Retrieved 30 January — via archive. July—December Carmichael, ed. The Independent , 5 March Opie, 'Playground rhymes and the oral tradition', in P. Hunt, S. Carmichael Ideas and the Man: remembering David Daube. Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann. Universal Edition.
The BS Historian. Retrieved 22 February Archived 27 February at the Wayback Machine , Penguin. Retrieved 24 February Lewis Lord Atkin. London: Butterworths. Redish and Matthew B. Arnould, "Judicial review, constitutional interpretation: proposing a 'Controlled Activism' alternative" , Florida Law Review , vol.
Larner Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry. Webber and M. Cronin and B. Retrieved 5 March Retrieved 6 July Jews for Jesus Australia. Retrieved 25 July The New York Times. Retrieved 2 May Hartford Courant. Franklin March The Popular Science Monthly : Lewis Carroll 's Alice. Book Category. List of egg topics. Bird Fish and amphibian Monotreme. Cephalopod Fish Reptile dinosaur Pathology. Yolk White Shell and membrane.
Category Commons. They alert us when OverDrive services are not working as expected. Without these cookies, we won't know if you have any performance-related issues that we may be able to address. These cookies help us understand user behavior within our services. For example, they let us know which features and sections are most popular.
This information helps us design a better experience for all users. Directed by Robert Rossen, adapted from a novel by Robert Penn Warren, and strikingly photographed in cinema verite style by Burnett Guffey, it tells the story of the rise and fall of a Huey Long-like politician who starts out as a good guy, if a bit of a bully, and winds up a very bad guy, and even more of a bully, as he takes political control of his state.
There are dozens of things wrong with the movie. It feels rushed, as if edited down from a much longer film. The editing creates an uncomfortable, jarring effect that makes it difficult at times not only to watch the movie but to follow it. It has some dreadful acting among many of its major players, while several of the smaller roles are quite well cast with interesting faces, which creates a tantalizing effect, as if the good stuff, the interesting inside dope stuff that we really want to know about, is too hot for the movie to handle, so we have to settle for a glance, a gesture, a heavy overcoat, and draw our conclusions accordingly.
There's a cheap look to the film, not only in scenes where things are supposed to look shabby, like ramshackle farmhouses, but in the mansions of the rich and the governor's office. Nor is there much specificity in the movie. In the novel the state was clearly Southern, while in the movie it could just as well be California or Illinois.
And the frenetic pace of the film seems tied to the staccato delivery of Broderick Crawford in the leading role, as if Crawford himself had produced, directed and written the movie to fit his personal idiosyncrasies like a glove. As luck would have it, these 'wrong' things make All the King's Men work better than a smoother, fancier, more refined approach could ever have done.
Its newsreel intensity makes it feel real. The bad performances by relatively unknown actors likewise gives their characters the effect of being actual people who, after all don't always behave or speak as they ought to. In the unattractive sets we see things that look like life rather than movie life, as rich men's homes are not always pleasing to behold, and state capitals and court houses often have a rundown look. Brod Crawford plays his role as a grade B heavy, with perhaps a scintilla more charm, and his bull-necked King Of Alcatraz style of acting suits his character well; and if one finds Crawford too typically a Hollywood bad guy I recommend the documentary film Point Of Order, in which Sen.
Joe McCarthy, with no dramatic training whatsoever, could well be Crawford's soul-mate, or at the very least his brother. Why do these elements work so well in All the King's Men and not in other movies, where a mess is just a mess? I think the political nature of the film made it controversial from the get-go.
It probably was severely edited to take out 'offensive' material i. There are certain subjects that films in general and Hollywood in particular never handled very well--and chief among them are politics. Filmed in a "noir" style and based on the famous novel which was in turn based loosely on the rise and fall of Louisiana's Huey P. Long, the film offers the story of Willie Stark, a small-town lawyer who is nominated for governor by a political party seeking to defeat their opponent by dividing the rural vote.
When Willie gets wise to the plot he turns on his false benefactors and rockets to political power--but once in power the honest small-town-joe becomes even more corrupt than those who sought to manipulate him for their own gain. Broderick Crawford justly earned an Oscar for his performance as Willie Stark, whose ego and thirst for power grows to horrific proportions--and whose corruption gradually taints even the most honorable people around him.
But the real knockout here is actress Mercedes McCambridge as Willie Stark's hard-edged assistant and sometimes lover; it is an astonishing performance which, in spite of its supporting status, remains locked in mind long after the film ends, a role for which McCambridge won an Oscar as Best Supporting Actress. The script doesn't really do full justice to Warren's novel, the film is a bit slow to start, and the story itself feels a bit dry in the telling--but the performances and numerous memorable scenes carry it through to tremendous effect.
Gary F. The corruption of power, the sleaziness of the political process, the willingness of people to be used are all explored in this moving film. Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption. He passes from the stink of the dydie to the stench of the shroud. SnoopyStyle 11 February Stark is railing against corrupt officials and is arrested by the corrupt police. He is the overwhelming underdog and loses the race for treasurer. He studies law at night to become a lawyer. He rises in fame when he takes on the government for shoddy school construction that killed some children.
