I am so glad that I went to see All The King's Men with my mate Betty (not her real name but I don't want to embarrass her), who is from Louisiana. A keen student of her state's history, she was able to explain the background of this story to me, particularly about Huey Long, otherwise I might well have been adrift. That's not to say I didn't enjoy it I did. It is pretty well acted, well filmed, well intentioned and obviously tells a story that needed telling (again), one of political corruption and the less-than-perfect past of America's democratic process. But it is also perhaps less than perfectly written - or edited? in that for someone not familiar with Louisiana's political past or with the book or previous movie incarnation, it is pretty complicated to follow. Hence my thanks to Betty.
I see that director / screenplay writer Steven Zaillian was one of the writers of The Interpreter, a movie that spoiled a reasonably interesting story line with some truly banal dialogue, (and also starred Sean Penn.) The Interpreter was one of the most disappointing films I've seen in many months. This one didn't disappoint me, but I felt the screenplay assumed too much prior knowledge from the audience, about a period of history and a state that many people, rightly or wrongly, are just not familiar with. Maybe a screenwriter gets so engrossed in the story, when they are adapting a book, that they forget that some of the audience may not have read it? I hadn't, although I will now.
Something that puzzled both Betty and me, is why the story, originally set in the 1930's, was updated to the 1950's. I make no claims to be an expert on the USA (although in the nine years I've lived here I've discovered that I know a lot more American history than many Americans), but I'm fairly confident that I'm correct when I say that 1930's America and 1950's America, were two very different places. The original story was set in the 1930's, when America was in the grip of the Depression. By the fifties, the USA had successfully cooperated with Europe to defeat the Nazis, the economy was picking up rapidly and people were much more optimistic. I really don't think the movie works in the 1950's in the way that it might in the 30's.
Sean Penn plays Willie Stark, a politician who wants to rouse "the hicks" to defeat the greedy, corrupt, incumbent state politicos, and bring about a new era of better government in Louisiana. The story is told largely through the eyes of reporter Jack (Jude Law), and ties in loosely with a backdated love story about his relationship with Anne Stanton, and her brother Adam. Adam finally becomes one of Willie Stark's stooges as the new squeaky clean(er) politician also flirts with corruption. We are posed the age old question, does power always corrupt? Are there levels of corruption, and if Willie Stark / Huey Long used corrupt means to improve Louisiana (and I'm reliably told that he DID improve Louisiana), does that really count as corruption? Stark and Adam both end up dead in a bloody reckoning, and an era ends. It's an interesting story and I shall seek out the book now. But I come back to my original point, a movie has to stand as a work by itself, it can't assume that its audience already knows the story. This was told in partial flashback, and the dialogue was occasionally hard to follow, meaning that there should have been more exposition of what was going on. I've never been a Jude Law fan (see my unflattering dissection of Closer) but I actually thought he was pretty good here, and Kate Winslet can do little wrong for me. I'm also not a big fan of Sean Penn, but I feel any faults with the characterization are more due to inadequate writing than his acting. The character moves too quickly from local Good Guy to dubious Big Guy with little in between.
Two major gripes; Anthony Hopkins plays a corrupt southern judge with a Welsh accent. He's a great actor but totally miscast here if he wasn't prepared to attempt a more accurate accent. I mean Welsh? In 1950's Louisiana? Really ...? There are limits to the elastic stretch of my credibility. And where in nineteen fifty something, did that ice skater find hold up stockings? They certainly weren't around when I was a kid in the 50's and 60's. This mystified me, as hours well minutes of internet research have revealed to me that the British company Pretty Polly invented and launched Hold-Ups in 1967. A small point, but exactly the kind of thing that drives me nuts!
I see that director / screenplay writer Steven Zaillian was one of the writers of The Interpreter, a movie that spoiled a reasonably interesting story line with some truly banal dialogue, (and also starred Sean Penn.) The Interpreter was one of the most disappointing films I've seen in many months. This one didn't disappoint me, but I felt the screenplay assumed too much prior knowledge from the audience, about a period of history and a state that many people, rightly or wrongly, are just not familiar with. Maybe a screenwriter gets so engrossed in the story, when they are adapting a book, that they forget that some of the audience may not have read it? I hadn't, although I will now.
Something that puzzled both Betty and me, is why the story, originally set in the 1930's, was updated to the 1950's. I make no claims to be an expert on the USA (although in the nine years I've lived here I've discovered that I know a lot more American history than many Americans), but I'm fairly confident that I'm correct when I say that 1930's America and 1950's America, were two very different places. The original story was set in the 1930's, when America was in the grip of the Depression. By the fifties, the USA had successfully cooperated with Europe to defeat the Nazis, the economy was picking up rapidly and people were much more optimistic. I really don't think the movie works in the 1950's in the way that it might in the 30's.
Sean Penn plays Willie Stark, a politician who wants to rouse "the hicks" to defeat the greedy, corrupt, incumbent state politicos, and bring about a new era of better government in Louisiana. The story is told largely through the eyes of reporter Jack (Jude Law), and ties in loosely with a backdated love story about his relationship with Anne Stanton, and her brother Adam. Adam finally becomes one of Willie Stark's stooges as the new squeaky clean(er) politician also flirts with corruption. We are posed the age old question, does power always corrupt? Are there levels of corruption, and if Willie Stark / Huey Long used corrupt means to improve Louisiana (and I'm reliably told that he DID improve Louisiana), does that really count as corruption? Stark and Adam both end up dead in a bloody reckoning, and an era ends. It's an interesting story and I shall seek out the book now. But I come back to my original point, a movie has to stand as a work by itself, it can't assume that its audience already knows the story. This was told in partial flashback, and the dialogue was occasionally hard to follow, meaning that there should have been more exposition of what was going on. I've never been a Jude Law fan (see my unflattering dissection of Closer) but I actually thought he was pretty good here, and Kate Winslet can do little wrong for me. I'm also not a big fan of Sean Penn, but I feel any faults with the characterization are more due to inadequate writing than his acting. The character moves too quickly from local Good Guy to dubious Big Guy with little in between.
Two major gripes; Anthony Hopkins plays a corrupt southern judge with a Welsh accent. He's a great actor but totally miscast here if he wasn't prepared to attempt a more accurate accent. I mean Welsh? In 1950's Louisiana? Really ...? There are limits to the elastic stretch of my credibility. And where in nineteen fifty something, did that ice skater find hold up stockings? They certainly weren't around when I was a kid in the 50's and 60's. This mystified me, as hours well minutes of internet research have revealed to me that the British company Pretty Polly invented and launched Hold-Ups in 1967. A small point, but exactly the kind of thing that drives me nuts!