All the King's Men

[saavedra77]

Most reviewers seem to dislike Steve Zaillian's adaption of Robert Penn Warren's All the King's Men (perhaps the best political novel I've ever read, despite Warren's penchant for obvious allegorical names).

For some obscure reason, I still feel drawn to see the movie, though.

I suppose that part of the reason is that I think the novel has cinematic possibilities that Robert Rossen's 1949  version didn't satisfactorily exploit: Broderick Crawford deserved the Oscar he won for his meaty, rabble-rousing portrayal of Willie Stark, but many of the other characters seemed to fall flat.

By contrast, Zaillian's film seems promising in precisely the areas that Rossen's was weak--interesting, plausible actors in all of the supporting roles: Jude Law has just watchful, troubled quality you'd want in a Jack Burden; it's easy to picture James Gandolfini as the cigar-chomping political boss Tiny Duffy; Patricia Clarkson is at least an intriguing choice as Sadie Burke (although I've never seen her play anyone nearly that tough ...).

Alas, Sean Penn in the central role is the wild card--and the critics don't seem that impressed.  Except, I note, for Kenneth Turan on NPR and John Meacham of Newsweek--who aren't exactly Gene Shallit-style yes-men, so I guess there's room for hope, there.

At any rate, I know there are some Seattle-area fans of the novel on my flist; is anyone curious to see Zaillian's picture while it's still in theaters?  I'd especially love to see it with folks who know the novel (although others are welcome, too, of course).

Comments

[bubblesutonium.livejournal.com]

I read the novel years ago, and we actually own a new edition that came out a while back. I've never seen the original movie, and I am not sure I should see the new one.

But I loved the book. As someone who grew up in the south, I thought it was the most honest portrayal of southerners I had seen. It was a breath of fresh air after having been forced to read a bunch of Faulkner and hating, hating, hating his depiction of the south.

[saavedra77.livejournal.com]

I have the 1949 film on DVD, if you'd like to borrow it, sometime.

My one big caveat about Rossen's movie is that this version isn't particularly "southern"; the actors have generic middle-American accents and the settings could be anywhere in the U.S., really--at least, anyplace that had struggling "hick" farmers, machine politics, a metropolis resented by the rural folks, and swells who go boating. Really, it reminded me more of someplace like Kansas or Missouri than Louisiana. Also, I suppose typically for Hollywood at the time, no black people anywhere in sight. (Granted, their roles are purely background in the novel, but that's more evocative of the time than the writer, I think.) Watching Rossen's take on the novel, I missed the specifically Southern feel of the story.

This is another quality I'm thinking that the new movie at least could better capture. (Of course, all of the principal actors seem to be Yankee or British ... but still, dialogue coaches, people!) I suppose I'll see ...

[saavedra77.livejournal.com]

But I loved the book. As someone who grew up in the south, I thought it was the most honest portrayal of southerners I had seen. It was a breath of fresh air after having been forced to read a bunch of Faulkner and hating, hating, hating his depiction of the south.

You know, I'm a lifelong Yanqui and the closest I've ever come to Dixie have been a few vacations on North Carolina's Outer Banks, but I went through a Southern Lit phase in my late teens and early twenties: William Faulkner, Flannery O'Connor, Thomas Wolfe, Jean Toomer, John Crowe Ransom, Eudora Welty, Robert Penn Warren, even Walker Percy. Of course, the only frames of reference I had for the region were history and pop culture. (In fact, I tended to think about these authors more in relation to their contemporaries outside of the region: comparing Faulkner to Joyce, etc.)

So I'm curious: as someone from the South, what was it about Warren's portrayal that rang so much truer than Faulkner's? What in particular turned you off to Faulkner? (Like I said, just curious: I'm not really a Faulkner fan or detractor, really.)

[greyaenigma.livejournal.com]

I've been keen to see this recently. I was thinking to myself, "I should see that, because I want to know what the story there is." Which is kind of funny considering all the falsification that have been going into "true stories", especially lately.

[saavedra77.livejournal.com]

All The King's Men is loosely based on the career of Huey Long (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long). The story parallels Long's rise and fall, but calling it a "true story" kind of misses the mark. Warren's novel is inspired by those events, but its more of an allegory about means, ends, and power.

If you're curious about the real-life Huey Long, Ken Burns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Burns)' 1985 documentary might not be a bad place to start. (And it includes interviews with Robert Penn Warren, among numerous other people.)