ALL THE KING'S MEN (1949)

 ALL THE KING'S MEN (DIR: ROBERT ROSSEN) (SCR: ROSSEN, BASED ON THE NOVEL OF THE SAME NAME BY ROBERT PENN WARREN)

The best picture choice for 1949 makes for an interesting bookend to 1947's winner GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT.  Just as the earlier film showed a postwar America riddled with bigotry and antisemitism, so ALL THE KING'S MEN portrays the modern American political system as one rife with corruption, where demagogic, power mad politicians rule with an iron hand and manipulate the voters like sheep.   Although the film takes place in just one (unnamed) Southern state, clearly it is intended to represent the country's political scene as a whole, and, sadly, it is a portrayal that has not dated a bit.  It is interesting to note that when John Wayne was offered the lead role by director Robert Rossen, Wayne angrily turned it down, claiming that the film was unpatriotic.  Also, both Rossen and GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT director Elia Kazan would be called to testify at the House of UnAmerican Activities Committee as suspected Communists shortly after making these films.

ALL THE KING'S MEN began life as a novel by Robert Penn Warren published in 1946 to much acclaim and a Pulitzer prize.  It tells the tale of politician Willie Stark, who was loosely based on real life Louisiana governor Huey Long (the novel even ends with Stark's assassination at the state court house, which is the same way that Long died).  Columbia Pictures bought the movie rights to the novel for $250,000 dollars, and hired Rossen to both write and direct.  (Rossen had directed just two films before this, but he had been a screenwriter for years before becoming a director).  Columbia reportedly wanted Spencer Tracy to play Stark, but Rossen chose Broderick Crawford, who, until this film, was mostly known for small character parts; Rossen had been impressed by Crawford when he saw him on stage as Lenny in OF MICE AND MEN, and eventually he persuaded the studio to hire Crawford, who was anxious to do the role.
Another unusual decision by Rossen  (one that was influenced by the neorealist films coming out of Italy around that time)was to shoot the film in an almost documentary style; many of the exteriors were shot in small towns in California and real townspeople were hired for small roles,  and the crowd scenes often have the feeling of being more like a newsreel than a Hollywood film. Furthermore, even  the interior scenes are set in real (or real looking) houses and offices, and Rossen and cinematographer Burnett Guffey avoided close ups of the actors and often stacked them together tightly in small rooms to build a  sense of tension and conflict.
The film opens with newspaper reporter Jack Burden (John Ireland) being sent to a small Southern town to cover the story of Willie Stark, known as "the last honest man."  Willie is running for city council, hoping to reform what he sees as an unjust system, and Jack is taken with him and writes stories praising his bravery.  Although he loses the election, Willie puts himself through law school and starts representing the causes of the poor people in the town.  Eventually, he is picked to run as governor, but, he discovers that he was hired to split the "hick" vote and push the election towards another candidate.  His anger over this causes him to drunkenly improvise an angry speech, and, in an electrifying scene, he calls the audience hicks, but then admits that he is one too ("nobody ever helped a hick but a hick himself".)  The speech fires up the crowd, and even though he eventually loses the race, he is invigorated, saying that he now knows "how to win."  Sure enough, he becomes governor in the next election, and he often rules the state more like a mob boss than a politician, using his power to force bills through the legislature.  Even though he is shown doing some good, like building a new hospital, his administration is often outright criminal, at one point even murder is used to dispose of an unwanted adversary.  Ironically, it is his personal life that causes his downfall, not his political one; right after barely beating an impeachment attempt over that murder (which, of course, could not be proven to be connected to Willie), he is shot and killed by the brother of a young woman that the married Willie had been running around with.

