All the King's Men

Robert Rossen does a great job directing this movie. But he did an even better job in a literate and crisp screenplay that brings the characters springing to life even better than they jumped off the pages in Robert Penn Warren's book. Rossen captures the essence of each character adroitly with concise yet revealing dialogue. Beyond Rossen's heroic exploits, the most memorable aspect of the film is the wealth of memorable performances. Broderick Crawford deserved his Oscar and then some for his charismatic turn of the well-meaning-hick-turned megalomaniac governor. Anne Seymour is quietly perfect as his wife. And Mercedes McCambridge nearly steals the film, giving one of the best supporting actress performances --- EVER. John Ireland totally captures the sophistry and spinelessness of the erudite yet ineffective Jack Burden. Other excellent performances are turned in by Shepard Strudwick, Joanne Dru, John Derek, and Will Wright. All in all, this is a great piece of American filmmaking.

All the King's Men was a gutsy film in its day, and wonder of wonders it still plays this way after all these years. It's probably, with the exception of Beat the Devil, the most ragged film to ever achieve classic status. Directed by Robert Rossen, adapted from a novel by Robert Penn Warren, and strikingly photographed in cinema verite style by Burnett Guffey, it tells the story of the rise and fall of a Huey Long-like politician who starts out as a good guy, if a bit of a bully, and winds up a very bad guy, and even more of a bully, as he takes political control of his state. There are dozens of things wrong with the movie. It feels rushed, as if edited down from a much longer film. The editing creates an uncomfortable, jarring effect that makes it difficult at times not only to watch the movie but to follow it. It has some dreadful acting among many of its major players, while several of the smaller roles are quite well cast with interesting faces, which creates a tantalizing effect, as if the good stuff, the interesting inside dope stuff that we really want to know about, is too hot for the movie to handle, so we have to settle for a glance, a gesture, a heavy overcoat, and draw our conclusions accordingly. There's a cheap look to the film, not only in scenes where things are supposed to look shabby, like ramshackle farmhouses, but in the mansions of the rich and the governor's office. Nor is there much specificity in the movie. In the novel the state was clearly Southern, while in the movie it could just as well be California or Illinois. And the frenetic pace of the film seems tied to the staccato delivery of Broderick Crawford in the leading role, as if Crawford himself had produced, directed and written the movie to fit his personal idiosyncrasies like a glove. As luck would have it, these 'wrong' things make All the King's Men work better than a smoother, fancier, more refined approach could ever have done. Its newsreel intensity makes it feel real. The bad performances by relatively unknown actors likewise gives their characters the effect of being actual people who, after all don't always behave or speak as they ought to. In the unattractive sets we see things that look like life rather than movie life, as rich men's homes are not always pleasing to behold, and state capitals and court houses often have a rundown look. Brod Crawford plays his role as a grade B heavy, with perhaps a scintilla more charm, and his bull-necked King Of Alcatraz style of acting suits his character well; and if one finds Crawford too typically a Hollywood bad guy I recommend the documentary film Point Of Order, in which Sen. Joe McCarthy, with no dramatic training whatsoever, could well be Crawford's soul-mate, or at the very least his brother. Why do these elements work so well in All the King's Men and not in other movies, where a mess is just a mess? I think the political nature of the film made it controversial from the get-go. It probably was severely edited to take out 'offensive' material (i.e. anything that might appear to reflect badly on an actual person). The quick, driving pace gives the film at times the sensibility of a tabloid, certainly not Rossen's intent, but luckily this let's-rip-the-lid-off-of-everything feeling that the movie just naturally has suggests perhaps an even deeper problem at the core of its story than just one crazy man's ambitions gone wild, and as a result the film is in many places suggestive, and seems profound when what lies behind this impression is perhaps a deliberate vagueness on the part of Rosson & Co., which in turn forces the viewer to try to sort things out for himself, using the movie as a series of signposts, and what results is a more profound experience than the film itself: the film one plays in one's mind.

You know what I really appreciated about this political story? The filmmakers went overboard NOT to paint the main character as either a Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal. It winds up, then, being more a human-interest story. In other words, there was no political agenda....unlike most films, especially in the last 50 years. At any rate, Broderick Crawford does an outstanding job portraying the self- proclaimed "hick" Willie Starks, who rises from nothing to become governor of a state and then gets carried away with power and ego. Mercedes McCambridge is equally riveting as one of his aides. She was a great actress, one of the most intense females I've ever seen on film. I'm sorry she didn't achieve stardom and make more movies than she did. She certainly had the talent. In fact, she won an Academy Award for this performance. John Ireland also does very well here as another person helping "Willie." Add some good cinematography and you have a fascinating film start-to-finish. I look forward to viewing it again.

Spoilers herein. As a film, this is something that hasn't aged well. The various elements, especially the acting, now seem dated and... well, lousy. In its day we overlooked all its shortcomings because it was grand and relevant and seemingly true. That political sweep still resonates. But I suspect that where the film reflected political reality, it and its siblings now create political reality. And thats what makes this worth watching because the focus on the story is politics as theater. Its not just simple theater where an illusion is created that seems real. This is a reality that is drawn out of the viewers. Our huckster literally says you're hicks and I'm a hick too. It is a very clever form of theater that works best in politics. I'm writing this before the 2004 presidential election in the US. One politician in that race (Bush) is a privileged son from New England. Went to Yale. Tapped by Skull and Bones. Yet he affects a Texas drawl and a manner that says, I'm a hick with the implication that I'm you. Worked for him once at least. Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

