When he was President FDR said the two most dangerous men in America were Douglas MacArthur and Huey Long, implying that any native-born fascism would likely originate from those sources to his right and left. The Willie Stark of Robert Penn Warren's "All the King's Men" is off course molded from Huey Long, the "Kingfish" himself, the very epitome of southern populists. The 1949 film version, directed by Robert Rossen and starring Broderick Crawford, is a classic and one of my favorite films on politics. The courthouse rings, the electoral populism, and the back-room deals are effectively depicted in the 1949 film while this current version (although produced by James Carville, the notable Democratic political strategist) seems to stress the politics less while emphasizing the emotional predicaments of Jack Burden (an ex-journalist and now Stark's associate) and his well-off family friends. The film does indeed depict Willie Stark's rise to political power, and shows how this intertwines with the emotional vulnerabilities of Burden's folks, but I believe the 1949 film had a better balance between the politics and Burden's connections.
Not having read the novel, I can't say whether Sean Penn is a better Willie Stark than Broderick Crawford, but I'm convinced he's a better southern / agrarian populist (a better Huey Long) than Crawford. Crawford's characterization always struck me as too angry for a populist politician, while Penn's depiction seems to have the right blend of mocking humor and impish rascality to move the masses toward the voting booth. One weakness in this film (and also prevalent in the 1949 film, but less so) is the startlingly fast transition Stark makes from honest political reformer to power-hungry dictator. This film calls out for an intelligent discussion of issues related to human nature and political power but we don't really get it in a satisfying way. Does power corrupt and absolute power corrupt absolutely, and are there personalities more immune or less immune to its temptations? Do the ends justify the means (when the "ends" refer to building schools, roads and hospitals) or do corrupt or evil "means" sully virtuous "ends"? The producers of this film, in the special interviews, seem to emphasize the accomplishments of the "Kingfish"; perhaps they're "channeling" Lenin who famously, and ominously, said: "you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs".
Not having read the novel, I can't say whether Sean Penn is a better Willie Stark than Broderick Crawford, but I'm convinced he's a better southern / agrarian populist (a better Huey Long) than Crawford. Crawford's characterization always struck me as too angry for a populist politician, while Penn's depiction seems to have the right blend of mocking humor and impish rascality to move the masses toward the voting booth. One weakness in this film (and also prevalent in the 1949 film, but less so) is the startlingly fast transition Stark makes from honest political reformer to power-hungry dictator. This film calls out for an intelligent discussion of issues related to human nature and political power but we don't really get it in a satisfying way. Does power corrupt and absolute power corrupt absolutely, and are there personalities more immune or less immune to its temptations? Do the ends justify the means (when the "ends" refer to building schools, roads and hospitals) or do corrupt or evil "means" sully virtuous "ends"? The producers of this film, in the special interviews, seem to emphasize the accomplishments of the "Kingfish"; perhaps they're "channeling" Lenin who famously, and ominously, said: "you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs".