporarily. Is this what Method means?
Cut! Alright folks. We got the "Joey Understands Method" scene. Onto the next. But wait, you dropped your glove.
What, this thing? I didn't even notice.
Well, you've got it.
I know I've got the glove.
No, not the glove. What the glove represents.
Method acting?
No, no, no. It represents your understanding of Method acting.
That's what I meant.
Exactly.
So this glove—
No, not this glove. That glove.
Eva Saint Marie's glove? But I didn't even notice her drop it. Is that my fault or hers or Brando's?
You're asking the wrong questions. You didn't notice it. And therefore, it represents Method acting.
In the fact that I didn't notice it.
Yes.
But I thought I was supposed to notice Method acting? Is that the reason Marlon Brando won the Oscar for this role? Because he was noticed?
Oh, he was noticed. But you notice the not noticing, is the thing.
So he lives in the subconscious.
Not just "he." Method actors.
I still don't really get it.
Cut! Alright folks. We got the "Joey Doesn't Understand the '"Joey Understands Method" scene'" scene. Onto the next.
But I still don't get it.
There's nothing to get. Don't you see? There's nothing to get.
So what about the "I coulda been a contender" speech?
What about it?
Was it Method acting or not?
You tell me.
I mean, there was tenderness there. It was understated. There was beauty in how Brando gently pushes the gun away, in how the famous lines are more sad than exciting. That felt like a choice.
Or was it living in the moment? No choices, just acting, just being one's self?
If it was living in the moment, then it was still fictional. Or are you telling me that Marlon Brando really was a boxer who was told to take a dive and ended up working as a longshoreman through his brother's mob connections?
And who the fuck are you to ask who Marlon Brando was or who he wasn't at any given time?
C'mon. Get real. No. No, I refuse to believe it. I refuse to believe that the magic of Brando's performance was that he becomes Terry Malloy in those moments. I use the word "magic" but I don't believe in actual magic. This isn't some sort of transubstantiation. This is science. The man is an actor by trade. He gets paid to perform. He was given a check and asked for services. Those services rendered look like: Terry Malloy, former prizefighter, current dockworker, new to the whole "conscience" thing, convinced to do the "right" thing despite great personal pain and strife. This is his job. This isn't magic. Magic isn't real!
And there you have it.
Have what?
You just said it.
What?!
You just said what you wanted to say.
And?
And that's why you're saying it in this way. You said you couldn't at the beginning of the blog post, and now you're saying it. You're living in the moment. You found what you wanted to say. That's Method. You became the blogger you wanted to be, at least in that moment. That's magic!
That's magic?
And if it can happen here, it can happen in film. Magic. It's real, and you just saw it. You just saw it in On the Waterfront.
GRADE: 4.5 pukes out of 5
NEXT TIME: We're watching Ordinary People. No idea anything about it besides the fact that there's that one episode of Party Down where Roman's like, "Ordinary fucking People."
No comments:
Post a Comment