Broderick Crawford

With his bulldog like features, large frame and gruff voice, Broderick Crawford was an unlikely leading man, but he was perfect for the role and won an Oscar for it.  It's really impossible to underplay a character like Willie Stark, and he certainly realized that!  He is totally believable as he goes from honest crusader to corrupt politician, loving family man to womanizer and teetotaler to drunk.  He is likable and admirable in the early scenes as he rails against injustice, and then equally despicable as he learns how to play politics and sells his soul for power, and Crawford  really comes alive in the excellently written political speeches he makes in which he grandstands like a real politician.  We really believe that he can connect with the common man, even if he himself is no longer one of them.
The film also has the debut performance of Mercedes McCambridge, who plays the  secretary Sadie Burke, and who also won an Oscar for best supporting actress.  With her deep voice and rough features, McCambridge is as unlikely a leading lady as Crawford was a leading man, but she is well cast as the smart, cynical Sadie and she would go on to play similar roles for the rest of her career. Although there is some sexism in the script's portrayal of Sadie's tough career woman leading  Willie into the dark side of politics (she is the one who tells him that he's just a patsy in his first gubernatorial race, and then gets him drunk and seduces him, inspiring his angry, career making speech),   McCambridge is so good in the role that we can't help but admire her ambition and drive.  She also brings some tenderness to the role, as she really does fall for Willie, and she has a nice moment where she looks in the mirror and jealously admits that she is not like the glamor girl that Willie is currently running around with.

Mercedes McCambridge

The film's dark view of American politics is striking and uncompromising: when Willie defends himself by saying he's no worse than other men ("Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption. He passes from the stink of the dydie to the stench of the shroud.") it seems like a simple justification.  But, later in the film, when faced with impeachment, Willie uncovers old, embarrassing information about an influential judge (Raymond Greenleaf) who, up until that moment, had been the personification of moral rectitude, in many ways proving Willie's point.  While the judge may not be the outright crook that Willie is, he too has made moral compromises, the kind of compromises that, according to the film,  all powerful people must make. Just how cynical about politics is this film?  It's important to note that Willie first gets into politics with noble gains, and that he only becomes corrupt when he realizes that that is the only way to win; it isn't Willie that's corrupt, it's the system itself that's corruptive. He's just a fast learner; from making sure to use tough guys to hand out his fliers,  to visiting his estranged family for a  good photo opportunity, to gathering his supporters to chant for him during his impeachment proceedings, he is a master of manipulation, getting the people's support as he gets away with murder.  And even if Willie's reign of terror is ended with his death, there are surely more men like him waiting in the wings.

If the film has a flaw, it is in the Jack Burden character, who's descent into corruption with Willie is not as convincing, or as compelling as Willie's.  Every time the film moves away from Willie to Jack it bogs down, and Jack's sporadic narration of the film is unnecessary and uninteresting.  Really, how could any other character be as interesting as Crawford's Willie Stark?


SO DID THE ACADEMY GET IT RIGHT?

Clearly, I consider this an excellent film and a worthy (and bold) choice for best picture.  Although the year also gave us such good films as A LETTER TO THREE WIVES, THE HEIRESS and ON THE TOWN, I think ALL THE KING'S MEN was a fine choice. 

HAMLET (1948)

HAMLET (DIR: LAURENCE OLIVIER) (SCR:  OLIVIER, BASED ON THE PLAY BY WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE)


The Academy's choice for best picture of 1948 could not possibly be classier: it is, quite simply, the movie version of the most famous play ever, adapted, directed and starring the most famous Shakespearean actor of the 20th. century (and maybe of all time).  The Academy was so impressed with Laurence Olivier's work that he also won for best actor, (the first director to direct himself to a best actor award ever, it was also the first foreign made film to win best picture) although he lost the best director award to John Huston for THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE.

The English born Olivier began his career in 1926 at age 19 when he joined the Birmingham Repertory Company, where he swiftly moved into lead roles in Hamlet and Macbeth.  He debuted in movies in 1930, in a short film called TOO MANY CROOKS (which is believed to be lost ).  He would go on to play many other roles on the screen; his first Shakespearean role was as Orlando in director Paul Czinner's 1936 production of AS YOU LIKE IT.  Initially, he was unimpressed by the cinema, thinking it a lower form of art when compared to live theater.  That view changed for him when he starred as Heathcliff in William Wyler's 1939 filming of Emily Bronte's novel WUTHERING HEIGHTS.  The acclaim and success that he won for that role (along with the fact that he learned how to tone down his theatrical acting style for the screen) changed his mind about film.  In 1944 he directed himself in the title role of Shakespeare's HENRY V, which he turned into a rousing war time propaganda story, and it was somewhat inevitable that he would eventually tackle the immortal bard's most famous work(versions of Hamlet had been filmed before as far back as the silent era, but a definitive version still had yet to be made).  And so it was that he got the British film company, Two Cities Films, to put up the two million dollar budget, (a still impressive amount for the time), under the proviso that he himself would play the title role.  They also stipulated that the film not run over two and half hours, which lead to Olivier making some cuts to the original text.  The film would become an enormous international hit, although some Shakespeare purists would quibble over some of those deletions.

