OSCAR WILD DAY 3: ALL THE KING’S MEN (1949)

Stop me if you’ve heard this before: A political outsider takes on the condescending political establishment, employing coarse rhetoric and a populist platform to win over the angry and disenfranchised working-class electorate. Once in power, he wields every bit of leverage the office affords to thwart his opponents and increase his influence over government and society. No, this is not a documentary. All the King’s Men is a work of fiction, albeit a quite prescient one for our current times.

Willie Stark starts out as an idealist running for a local office against corrupt machine politics. His first election experience ends poorly, but it emboldens him to pursue a law degree and come back to try again. With each foray into the public eye, whether in the courtroom or on the campaign trial, Willie’s fervor and charisma wins over more and more supporters. With more support comes more power, which Willie capitalizes on to expand his base and his behind-the-scenes influence.

As I have learned, there are two ways to interpret this film. One interpretation suggests that this film is a tragedy and Willie Stark is the victim of how the dirty game of politics corrupts bright idealists and turns them into soulless power-hungry politicians. The more widely-held interpretation takes the film at face value- Willie lets his pride and ego feed his determination to defeat his political opponents, willingly and intentionally manipulating his supporters, staff, and the law to achieve his iron-fisted goals. I latched onto the latter interpretation, because Stark’s journey is no Mr. Smith Goes to Washington!

Broderick Crawford electrifies the screen at times when Willie is at his worst, but the power he brings neither makes you support Willie nor admire him as a great villain. This makes the film uncomfortable to watch at times, as Willie demagogues his way to greater power. At almost two hours long, All the King’s Men drags you down with Willie and leaves you feeling drained by the end. Since there is not a protagonist, this film is best understood as a dark drama or even a character study. That makes it hard to enjoy, despite some very good acting.

The rest of the cast does a pretty good job of keeping up with Crawford/Willie, as they join him, second-guess him, and even challenge him at times. The nature of the film makes it a one-man show though, so perhaps rounding a few of the characters out a bit more could help it score higher. I watched this film around 10 years ago, so some of the finer details have grown hazy with time, but I clearly recall pondering the life-imitating-art aspect of the first Trump administration. As it turns out, the book this film is based on was loosely based on former Louisiana governor and senator Huey Long. This makes current days a unique life-imitating-art-imitating life scenario.

Given Crawford’s performance, and the fact that this is the rare film that I (for whatever reason) don’t remember much about, I may want to watch this again before I make my own Best Picture ranked list at the end of my journey. It may be worthy of an extra quarter point. It’s not pleasant to watch, but sometimes there is merit in the uncomfortable. Darkness has a way of making us appreciate the light all the more. Then again, it may be interesting to revisit the film for the sake of trying to identify the minority interpretation of Willie Stark as the victim. For now, that feels like a daunting exercise.

FINAL RATING: 3.25 out of 5