rating:
(out of
4 stars)United States; 1949
Directed by Robert Rossen; produced by Robert Rossen; written by Robert Rossen
Starring Broderick Crawford, John Ireland, Joanne Dru, John Derek, Mercedes McCambridge, Shepperd Strudwick
'All the King's Men' is a lot more entertaining than I would have thought. It does not belong to the greatest films ever made, in fact, it belongs to the lesser Best Picture Oscar-winners, but it works well enough to recommend it. If nothing else, it gives you a good time. That said, it is a lot better than its 2006 remake which was one of the major disappointments that year.
It tells a story of power and corruption, of a man who does everything to
reach the top. This man is Willie Stark, played by Broderick in a deserved
Oscar-winning performance. Stark starts as a stubborn but nice man, trying
to make a difference. At first he fails, but soon people realize he was
telling the truth and they start supporting him. He even makes it to
Governor. Although that fails, he becomes attorney at law, slowly
disappearing from the picture. The story is told through the eyes of Jack
Burden (John Ireland), a reporter, in love with Anne (Joanne Dru), and
friends with her father Judge Stanton (Raymond Greenleaf) and brother Adam
(Shepperd Strudwick). They are all impressed by the vision of Stark.
After a while a man named Tiny Duffy (Ralph Dumke) runs for Governor, but it
seems he is losing. With a trick he convinces Stark to try running for
Governor as well, although he is only there to keep people from voting for
Duffy's opponent. In this part of the story Jack accompanies Stark together
with a woman named Sadie Burke (Mercedes McCambridge). They both understand
why Stark is running for Governor, Stark himself still has no idea until he
is told by the two. This fact changes Stark, wanting to win more than ever.
He becomes a man who inspires others, including Jack, Sadie and even Duffy.
He makes little deals everywhere, doing everything that is necessary to win
the elections. He succeeds.
He was already changing while he was running, but as Governor Stark the real
change becomes very visible. From a nice man with ideas he changes into an
arrogant man thinking of nobody but himself, although we can never be sure
of that. On the one hand he gives the state a hospital, seems generous, but
on the other hand it will be named after him, making sure it is very clear
who gave the state that hospital. His deals continue as well and when
someone disagrees with him he sends Jack to find some dirt about that
person; blackmailing for a better cause, sort of speak. Adam is the first
one to realize Stark has changed into an unpleasant man, the Judge follows,
Jack and Anne stick with him, as does Sadie. In their personal lives things
change as well, especially when Anne starts liking the married Stark.
'All the King's Men' is dated, television for example plays no
part, but the general idea still stands. Behind doors you can come pretty
far when you do not follow the rules, when you make little deals everywhere,
and to the public you just say what they want to hear. It is not even really
what you say, it is the way you bring it. Things like that we still see
today. You do not simply say terrorists are active and they are a possible
danger to a country, you say they will be a real threat and something needs
to be done right away. When you create a certain feeling among the public,
fear is the example today, you can pretty much get away with everything.
Even though there is a good chance you will pay a prize one day.
The film has some other qualities besides Crawford and its story.
McCambridge, also awarded with an Oscar, does a pretty good job too, and
Ireland has some nice scenes although they always involve Crawford or
McCambridge. On the other hand we have Joanne Dru who gives a good example
of over-acting, especially in her emotional scenes. Another small complaint
I have has to do with the music. Whenever something dramatic happens we hear
some wild notes on the soundtrack. Instead of letting the event speak for
itself, the film underestimates its audience and thinks we need a little
help with understanding the impact. Sometimes it made me smile a little,
probably the opposite effect it goes for. These two complaints, and a very
sudden ending (even though it is the right one), are small flaws in this
otherwise very fine film. Maybe it is not as great as other classics from
the 1940s
('Citizen Kane', 'Casablanca', 'The Third Man' to name a few), it is a good
film, entertaining all the way through.