"All the King's Men" was based on a novel by Robert Penn Warren, which in turn was based upon the career of the controversial politician Huey Long. The Long figure here is Willie Stark, a farmer from a poor rural district in an unnamed state. Stark begins his career as a campaigner against corruption in local government and qualifies as a lawyer so that he can help his impoverished neighbours, but is unsuccessful in an attempt to become county treasurer. He is persuaded to run for governor, unaware that he has been nominated by supporters of the incumbent in the hope that Stark will split the vote and thereby harm the chances of the opposition candidate. In the course of his campaign, however, Stark discovers hitherto untapped powers of oratory and becomes a popular figure; he finishes second in the poll, only losing narrowly. Four years later he runs again and wins.
The story is told from the point of view of a young journalist, Jack Burden. Burden comes from one of the state's aristocratic "old money" families, who generally despise Stark as a vulgar populist. Burden, however, initially admires Stark as a man who will get things done. Other important characters are Burden's equally aristocratic girlfriend Anne Stanton, her brother Adam, a doctor, and their uncle, a judge.
Burden resigns from his newspaper to become a worker on Stark's staff, and the film tells the story of gradual disillusionment with Stark who, once in office, becomes as corrupt and autocratic as the politicians he once campaigned against. Judge Stanton, appointed as the state's Attorney-General, resigns when he realises that Stark is protecting an associate who is guilty of embezzlement. Stark's private character also deteriorates when exposed to the temptations of power; once a teetotal family man he becomes a drunken womaniser, taking (among others) Anne as his mistress.
The film was a great success when it was released in 1949, both critically and commercially. It won the "Best Picture" Oscar, with "Best Actor" going to Broderick Crawford and "Best Supporting Actress" to Mercedes McCambridge as Stark's aide Sadie. Robert Rossen (who also acted as writer and producer) was nominated for "Best Director" but lost out to Joseph L. Mankiewicz. These awards were certainly well-deserved, especially Crawford's as he gives a spellbinding performance as Stark, the simple, bumbling country hick turned would-be dictator. The film has been compared with that other great study of the corruptions of power, "Citizen Kane", although unlike Orson Welles neither Rossen nor Crawford went on to become a great Hollywood icon. Rossen, who died while still in his fifties, only made ten films, none of the others as famous as this one, although some of them are certainly good. Crawford, this film apart, is more remembered for his work in television, especially the police drama "Highway Patrol", than in the cinema.
The film was made shortly after the end of World War II and during the early part of the Cold War. It is therefore perhaps unsurprising that Rossen draws clear parallels between Stark's career and those of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin- the balcony oratory, the torchlight rallies, the giant banners with portraits of the Leader hanging from public buildings and the strong-arm tactic used to silence opponents of the regime. (The word "stark" is, significantly, German for "strong").
Yet Rossen is more objective than one might imagine. The film is not just a long diatribe against dictatorship and in favour of democracy. Even when disillusioned Burden continues to work for Stark because, whatever his other faults may be, Stark makes good on his boast to be a man who gets things done. He is responsible for an ambitious public works programme to provide the state with much-needed schools, hospitals and highways, and it is this which accounts for his continuing popularity among the state's poorer inhabitants, especially in rural districts, who refuse to believe stories of Stark's corruption and abuse of power. By contrast, the clique of old-money politicians who controlled the state before Stark's rise to power never did anything to benefit anyone other than themselves. They, moreover, were not only corrupt but also equally capable of resorting to strong-arm tactics, although because of their control of the media these were rarely reported. You could even draw from the film the moral that, as Tim Rice put it, "There is evil, ever around fundamental, system of government quite incidental", and that you might as well vote for the sonofabitch who gets things done rather than for the sons of bitches who don't.