However, it could not be more inaccurate in portraying the TRUTH about Huey. Go to Huey's speeches on the floor of the U. S. Senate and discover the real Huey P. Long! Huey was notorious for exposing other leading Senators and how they were paid off by big companies and how they catered to the rich and elite. Huey was for the poor and struggling masses who the rich wanted to keep in their place as slaves to their Almighty Dollar Bill. Huey was the greatest man to ever ascend to power. Franklin D. Roosevelt feared him, as well as every other bought off officer of the government. Research Huey Long online and you will learn of his extraordinary accomplishments as governor of Louisiana for only one term. You will soon understand why Huey P. Long was the only governor ever to be assassinated in the U. S. You will see how deadly it is to pull for the poor and go against unbridled wealth!!! If you ever get your hands on the Pulitzer Prize book, Huey P. Long, read it. It will open your eyes to the world of politics, organized power, and how the wealthy are truly in power over all!!! I am a citizen of Winnfield, Louisiana, the birthplace of Huey P. Long

Contrary to what John Wayne claimed when he read the script, "All the King's Men" is not smearing the American way of life. What it's doing is showing the unfortunate reality of our political system, as idealistic lawyer Willie Stark (Broderick Crawford) runs for governor on a populist platform but falls prey to corruption once in office. Watching the movie, one can feel the tension between the various parties involved in the events portrayed, especially as Willie becomes just like the people whom he previously condemned, covering up misdeeds and granting favors to cronies. If this seems like it mirrors current events, it shouldn't be any surprise. Of course, these sorts of things are nothing new, as "ATKM" was based on the career of Huey Long. I would actually say that the president who most represents Willie Stark is Bill Clinton, who had good ideas but sold out. Anyway, this is a movie that I recommend. Also starring Joanne Dru, Mercedes McCambridge and John Derek. I as yet haven't seen last year's remake.

This Oscar-winning screen adaptation of the Pulitzer-Prize-winning Robert Penn Warren novel feels oddly truncated, like director Robert Rossen filmed a much longer movie, and then an unqualified editor hacked it down to the movie we see. The pacing is off, scenes feel cut short and much of it is confusing, as if there are elements missing. It doesn't come close to capturing the greatness of the novel, and it's one of the weakest films to win the Best Picture Academy Award from that time period. Broderick Crawford makes a fine Willie Stark, though, I'll give the film that. He's all bluster and hot-headed arrogance, just what the character calls for. John Ireland does fine with the role of Jack Burden, but the character itself is minimized. The book is really more about Jack than Willie, but the film doesn't give Jack much of a character arc, and he feels decidedly supporting. Mercedes McCambridge nabs the role of a lifetime playing Sadie Burke, perhaps one of the most colorful female characters ever put to paper. Here again, the movie doesn't begin to make use of her character like the book does. It uses the elements of her character that are necessary for the plot, but leaves behind everything else---the more human dimensions of Sadie, and her own moral crises, are lost. Overall I thought this was a tepid and forgettable movie based on a landmark and compulsively readable book. If you avoid this one entirely, you won't be missing anything. Grade: C

Robert Rossen (The Hustler) had better luck with the story of Louisiana's Governor Huey Long as he managed to capture every Best Director award he was nominated for except the Oscar. The picture did win the Best Picture Award for my birth year, and the acting awards went to Broderick Crawford (Governor Stark/Long) and Mercedes McCambridge. The corruption of power, the sleaziness of the political process, the willingness of people to be used are all explored in this moving film. Again, as in the Hustler, Rossen uses the black and white medium to its full effectiveness as he presents a taut and moving study of the rise of Stark/Long and his downfall. "Jack, there's something on everybody. Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption. He passes from the stink of the dydie to the stench of the shroud. There's ALWAYS something."

Maybe "All the King's Men" is a bit long in the tooth now, but until "The Godfather" and "Patton" it was the best film ever made! The selection of Broderick Crawford as Willie Stark was gutsy, since Crawford can -at best- have been considered "good". Somehow, though, Crawford did not play Willie Stark - he Was Willie! Much like George C. Scott did not play Patton - he Was Patton. The "you hicks" speech was great. Not until the "Patton" speech was there anything better on film. Essentially, the thing making the film great was watching Willie "grow up" in the sense of casting aside his idealism for power. Turning point is the cemetery scene, when one of the attendees seeks divine forgiveness for not having voted for Willie. The turning moment was not unlike Michael Corelone saying "I'm with you Pop" when the Godfather was in the hospital. Michael did not mean physical proximity, but that he then "bought into" the business. In both cases, the storyline is a reminder about Power and Corruption. Like most movies made from books, there were some changes that did detract from the story (no where in the movie do we learn that the Judge is Jack Burden's father - yet that is so important). Yet, correspondingly, no one can accuse the book of word economy. It is a powerful story, but overly descriptive. Crawford's change of expression - the beginnings of insight - are classic. Definitely worth seeing.

Every dog has his day. Broderick Crawford (sometimes remembered for the TV series "Highway Patrol") hit the zenith of his career with an Oscar winning performance. As Willie Stark he reeks of the abuse of power we have seen in the year's since. Never again does Crawford turn himself loose in a role that was really written for him. (In Highway Patrol all the chases were shot on private land - Crawford's driving license was revoked for numerous DUI infractions). You can't leave out Mercedes McCambridge. She is the perfect second lead. Her performance is filled with depth. Mercedes is the role model for today's woman. Tough yet filled with compassion. She and Crawford provide sensation entertainment without one frame of CGI. If you haven't seen this film, rent it, buy it or go to a retrospective. Your film going life is incomplete without a viewing.