All The Kings Men...
Sep. 23rd, 2006 11:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatWent to see "All The Kings Men" with Wales today. We'd planned to see "Hollywoodland" but it, alas, left the theater.
The film started out slow and somewhat confusing but picked up speed quickly and by the end, we were both blown away by the performances, cinematography, direction and writing.
All The King's Men is based on the Pulitzer Prize winning novel of the same name by Robert Penn Warren. It was originally published in 1947. And a film was made of it in 1949. In 1949, it won three oscars for Best Picture, Best Actor - Broderick Crawford as Willie Stark, and Best Supporting Actress - Mercedes McCambridge as Sadie Burke. Robert Rossen wrote/produced/ and directed the film. (Go here for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_the_King%27s_Men_%281949_film%29).
The 2006 film is written and directed by Stephen Zallian. Zallian is best known for writing the screenplays for Schindler's List, A Civil Action, Searching for Bobby Fischer, The Gangs of New York amongst others - found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Zaillian
[And yes, I know I need to figure out how you do HTML url tagging like everyone else on lj currently does.] He directed Civil Action and Bobby Fischer. The film stars - Scean Penn as Stark, Jude Law as Jack Burden, Kate Winslet, Patricia Clarkson, James Gandalofino, Anthony Hopkins, Mark Ruffalo, and Kathy Baker.
Even though Stephen Zallian's film is based on the same book as the Robert Rosen version, it is not a remake of Rosen's film. Zallian, like myself, has never seen the 1949 version. Am tempted to rent it, just to see how two different people living in two different time periods adapted the same work of fiction. [Go here for info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_the_King%27s_Men_%282006_film%29]
The book both are based on is considered the best American political novel of all time. And it is, much like The Great Gatsby - a novel told from the point of view of a secondary character, Jack Burden, who has a relationship of sorts with the lead or King in the title. Unlike Gatsby, Willie Stark is an ambitious, unscrupulous, populist politician who confides and uses Burden much as he uses most of the characters in the novel. Stark is loosely based on Lousiana Governor and Senator, Huey P. Long. (Go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_P._Long). Actually he bears such a striking resemblance to Long, that Wales looked at me and argued that he was in fact meant to be Long and it was a fictionalized account of Long's life. Not sure if that is true.
The film is a point of view film, strict point of view, we never leave Burden's point of view for a moment. We are solidly in his head. Zallian does not take any short cuts here. We stay in Burden's head throughout. We even flash back and forth in Burden's memories, often without warning, much like we would if Burden was sitting across from us and constructing his tale bit by bit. We find things out as Burden does.
Jack Burden is a newspaper writer who becames a sort of aid to Stark. He is from wealth. While Stark is a hick who has become wealthy through power. Stark appeals to the people on their level, with strong rabble-raising speeches, which Scean Penn makes me believe in. So much so that the woman behind me was shouting "Amen" and Applauding. For a moment, I thought we had surround sound. Yes, occassionally seeing a movie with an audience adds a new dimension to the experience. The movie actually takes off when Stark begins to give his speechs, as opposed to slowing down. They move you and you realize as they do so, thinking, oh I like this, I'd vote for this guy, the extent to which a charismatic and thoughtful speaker can hoodwink a crowd. How easily it is to be sweet-talked and persuaded by a crafty presentation.
Burden believes in Stark's message to start with, does not see the Machivellian tactics or their results, until it is to late to stop events from unraveling. He is as hoodwinked as we are. Yet, likewise, intelligent enough to realize it and do nothing.
The film starts with Burden lying on his bed, staring up at the ceiling, thinking ..."they say what you don't know can't hurt you. Best to not look or refuse to see. That is I think an idealist." (The words are no where near exact, this is an approximation based on my rudimentary memory of them.)
In a way All The Kings Men is less a commentary on the political animal Willie Stark then on those of us he manages to manipulate in allowing him to reign. Our culpability, our desire to change the world. It is likewise a commentary on the class-war that causes populist leaders to be elected.
They are not elected by the rich, but rather the poor and destitute. The vast majority of citizens struggling on a daily basis to make ends meet. Who desire good schools, good roads, good jobs...and have not taken such things for granted. Who are not looking for happiness or meaning - but rather just to be able to enjoy life without breaking their backs in the process. A war that was as much in evidence in 1947, as it is today in 2006. The book and film are timeless in their themes. And Willie Stark reminds me a great deal of political leaders I've watched or avoided today.
The language of the film is beautiful. There are voice over narratives that not only add to the flow, but also eluminate aspects of the film, along with the cinematography. There is one scene that I can't quite describe without spoiling you, which depicts the interaction of words and visuals so perfectly that it remains burnt in my memory. It is a love scene, but not a love scene. The one spot of female nudity, that unlike most films today, is so necessary and so tragic that it almost moved me to tears. And speaks to the motivations of two of the characters in the film.
The only weakness, if there is one, is this - Wales and I both got a bit lost with the poltical maneuvering. This plot thread is so interwoven with the bits and pieces of memory Burden gives us, that it is hard to distinquish it. We had a rudimentary understanding of what happened but not a complete one. And it is not a film you can see if you are tired, sleepy (like I was) or having difficulty focusing - you will lose it. It is an intense and intricate film, each word, each visual, each directional movement necessary to the whole. You blink, you'll miss something. It is a bit like reading Marcel Proust in a way and not a film, I think, for anyone who just wants to escape.
The film will haunt me for a long time. For it's images and words. Making me want to go out and read Penn Warren's novel. See for myself the differences and similarities between the two.
