Willie Stark (Broderick Crawford) is a hick with a dream of
running from office. His first campaign for county treasurer is impassioned but
naïve, and he stands no chance against the ruthless (Democratic – although it’s
not named) party system ranged against him. He loses but gains the attention of
idealistic journalist Jack Burden (John Ireland), dissatisfied scion of a rich
family. Stark teaches himself law and runs for Governor – but is manipulated by
the party machine to split the ‘hick’ vote and allow their own candidate in. However,
Stark rediscovers his fire and later runs again and wins. Stark promises a state
run for the little people: but his pockets are lined by big-business and the
man who started as a sober Christian becomes a drinker juggling two mistresses:
his secretary and advisor Sadie (Mercedes McCambridge) and (proving power is an
aphrodisiac) Jack’s girlfriend Anne Stanton (Joanna Dru). But can proof of his
growing corruption bring him down?
All the King’s Men is a film that would be far more
effective if it allowed more scope to seeing the good in Stark, not just
the bad. This is after all, a self-made man (teaching himself law at home), who
builds roads, hospitals and schools. He’s not a Trump, interested only in
himself and damn the consequences. Many of his policies are solid Roosevelt New
Deal fare. Sure, he becomes grasping, lascivious and a terrible father – but
how did this happen? Was it that Stark realised that corruption was the game
and he needed to play it if he wanted to win? Were there deep lying flaws
already in his character? We just don’t really know.
Instead this film sets out its stall very cleanly: populist working-class
politicians are much worse than tortured wealthy liberals. The characters the
film admires all hail from the same gated island community of the rich. Any hypocrisy
or corruption on their part is a tragic character flaw. Stark comes from poor
farm land – but any corruption makes him a monster. Really is Stark all that
bad? The film stresses its moral disgust at his drinking and womanising, but in
office he produces the sort of modern infrastructure the State will need.
Sure a newsreel questions if the state needs a modern highway (in a patronising
“they are just country folk” way) and maybe it didn’t immediately – but ask how
they feel ten or fifteen years down the line.
The real problem with politics in this era is not demagogues
like Stark. It’s the corrupt machine style politics that settles the elections
in advance, shuts the doors against anyone they don’t like and uses muscle
(metaphorical and literal) to enforce its will. This is an institutional fault
line in American politics of the era: and you could argue Stark’s tragedy is
not that he’s corrupt, but rather that he has to fashion himself into exactly
the sort of corrupt, machine-style politics boss that the system can accept in
order to win. The film isn’t really astute enough to recognise this. Instead it
settles for the standard “Great Man” approach, where we can point at a single
man and say “yup, he’s the problem. Get rid of him and problem solved”.
Rossen’s film takes an easy soft-left approach. The poor people love Stark, because the media tell them to (although the film has its cake and eats it by only really showing the liberal press attacking him). Stark raising campaign contributions to run from office is an unpardonable sign of tar coating his hand – never mind that we’ve seen his personally funded campaign for a minor office didn’t stand a chance. Working for the people, its argued, doesn’t cancel out the evils of trousering some cash for yourself – never mind that the wealthy liberals Rossen sympathises with, living in their large country houses, have clearly been doing so for decades.
Instead All the King’s Men is a simple film that only scratches the surface of demagoguery. Stark makes great speeches, but we never find how far it’s a show and how far it’s empty rhetoric. We never find out enough either about what he has done or hasn’t done in office to make our own minds up. Rossen’s film fixes the tables and places all the blame not on the system but on a single man – and even suggests that getting rid of that man by violence and murder is in fact justified if the liberal elite decide it is. It’s not a good look for a film.
It bungles it’s politically and personally commentary, but
you can’t argue that it’s not a well-made film. Inspired by neo-Realism, much
of the film was shot on location (including effectively running a mock Governor
campaign in parts of California) and its shot with an edgy immediacy, in places
using non-professional actors. That’s a feeling helped by its sharp, jagged
editing. Rumour has it that, with the first cut running long, Rossen asked the
editor to find the narrative centre of every scene and then cut a hundred feet
of film either side of it. The cleaned-up result of this is a edgy film that
has the air of genuine reportage and effectively uses montage.
Broderick Crawford won the Oscar as Stark, and he plays the
role with a sweetness that turns into brilliant bombastic swagger. The film
uses his hulking physicality to marvellous effect, and while his character often
feels simplistic, Crawford nails the speeches and Stark’s Lyndon B. Johnson
like powers of physical intimidation. John Ireland (Oscar-nominated) does a
decent if uninspired job as the weak-willed Burden, and Joanna Dru is a little
too theatrical as Anne Stanton.
The most fascinating character though might well be political
fixer/secretary Sadie Burke, played by fellow Oscar-winner Mercedes
McCambridge. A radio actress making her film debut, McCambridge’s performance
frequently avoids the obvious choices. Sadie is a hard-edged woman, unreadable,
who has sharpened her personality to survive in a man’s world. Rossen’s film
subtly codes that she is Stark’s mistress, but her relationship with him seems
conflicted. She’s both vulnerable, but also bitter and cold to him – moments
when you expect her voice to break, she’s hard, where you expect her to be
sharp she’s brittle. She’s a bitterly cynical character who has given up hope.
It’s a fascinating performance.
Rossen’s film is well made and is always going to have some
relevance. But you feel it could have delved far deeper into its themes. But
bluntly as a portrait of corruption, it’s not a patch on Citizen Kane
and in Stark it sets up a monster we can have uncomplicated fun knocking over
and then patting ourselves on the back once it’s done. For all its edgy,
reportive feel, it’s a fantasy film.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.