Skip to main content

Back to the Feature: All the King's Men (1949)

Related image

It’s adorable what passed for political corruption in America in the 1940s. And the character of the corrupt. Even at his worst, Willie Stark at least has some intelligence, he remains at least a functioning human. The reality of All the King’s Men is a shade brighter than the reality of the United States in 2019. Checks and balances actually exist there, consequences exist there, and as far as we can tell Stark doesn’t directly enable white supremacy (although there aren’t any black people in the movie despite being set in 1940s Louisiana, so maybe).
With the 91st Oscars happening tomorrow as far as we know, I’m once more looking back on a Best Picture winner of the past. And sixty-nine years ago, that highest honour went to Robert Rossen’s All the King’s Men, a political film noir adapted from the popular novel by Robert Penn Warren about the rise of an outspoken idiot from a small county treasurer race to state governor through dishonesty, populism, rhetoric, and malfeasance. Clearly this is a story that’s as relevant in 2019 as it was in 1949. Aspects of the character of Willie Stark, played by a marvellous Broderick Crawford, though heightened of and extrapolated from the career of Louisiana governor Huey Long (whose campaign slogan “Every Man a King” probably influenced the books’ title), hit extremely close to modern federal politics in the United States –not just in the heinousness of the central figure’s personality and deeds, but in his methods of rallying support and how he uses his position of power. The nightmare political situation of this movie is presently in many ways a reality, and so it’s utterly fascinating to consider and dissect.
Told from the point-of-view of Jack Burden (John Ireland) a reporter and eventual loyal campaigner for Stark, the story of this inexperienced first-time politician begins with loud proclamations and ambitious promises coupled with a determination to run in spite of the mockery he receives. Steadily growing a following and becoming a lawyer, Stark’s chances of winning an election increase over time until he finally triumphs in a gubernatorial. As he subsequently grows into a demagogue, his reputation and character has a detrimental effect on his family and followers, including the formerly idealistic Burden.
It is uncanny how much of a mirror to the rise of Trump this movie is. Apart from Stark’s humble origins (which honestly is just a way to make him more a perverse image of Lincoln or Jefferson Smith), he’s got many of the same trademarks. He’s loudmouthed and overconfident without any practical plans to follow through on his initiatives, he freely admits to contentious if not outright criminal acts to get what he wants –such as taking money from the very groups he claims to be against, he uses intimidation tactics, his uncouth behaviour and language promotes and incites division, he appeals directly to a base of poor and uneducated “hicks” whom he doesn’t do much to really help, and he has extremely thin skin when it comes to criticism, especially from the media (of course all of these should be taken with the caveat that Stark doesn’t go as far as Trump).
To be fair, the comparisons extend to other modern controversial politicians as well. I see a lot of Doug and Rob Ford in Willie Stark for example, but none fit his character more specifically than the current buffoon in the Oval Office. Stark’s governorship is characterized by scandal, forceful legislation (“I demand that this bill be passed -nobody’s gonna tell me how to run this state!”), an immediately divisive public image, and calls for impeachment. And the discomforting similarities likewise encompass Stark’s methods of manipulation and even some iconography –the tiki torches at one Stark rally have a completely unintended significance now that they’re just about permanently associated with the pro-Trump Nazis of Charlottesville. Stark’s supporters are notably veracious, and he wins them over through populist language and ideology, using angry, declarative statements and speeches designed to inflate the people. It allows him to get away with not knowing much about the issues he’s fighting. He’s very good at presenting himself as a model of strength and leadership, and as an outsider to the systems the public are unhappy with. He knows how to rile up his crowds and act off-colour for an audience who believe that behaving transgressively is a substitute for intelligence. Willie Stark is a performer, and Burden is the one who sums up his appeal best: “Willie knew if you hollered long enough, hard enough, and loud enough, people begin to believe you.” Countless writers, journalists, and historians smarter than me could explain why these strategies work on the masses better than I could, but the fact that All the King’s Men was smart enough to recognize the power in this kind of shameless rhetoric and grandstanding is something impressive. However what the movie doesn’t seem to grasp is that this is inherently a bad thing.
The movie seems to want Stark to initially come across as noble, a man who cares so much, in his own words “I’ll run even if I don’t get a single vote”, and thus someone who only happened to be corrupted by the political machine. He’s characterized as an honest man, brutally honest at times, and where have we heard that before?Thus his methods on the road to the governorship seem to be mostly justified, even approved of. What Robert Rossen (who wrote and produced in addition to directing) perhaps didn’t realize was that Stark was corrupt from the start. His ambition for power is there from his first appearance, as is his ego, ruthlessness, and brutishness. After losing the county treasurer race, he goes to law school, because even this movie believed he had to have some credentials to be governor, but it’s only a stepping stone to him to being elected to political office. He makes clear with statements such as “they’re not going to kick me around” that he’s involved himself out of his own pride -it’s all about him fighting back against the county officials who wronged him. The film attempts to put him in a positive light early on, characterizing his little county village as a hotbed of corruption, but it doesn’t work. Despite his speeches about needing the people, he never does seem to genuinely be a man of the people.
He doesn’t have much care for those in his personal life either. His adopted son Tommy (John Derek) becomes a star football player, which Stark uses to increase his profile, and even before his election is seen to be a bully to the kid, eventually resulting in Tommy becoming an alcoholic and being paralysed during a game Stark pressured him into. His wife (Anne Seymour) almost drops out of the story entirely once he’s elected in favour of Jack’s girlfriend Anne (Joanne Dru) as his mistress. And this of course is a major factor in Jack’s disillusionment and fractured relationship with the man he’d admired and supported. It’s a credit to Broderick Crawford’s Oscar-winning performance for selling the selfish and conniving nature of this character even through his phony idealism, and making him absolutely despicable. Cursed with a face that looks like Jonathan Winters halfway to being Alex Jones, Crawford’s a superb fit for the entitled middle-aged white guy with no qualms resorting to blackmail and violence to get his way; only matched by an Oscar-winning Mercedes McCambridge as his ambitious, cunning, and similarly grandstanding campaign manager.
The prevailing theme of All the King’s Men is one of consequences. For all of his misdeeds, Stark ultimately pays a price, from the loss of his sons’ mobility, to an impeachment hearing, and last of all an assassination carried out by one of the men he’d wronged, as had happened to Stark’s model Huey Long. And though the America of today seems to be a post-consequence one, All the King’s Men probably holds up now better than ever; not only for the list of eerie similarities between Stark and the current president, but the fact that there’s a toxicity to Willie Stark seemingly unrecognised as such at the time. We’re much more familiar with the tools of populist demagoguery now and can spot the seeds of it even in Stark’s inconsequential beginnings. Maybe if the modern descendants of the people Stark preached to had watched All the King’s Men, they’d be more responsible voters.

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch
Letterboxd: https://letterboxd.com/jbosch/ 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...