All the King’s Men

Posted by Matthew Alexander (matthew@filmschoolrejects.com) on September 22, 2006

Release Date: September 22, 2006

In the clearest example yet this year of a movie that is dying to win Best Picture at the Oscars, an overpowering score by James Horner, a weighty historical script by Steven Zaillian and big name star power have come together to give us All the King’s Men. We see these films every year, generally nearer December than January, and they all possess the aforementioned score and script along with a grandiose role or two which will allow an admittedly talented actor to show us his range (in this case Sean Penn as the histrionic Willie Stark).

All the King’s Men chronicles the rise to political power of simple citizen Willie Stark as he becomes governor of the state of Louisiana, and the life of Jude Law’s Jack Burden, who is dragged along for the ride. Along the way Willie Stark falls prey to Lord Acton’s famous admonition and Jack Burden… well, he sort of lingers around to serve as the narrator.

Willie Stark is introduced to us as a small time city councilman who tried to stand up to special political interests whose self interested decision making leads to the deaths of three young schoolchildren. Mr. Stark does not drink alcohol, preferring a bottle of orange soda with two straws. By all appearances he’s a decent man, devoted to his wife and, though a typical economic idiot progressive such as this country still suffers from, full of the best of intentions.

Things gradually change after he wins the election for governor of Louisiana. Why do they change? We don’t know; they just do. He starts drinking alcohol. He takes all manner of women into his bed. He starts using dirty tactics to get his political way. When he gets into trouble because of it, he resorts to more of the same methods to get him out. At the end of the movie, his rhetoric is the same, but the man speaking the words has left his former innocent and idealistic self far behind and with no indication of regret.

There is no denying the brilliance of Sean Penn’s performance, but yet again I am left underwhelmed by the material an actor has to work with. Perhaps, being myself more inclined to writing than to acting, I simply tend to be more impressed with that which I cannot do myself, but it always seems to me that there is more acting than writing talent in Hollywood. Stark’s progression from simple country man with a good heart to corrupt political monster feels methodical with nothing revealing about it. We can only assume that power must indeed corrupt; that Lord Acton was quite correct.

But it’s not interesting that way. Why does it corrupt? Why does he start to drink? What entices him to cheat on his spouse with every piece of eye candy that comes his way? Why does he use such Cosa Nostra-like tactics against his enemies? What is it about power that does this to a man? Why do we never see a moment of regret from governor Stark? Was he rotten to begin with? There is no exploration here, which is a shame because the field is fertile. Lord Acton spoke of the corrupting influence of power, but Friedrich Hayek opined that it is the bad who rise to the top to begin with. Which is correct? Are they both partially correct? If one is right and one is wrong, then why? The script gives us no sense that this potentially arresting examination is of any concern to the director and screenwriter Steven Zaillian. We simply see Willie Stark start to drink, and then to screw, and then to bully.

Maybe the story isn’t about him. Maybe it’s about Jack Burden and his lost innocence. He is, after all, the narrator. Though the film never really settles on a perspective, in its deficient treatment of both Burden and Stark it seems to want to give us two perspectives and none, there is only one narrator to the film.

The presence of a narrator can be very problematic for a movie, and All the King’s Men is no exception. Too often a director allows a narrator to tell us what he himself should be showing us or to become unnecessary and redundant. In addition, even genuinely talented actors often skirt too close to boring monotone in their narration. Though Jude Law does well enough on that last count, his narration is so full of wandering philosophy that I had quite had my fill with three quarters of the movie left to go. I don’t doubt that contained in the narration are several subtle clues to Burden’s character which a second viewing and a bit of thought might reveal if only one were motivated to do it.  I feel no such motivation.

Narration aside, Jack Burden’s character is inscrutable and beneath contempt. His actions in the film prove to be both unfathomable and in one case so despicably vile that I was left wishing for him as unpleasant a demise as might be concocted. There simply is no good motivation for why he does what he does, unless it is contained in those verbose philosophical narrations. Or perhaps Willie Stark provides the answer when he says something to the effect of, “You know why you’re doing this? Because I’m who I am and you’re who you are. There’s always gotta be men like me and men like you.” But if that’s the reason I’m not buying it. What Jack Burden does requires an explanation, a motivation that I simply cannot fathom. Without it, the story is missing a vital component.

There are some good parts to the film. In fact, there are quite a few if one can get past the smothering score which does not underscore what the viewer feels but rather instructs him as to what he ought to be feeling. The discourse between the characters is very good, even given the standard dialogue tricks of which Zaillian avails himself. There are a few scenes whose cinematography is striking, and the acting by the likes of Sean Penn, Jude Law, Anthony Hopkins, Patricia Clarkson, Kate Winslet and James Gandolfini is absolutely top notch.

And the story is not a bad one at its core; it just suffers from the weight of too many flaws. It begins with a scene to which we will return later in the movie, a convention that is overused in general and definitely unnecessary in this film in particular. It never plainly introduces a main character, but never delves into the many motivations and relationships to make it an ensemble piece. It is also too monotonal. Though there are some compelling elements, such as when Willie Stark realizes that he is being used merely to split the “red neck” vote and decides to take control of his campaign, I was left wondering who the movie was actually about and what it all meant and why the characters did what they did.

All in all, it is definitely not a bad movie. And it is definitely not a very good one. There are some elements that entertain even while others frustrate, but the long and the short of it is that Hollywood has missed yet another chance to give us the year’s first truly fine film.

Final Grade: C+

The Upside: Great acting and good cinematography. The dialogue is intelligent without going overboard.

The Downside: Overbearing score and unfocused script. There was a lot of potential to delve into the nature of power and what it does to people, but the script hardly seems to care.

On the Side: The character of Willie Stark is based loosely on the real life governor of Louisiana Huey Long.  Huey’s last words were, “God, don’t let me die. I have so much to do.” Personally, I like to think that God had had quite enough of Mr. Long’s moronic economic policies and denied the request.

Read more articles by Matthew Alexander