The film therefore effectively has a double meaning. On the one hand, it can be seen as an "it could happen here" warning against the dangers of dictatorship. Some historians believe that, had Long not been assassinated in 1935, he could have become an American Mussolini. On the other hand, it is also a warning against the dangers of democracy, especially the temptation to regard winning elections as an end in itself, a game to be played for the benefit of the politicians rather than for the benefit of those who elect them. (Since the end of the Cold War this has become a temptation to which Western democracies have become particularly prone). It is this complexity of meaning which, along with its great central role, some good supporting performances and an intelligent script, makes "All the King's Men", in my opinion, the greatest film ever made about American politics. 10/10
The story is told from the point of view of a young journalist, Jack Burden. Burden comes from one of the state's aristocratic "old money" families, who generally despise Stark as a vulgar populist. Burden, however, initially admires Stark as a man who will get things done. Other important characters are Burden's equally aristocratic girlfriend Anne Stanton, her brother Adam, a doctor, and their uncle, a judge.
Burden resigns from his newspaper to become a worker on Stark's staff, and the film tells the story of gradual disillusionment with Stark who, once in office, becomes as corrupt and autocratic as the politicians he once campaigned against. Judge Stanton, appointed as the state's Attorney-General, resigns when he realises that Stark is protecting an associate who is guilty of embezzlement. Stark's private character also deteriorates when exposed to the temptations of power; once a teetotal family man he becomes a drunken womaniser, taking (among others) Anne as his mistress.
The film was a great success when it was released in 1949, both critically and commercially. It won the "Best Picture" Oscar, with "Best Actor" going to Broderick Crawford and "Best Supporting Actress" to Mercedes McCambridge as Stark's aide Sadie. Robert Rossen (who also acted as writer and producer) was nominated for "Best Director" but lost out to Joseph L. Mankiewicz. These awards were certainly well-deserved, especially Crawford's as he gives a spellbinding performance as Stark, the simple, bumbling country hick turned would-be dictator. The film has been compared with that other great study of the corruptions of power, "Citizen Kane", although unlike Orson Welles neither Rossen nor Crawford went on to become a great Hollywood icon. Rossen, who died while still in his fifties, only made ten films, none of the others as famous as this one, although some of them are certainly good. Crawford, this film apart, is more remembered for his work in television, especially the police drama "Highway Patrol", than in the cinema.
The film was made shortly after the end of World War II and during the early part of the Cold War. It is therefore perhaps unsurprising that Rossen draws clear parallels between Stark's career and those of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin- the balcony oratory, the torchlight rallies, the giant banners with portraits of the Leader hanging from public buildings and the strong-arm tactic used to silence opponents of the regime. (The word "stark" is, significantly, German for "strong").
Yet Rossen is more objective than one might imagine. The film is not just a long diatribe against dictatorship and in favour of democracy. Even when disillusioned Burden continues to work for Stark because, whatever his other faults may be, Stark makes good on his boast to be a man who gets things done. He is responsible for an ambitious public works programme to provide the state with much-needed schools, hospitals and highways, and it is this which accounts for his continuing popularity among the state's poorer inhabitants, especially in rural districts, who refuse to believe stories of Stark's corruption and abuse of power. By contrast, the clique of old-money politicians who controlled the state before Stark's rise to power never did anything to benefit anyone other than themselves. They, moreover, were not only corrupt but also equally capable of resorting to strong-arm tactics, although because of their control of the media these were rarely reported. You could even draw from the film the moral that, as Tim Rice put it, "There is evil, ever around fundamental, system of government quite incidental", and that you might as well vote for the sonofabitch who gets things done rather than for the sons of bitches who don't.
The film therefore effectively has a double meaning. On the one hand, it can be seen as an "it could happen here" warning against the dangers of dictatorship. Some historians believe that, had Long not been assassinated in 1935, he could have become an American Mussolini. On the other hand, it is also a warning against the dangers of democracy, especially the temptation to regard winning elections as an end in itself, a game to be played for the benefit of the politicians rather than for the benefit of those who elect them. (Since the end of the Cold War this has become a temptation to which Western democracies have become particularly prone). It is this complexity of meaning which, along with its great central role, some good supporting performances and an intelligent script, makes "All the King's Men", in my opinion, the greatest film ever made about American politics. 10/10