Laurence Olivier

HAMLET tells the story of Danish prince Hamlet, who discovers, through a ghostly appearance by his late father, that his uncle Claudius (Basil Sydney), murdered his father to take over the throne and marry Hamlet's mother, Gertrude (Eileen Herlie).  This shocking news seems to drive him insane, as he indecisively debates to himself whether or not to avenge his father.  Inevitably, his delay leads to tragedy.
As an actor, Olivier's portrayal of Hamlet is controlled; emotional without being over the top, he rarely raises his voice or makes broad gestures(unlike some Hamlets I've seen on stage or in films), instead he finds the poetic humor and beauty in the dialogue and delivers it beautifully.  And there is  a surprisingly raw sexuality in his scenes with Ophelia (Jean Simmons), and in the stark incestual overtones he has with Gertrude.  He is also excellent in the physical scenes, like in his duel with Laertes (Terence Morgan), or in his final leap down a flight of stairs at Claudius.  If I have a problem with him in the film, it's that at 41 I think he was too old for the role; amazingly, Herlie played his mother even though she was only 28!  Along with Olivier, the entire cast of the film is excellent, especially Simmons's marvelous performance as the tragic Ophelia.
As a director, Olivier seemed determined to remind the audience that this was a movie and not a play; his camera swoops and prowls all around the dark, shadowy castle sets, (it moves, perhaps, a little too much)and he often uses voice overs to deliver Hamlet's soliloquies.  The famous "to be or not to be" speech is delivered partly in voice over and partly spoken, an excellent way to show Hamlet's inner debate with himself.  Although the sets often have a sparse, artificial look about them, Olivier still displays many striking visuals:  the appearance of the ghostly king is filmed like a horror movie, as it should be, while the watery death of Ophelia is beautifully and touchingly rendered. 

Jean Simmons as Ophelia

The film opens with Olivier announcing that "This is the tragedy of a man who could not make up his mind."  Many critics have felt that this reduces the complexities of the play to a simple line, and while there is some truth in that, Olivier was clearly thinking of main stream audiences and their understanding of the play when he decided to include this line, and if it helped people get the play, then what's the harm in it?  Another more stinging criticism of the movie is the aforementioned cutting that Olivier had to do, which meant that the characters of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are completely eliminated (although Olivier gave some of Guilderstern's lines to Felix Alymer's Polonius).  Personally, I really miss the "What a piece of work is a man!" speech that Hamlet delivers to those two characters in the play, and I wish that Olivier had found some way to include it, and to instead cut out some of Ophelia's crazy scenes, which come across as a bit repetitive.  Still, if cuts had to be made, it would seem that for the most part, Olivier made the right choices, keeping the real meat of the story, along with the most legendary phrases.   And, at one hundred and fifty minutes, the film never drags.

SO DID THE ACADEMY GET IT RIGHT?

Overall, it is difficult to find  fault with the Academy's choice, and as a record of a legendary actor giving his most famous performance, HAMLET holds up.  But, Olivier felt (and I agree) that his best cinematic Shakespearean work would come in 1955 when he played the title role in RICHARD III.  And as for the play Hamlet, in 1996 Kenneth Branagh made a version that I feel is superior to Olivier's; not only does the later version contain every word of the play, but it opens the story up more cinematically than Olivier's, making it, in my opinion, the best version of the play ever filmed that I've seen.  Finally, I have already mentioned that John Huston won the best director award of 1948 for THE TREASURE OF SIERRA MADRE, and I personally feel that that film holds up better than Olivier's, and that it should have won best picture.  Still, it's always hard to argue against Shakespeare.