"Give me the axe!" for these filmmakers. When I read the novel by Robert Penn Warren, I immediately wondered how this beautiful, but obviously inappropriate, book was filmed. It would seem that from the version, shot almost immediately after the release of the book and awarded the “Oscar”, you could still expect something good.
It was clear from the beginning that it would not be possible to keep the full plot of the thick novel on the screen, but Robert Rossen chose the worst way to cut it. First, he cut the chronology: in front of us at the same time, Burden meets Stark, protesting against the construction of a school of poor-quality bricks, falls in love with Anna (when he already has a profession as a reporter, and she is no longer a schoolgirl, which destroys the central conflict of this part of the plot), while Stark is still studying to be a lawyer. Not to mention the very vague changes such as the fact that Tom is an adopted son (or rather, their reasons are clear, a more concise chronology would force Stark to be older initially, so that in the end his own son drank in college). Then Stark quickly becomes governor (Anne and Jack's relationship is supposed to have gone somewhere in the interim, but it's not clear where and why) and indulges in corruption and revels in power, but at first he is very liked by the judge, and Anna immediately and obviously falls in love with him. At the same time, Stark is much more vicious than in the book - his fun with dancers occurs not in a private setting, but in front of the cameras of newspapermen, he not only blackmails people, but also disperses opponents with the police and even kills discontented people.
That is the main problem of the film. The book was about how a strong leader came to power under a democratic regime and what came of it, because that's actually how democracy works. The film is about how a tyrant demagogue came to power without any ideals (how he almost instantly hatched from the kind, sincere and naive Willie of the first scenes, again, from the film is unclear). The novel was characterized by a somewhat cynical, but truthful and gaze, and its characters were all complex, especially for moral evaluation, people. Robert Rossen does not regret black and white colors. All the atrocities necessary in the plot are directly assigned to the old man, all his worthy impulses are unequivocally interpreted as populism, and his opponents, on the contrary, are left without the slightest stain on his reputation.
The need to instantly reveal the characters and conflicts that developed in the novel dozens of pages leads to the appearance of unnatural mise-en-scene and unnatural replicas, designed to show everything more clearly. Even quotes from the book look ridiculous here, because they are placed in a different context, and for the most part are rather devoid of context. As I said, Stark's moral transformation is unexplained and looks like magic. Jack Burden is even worse, when his chronological development from idealist to cynic and back again was merged, his image was completely destroyed, since he behaved one way or another for one minute. Anna Stanton doesn't look like a very smart, amorous hysteria. Adam could not leave even his coldness.
Saying anything about acting is difficult. Mercedes McCambridge, at least, shows strong passions. Broderick Crawford cries well from the stands charismatically, squints well, sits well at the village table. Unfortunately, they don’t have characters to play, characters, rather than sets of stilted lines. Therefore, their game is difficult to evaluate, as well as to learn the skill of a mason from the remains of a house built on sand. Maybe the way they got out of the script is worthy of the Oscars.
I don’t know where the Oscar jury looked, but All the King’s Men is a bad movie. Not just a bad film adaptation, but a film that in all respects is not worth the film on which it was shot.
5 out of 10