All The King's Men (1949 & 2005)

Last year came to be known as 'the year of the biopic.' So far it looks like 2005 is 'the year of the remake'. Considering the dearth of quality that's been so far evident in this year's crop of unoriginals, it's easy to assume that the crown jewel of '05 do-overs will be December's update of All the King's Men. The 1949 Best Picture winner, which I recently screened, is not beloved enough to provoke angry articles about the injustice and creative bankruptcy of remakes. And, as a bonus to the 2005 filmmaking team, not good enough to be impossible to beat.

The 1949 adaptation of the novel by Robert Penn Warren is sturdy subject matter wise. The topic is dirty politics. Or rather, how power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. No matter how many times you hear certain messages, they stand to be repeated. This is obviously a lesson that's always timely. But the 1949 movie is still something of a mess. It's extremely evident throughout that it's an adaptation of a novel. It races along at warp speed, dropping nuggets of info (cliff notes of the novel no doubt) and never really developing character motivations (you figure it out -you've read the book!). And when it ends, it just, well, ends. Rather abrupt and less than devastating (which I think was the intent). Even if the remake suffers from the same stumbles, the assembled cast is strong enough to make this devoted moviegoer interested in the final outcome.


Though the 1949 film is largely told from the point of view of a reporter in the orbit of an ascendant politician, it is the politician who is the focal point. His name is Willie Stark. This is a rough and showy role. Stark begins as an idealistic man of the people type, fighting for scraps of power. Once achieved this power grows until it corrupts him. His only ideal becomes the maintenance of his own power. It's a rough, charismatic, and showy role. It won Broderick Crawford the Oscar. Whether or not Sean Penn can repeat that trick is unknowable...for now. My money says no, given his recent win but a nomination is easy to imagine. As Stark's tough talking righthand woman, Sadie Burke, Mercedes McCambridge made a splashy and memorable film debut. Patricia Clarkson will essay the role in this new version. She's not a new face like Mercedes was but she's an immensely talented veteran who clearly deserves one of those 'career Oscar's by know given her filmography.

Willie Stark's otherrighthand man is the aforementioned idealistic reporter, Jack Burden. Burden. Hmmm, perhaps that's too 'on-the-spot' given the weight of his idealism and the crisis of conscience he suffers as the film progresses. This is also a juicy role (yes the film is full of them) and Jude Law has shown in the past a remarkable access to interior spaces (see Cold Mountain or Gattaca). My guess is his performance will be more crucial to the new film's success than John Ireland's was to the original. Not that Ireland wasn't rewarded for his trouble: He too received an Oscar nomination. Finally rounding out the main cast is the beautiful socialite Anne Stanton, who begins the picture as Burden's girlfriend and ends the picture as something else altogether. It's a character that could if written or performed differently have a rather huge arc, but in the original film the character makes very little sense. This time around Kate Winslet tries to divine what Joanne Dru couldn't find about the Stanton role.

Could a remake really score big with the Oscar branches? They're said to be averse but it wouldn't exactly be the first time. Just for the first time in quite a long time. The original was nominated for seven Oscars and won three. History could repeat itself. Though probably not in the exact same configuration. We shall see.