The governor needs help to win and his handlers pick Stark to split the opposition hick vote. He starts off poorly but eventually becomes a populist who wins it all. In turn, Stark's idealism is corrupted by vanity and greed turning him into yet another corrupt politician. This is a terrific political drama. The acting is terrific from Broderick Crawford in the lead. Mercedes McCambridge is also terrific as political operator Sadie Burke.
It takes a gritty dark look at the political system and its inherit corruption. It's also a character study of an idealistic man falling in love with his own persona. It is a long winding story which may be its only minor drawback. However Crawford's magnetic performance shines through. Power corrupts and politics is Power. That's the message of this film. Robert Penn Warren wrote the novel in the 30's, the movie was made in the 40's, and here it is 50 years later and the message is just as true then as it is now.
Clinton selling pardons to raise money for his presidential library - and his long line of cheap floosies. Pick another politician, one you don't like, same story. However, this movie has another message, stated by the corrupt politician himself: out of evil comes good. That truth is the only thing that makes Democracy work.
He strong armed and blackmailed but he got them built. Yeah, Democracy is ugly, but no uglier than the human clay it is made out of. Thankfully, it will still be a great film with solid performances across the board, fast pacing and good writing. There's no wasted motion in this picture. Hopefully, 50 years from now, good will still come out of evil. Let's hope there's never too much of it here in America ElMaruecan82 26 May For any movie buff, the simple thought of putting "All the King's Men" on the same level than "Citizen Kane" is a blasphemy but I'm not afraid to say it: once you see both movies, you realize how much they have in common and how sometimes the humblest "All the King's Men" slightly beats Orson Welles' masterpiece in its portrayal of power's corruptive effect.
So, the title might sound derogatory but it's not meant that way. He was misunderstood, but he had it coming. The story is adapted from a Pulitzer-prize winning novel of the same title written by Robert Penn Warren, and based on the rise and fall of the legendary populist politician Huey Long. The ascension of Willie Stark, played by a mesmerizing Broderick Crawford, is a fictionalization of Long's life and one of the most powerful political movies ever made, for the simple reason that it hasn't lost any of its relevance, as long as politics exist, there will be men like Stark.
- Preschool Play and Learn: 15 Fun Activities for Christmas (Preschoolplay Play and Learn Book 3).
- Paperback Editions.
- Summary and Analysis Chapter 2 - ALL THE KING'S MEN.
- Latest News?
- An Introduction to Herbal Remedies (An Introduction to ..... Book 1).
- Rise of the Fallen.
- SALA - Fiona Hall: All the King’s Men - The Adelaide Review;
Yesterday, France was shaken by the victory of French Populist Party in the European elections, politicians acted surprised while they could have seen it coming. Basically, the winners spoke the people's language. It's as simple as that, you've got to put yourself in people's shoes and it's not any politician who can accomplish it. Some see their vocations as something that elevated them above the crowd, they're not leaders but prophets allowing people to embrace their own visions, but men like Willie Stark are within the crowd, not above it.
The pivotal moment occurs when after failing attempts to seduce people by talking about fiscal measures and other non-inspirational stuff, good old honest Willie Stark, understands he was the puppet of his own detractors, gets drunk, tears up his paper and enraged by his own anger, gives one of these great roaring speeches tailor-made for the big screen.
And the film, directed by Robert Rossen, features the kind of editing the genre requires, crowd close-ups, big headlines, and an unforgettable gallery of flawed characters, starting with the protagonist himself, Willie Stark, who starts out as a nice and honest fellow, struggling to raise his voice, a man of the people, and undeniably for the people, a man revered by the journalist played by John Ireland, but whose rise to power's collateral damage will be a decline of honesty.
Power would plant the seeds of a cynical mind.
After World War II, world turned out to be more disillusioned and cynical for "Mr Smith" figures, and it's only voices like Willie Stark's that can be heard. Indeed, good old Ma Joad said 'we're the people', but in , only Stark could make this statement audible, embodying in his huge body and larger-than-life personal those "Grapes of Wrath". And once Stark realized he had a natural charisma and capability to move the crowds, it's like Forrest Gump's braces breaking, the repressed ego finally implodes to the face of the political scene and from respect, the eyes and hearts are fueled with admiration and fear, starring with his titular inner circle, Mercedes McCambridge plays a sort of Jean Hagen-like character, going from antagonist to main counselor, she delivers her first and greatest rightfully Oscar-winning performance as a little woman with the toughest heart, venting her lack of seducing appeal in her infatuation with Stark.
The rest of the cast includes Joanne Dru as Ireland's girlfriend, she's literally blown away by Stark's appeal and although her performance might be the one aspect of the film I disliked God, how many times she had to turn her head theatrically! My other favorite performance from him is in Fellini's "Il Bidone" and it's quite ironic and befitting that he played a swindler in the film, while Rossen would also direct another classic and favorite of mine "The Hustler", after all, isn't a politician a kind of hustler with power as the pay-off?