Recommend: yes!! with one qualification - bring your brain with you. Not an escapist film.
The film started out slow and somewhat confusing but picked up speed quickly and by the end, we were both blown away by the performances, cinematography, direction and writing.
All The King's Men is based on the Pulitzer Prize winning novel of the same name by Robert Penn Warren. It was originally published in 1947. And a film was made of it in 1949. In 1949, it won three oscars for Best Picture, Best Actor - Broderick Crawford as Willie Stark, and Best Supporting Actress - Mercedes McCambridge as Sadie Burke. Robert Rossen wrote/produced/ and directed the film. (Go here for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_the_King%27s_Men_%281949_film%29).
The 2006 film is written and directed by Stephen Zallian. Zallian is best known for writing the screenplays for Schindler's List, A Civil Action, Searching for Bobby Fischer, The Gangs of New York amongst others - found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Zaillian
[And yes, I know I need to figure out how you do HTML url tagging like everyone else on lj currently does.] He directed Civil Action and Bobby Fischer. The film stars - Scean Penn as Stark, Jude Law as Jack Burden, Kate Winslet, Patricia Clarkson, James Gandalofino, Anthony Hopkins, Mark Ruffalo, and Kathy Baker.
Even though Stephen Zallian's film is based on the same book as the Robert Rosen version, it is not a remake of Rosen's film. Zallian, like myself, has never seen the 1949 version. Am tempted to rent it, just to see how two different people living in two different time periods adapted the same work of fiction. [Go here for info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_the_King%27s_Men_%282006_film%29]
The book both are based on is considered the best American political novel of all time. And it is, much like The Great Gatsby - a novel told from the point of view of a secondary character, Jack Burden, who has a relationship of sorts with the lead or King in the title. Unlike Gatsby, Willie Stark is an ambitious, unscrupulous, populist politician who confides and uses Burden much as he uses most of the characters in the novel. Stark is loosely based on Lousiana Governor and Senator, Huey P. Long. (Go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_P._Long). Actually he bears such a striking resemblance to Long, that Wales looked at me and argued that he was in fact meant to be Long and it was a fictionalized account of Long's life. Not sure if that is true.
The film is a point of view film, strict point of view, we never leave Burden's point of view for a moment. We are solidly in his head. Zallian does not take any short cuts here. We stay in Burden's head throughout. We even flash back and forth in Burden's memories, often without warning, much like we would if Burden was sitting across from us and constructing his tale bit by bit. We find things out as Burden does.
Jack Burden is a newspaper writer who becames a sort of aid to Stark. He is from wealth. While Stark is a hick who has become wealthy through power. Stark appeals to the people on their level, with strong rabble-raising speeches, which Scean Penn makes me believe in. So much so that the woman behind me was shouting "Amen" and Applauding. For a moment, I thought we had surround sound. Yes, occassionally seeing a movie with an audience adds a new dimension to the experience. The movie actually takes off when Stark begins to give his speechs, as opposed to slowing down. They move you and you realize as they do so, thinking, oh I like this, I'd vote for this guy, the extent to which a charismatic and thoughtful speaker can hoodwink a crowd. How easily it is to be sweet-talked and persuaded by a crafty presentation.
Burden believes in Stark's message to start with, does not see the Machivellian tactics or their results, until it is to late to stop events from unraveling. He is as hoodwinked as we are. Yet, likewise, intelligent enough to realize it and do nothing.
The film starts with Burden lying on his bed, staring up at the ceiling, thinking ..."they say what you don't know can't hurt you. Best to not look or refuse to see. That is I think an idealist." (The words are no where near exact, this is an approximation based on my rudimentary memory of them.)
In a way All The Kings Men is less a commentary on the political animal Willie Stark then on those of us he manages to manipulate in allowing him to reign. Our culpability, our desire to change the world. It is likewise a commentary on the class-war that causes populist leaders to be elected.
They are not elected by the rich, but rather the poor and destitute. The vast majority of citizens struggling on a daily basis to make ends meet. Who desire good schools, good roads, good jobs...and have not taken such things for granted. Who are not looking for happiness or meaning - but rather just to be able to enjoy life without breaking their backs in the process. A war that was as much in evidence in 1947, as it is today in 2006. The book and film are timeless in their themes. And Willie Stark reminds me a great deal of political leaders I've watched or avoided today.
The language of the film is beautiful. There are voice over narratives that not only add to the flow, but also eluminate aspects of the film, along with the cinematography. There is one scene that I can't quite describe without spoiling you, which depicts the interaction of words and visuals so perfectly that it remains burnt in my memory. It is a love scene, but not a love scene. The one spot of female nudity, that unlike most films today, is so necessary and so tragic that it almost moved me to tears. And speaks to the motivations of two of the characters in the film.
The only weakness, if there is one, is this - Wales and I both got a bit lost with the poltical maneuvering. This plot thread is so interwoven with the bits and pieces of memory Burden gives us, that it is hard to distinquish it. We had a rudimentary understanding of what happened but not a complete one. And it is not a film you can see if you are tired, sleepy (like I was) or having difficulty focusing - you will lose it. It is an intense and intricate film, each word, each visual, each directional movement necessary to the whole. You blink, you'll miss something. It is a bit like reading Marcel Proust in a way and not a film, I think, for anyone who just wants to escape.
The film will haunt me for a long time. For it's images and words. Making me want to go out and read Penn Warren's novel. See for myself the differences and similarities between the two.
Recommend: yes!! with one qualification - bring your brain with you. Not an escapist film.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-24 03:57 pm (UTC)