But I'm still puzzled with Stark's character this is how fascinating he is : did he turn into a bad guy or was he prone to corruption from the very beginning, it's hard to tell, but some of his insightful thoughts say a lot about his vision of politics: "good comes from evil" "but, who defines evil?
23 Books Every Fan Of “House Of Cards” Should Read
Stark doesn't care, as long as he builds roads, schools, hospitals, as long as he puts his state on the maps, and allow people to stop seeing themselves as hicks, he'll believe in anything he says and does. Well, we live in a Macchiavellian world where ends justify the means, but as the narrative progresses, we're in the eye of the tornado and can't see if power is an end or a mean for Stark. Willie Stark seems like a man of the people. He is, that is if those people suit his agenda.
When first seen, he is running for County Treasurer, having discovered graft that causes a tragedy at an elementary school. When you're discovered to be right about corruption that caused the deaths of innocent children, you are sure to be labeled a hero. He decides to run for governor. But his opponents are ruthless. Then, so is Stark. When the next election comes up, Stark is a shoe-in, and he turns the state around with improvements that win him much popularity. How does he succeed? A little blackmail, a bit of bribery, and LOTS of bullying.
That's how. What seemed to be for the good of the people now becomes a lot clearer to the people around him as well as his enemies. Those who oppose him are destroyed: financially, emotionally, brutally. There's rumors of murder, even a suicide. Someone has gotten too big for his britches! That's what this Oscar Winning film is all about-evil motives behind good intentions, and that leads to Dante's Inferno, of course.
But before that happens, a lot of people have to suffer, and the people around Governor Stark don't see what their support of him is more destructive than they could possibly imagine. This is only my second viewing of this all-time classic, and my image of Broderick Crawford was as the outwardly bullying Harry Brock in 's "Born Yesterday", made right after this won him a deserving Oscar. The difference between Willie and Harry is that you know right from the beginning who Harry Brock is.
Controlling, power-hungry, uncouth to quote Judy Holliday in that movie , and downright brutish. But as Willie, he's a seemingly devoted husband and father, underneath it all, cheating on his wife and pushing his son onto greatness more than his son cares to be pushed. Willie Stark is the greatest liar politics has ever seen But as they say, you can only fool some of the people some of the time, and it all comes out in the end.
All the King's Men Collection, books - Donya Lynne
John Ireland is excellent as the reporter who leaves his job at the newspaper during Crawford's first run for governor to work for him. He will regret that decision for the remainder of his days as he sees the moral laws he will have to break. Joanne Dru is the sweet daughter of a judge opposed to Stark, but for some reason, she gets involved with him even though she was in love with Ireland.
The most unforgettable performance, next to Crawford's, is Oscar Winning Mercedes McCambridge as a cold and calculating secretary to Crawford that is equally as ruthless as her boss.
Rise of the Fallen: A Dark Paranormal Romance (All the King’s Men Book 1)
She's also envious, a fact she attributes to the small pox which left her face "hard", while Willie's long-suffering wife Anne Seymour has aged gracefully with a conscience and Dru is naturally beautiful. Among the smaller roles is Paul Ford in a dramatic part rare in his repertoire. Political dramas have dominated Hollywood history ever since cameras started turning, and the story of corruption, desperation for power over democracy and the destruction of one's own soul in order to get that power is a timeless theme that is as old as time itself.
Perhaps people in office should be made to watch films like "All the King's Men", "State of the Union", "Advise and Consent" and "The Best Man" once a year simply to remind them of what their duties really are and to stop serving only those who give them the highest campaign contributions.
The film's ending may be a drastic move in order to squelch political abuse, but it is a metaphor for what will happen to one's soul if they continue to follow the same paths as fictional politicians such as Willie Stark. I've watched this movie many times over the past forty years and with changing opinion each time.
There are some wonderful scenes that are tightly written, well-staged, and wonderfully acted, and they add tremendous color and life to the cinematization of a Great American Novel, but as years go by, my respect for the movie as art has diminished. Perhaps in its day, ATKM was a spectacular accomplishment, but I find it nowadays stiff and somewhat disjointed. The problem with trying to make a great book into a movie is that just cobbling the great parts out of the book together doesn't make the movie great.
The Robert Penn Warren novel was extraordinarily complex and carefully paced to followed a dumb hick from the cotton fields to the pinnacle and abuse of power, but the movie tries to cram the entire story into the standard Hollywood two hours, and to do that, it has to lurch from high point to high point, like climbing all the Colorado Rocky Mountains by trying to hop from one fourteener to another.
It just doesn't work. It's tough making a movie from a great book because lovers of the book like me will criticize it because it doesn't meet our expectations of the novel. Viewed this film years ago and always liked the acting style of Broderick Crawford. He had a rough and tough voice along with his face and built, and in this picture he gave an outstanding performance.
Related Rise of the Fallen (All the Kings Men Book 1)
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved