Best Picture Oscar Winners of the 1940s : 9. 1949 Best Picture – All the King's Men

Best Picture Oscar Winners of the 1940s :

9. 1949 Best Picture  : -

"All the King's Men"

1. Profile : -

Directed by Robert Rossen
Produced by Robert Rossen
Screenplay by Robert Rossen
Based on All the King's Men
by Robert Penn Warren
Starring Broderick Crawford
John Ireland
Mercedes McCambridge
Joanne Dru
John Derek
Shepperd Strudwick
Music by Louis Gruenberg
Cinematography Burnett Guffey
Edited by Al Clark
Robert Parrish
Production
company
Columbia Pictures
Distributed by Columbia Pictures
Release date
November 8, 1949
Running time
109 minutes
Country United States
Language English
Box office $2.4 million

2. Introduction :-

All the King's Men is a 1949 American film noir written, produced, and directed by Robert Rossen. It is based on the Robert Penn Warren novel of the same name. The triple Oscar-winning production features Broderick Crawford in the role of the ambitious and sometimes ruthless politician, Willie Stark.

3. Plot :-

The story of the rise of politician Willie Stark from a rural county seat to the governor's mansion is depicted in the film. He goes into politics, railing against the corruptly run county government, but loses his race for county treasurer, in the face of unfair obstacles placed by the local machine. Stark teaches himself law, and as a lawyer, continues to fight the local establishment, championing the local people and gaining popularity. He eventually rises to become a candidate for governor, narrowly losing his first race, then winning on his second attempt. Along the way he loses his innocence and becomes as corrupt as the politicians he once fought against. As he rises, Stark philanders and gets involved with many women, taking his PR man/journalist Jack Burden's own girlfriend, Anne Stanton, as his mistress.

Stark's son, Tommy drinks to deal with his feelings about his father, eventually crashes his car, injuring himself and killing his female passenger. When Stark bullies Tommy into playing a football game, Tommy becomes paralyzed after a brutal hit.

Stark, who had always dealt with those who got in his way by any means, begins to see his world start to unravel and he discovers that not everyone can be bought off.

The story has a complex series of relationships. All is seen through the eyes of the journalist, Jack Burden, who admires Stark and even when disillusioned still sticks by him. Stark's campaign assistant, Sadie is clearly in love with Stark and wants him to leave his wife, Lucy. When Stark's reputation is brought into disrepute by Judge Stanton (Anne's uncle), he seeks to blacken the judge's name. When Jack finds evidence of the judge's possible wrongdoing, a quarter century earlier, he hides it from Stark. Anne gives the evidence to Stark, who uses it against her uncle, who immediately commits suicide. Anne seems to forgive Stark, but her brother, Adam, the surgeon who helped save Tommy's life after the car crash, cannot. After Stark wins an impeachment investigation, Adam assassinates Stark. The doctor in turn is shot down by Sugar Boy, Stark's fawning assistant. Having lost their respect for him, Jack and Anne agree to find a way to destroy Stark's reputation just as he dies

The main plot is a thinly disguised version of the rise of real-life 1930s Louisiana Governor, Huey Long, Long's efforts to blacken the name of Judge Benjamin Pavy, and Long's assassination by the Judge's son-in-law (compared to nephew, as in the film), Dr. Carl Weiss.

4. Cast : -

Broderick Crawford as Willie Stark in All the King's Men
Broderick Crawford as Willie Stark
John Ireland as Jack Burden
Joanne Dru as Anne Stanton
John Derek as Tom Stark
Mercedes McCambridge as Sadie Burke
Shepperd Strudwick as Adam Stanton
Ralph Dumke as Tiny Duffy
Anne Seymour as Mrs. Lucy Stark
Katharine Warren as Mrs. Burden
Raymond Greenleaf as Judge Monte Stanton
Walter Burke as Sugar Boy
Will Wright as Dolph Pillsbury
Grandon Rhodes as Floyd McEvoy
Frank Hagney as Stark Strong-Arm Man (uncredited)

5. Production : -

Rossen originally offered the starring role to John Wayne, who found the proposed film script unpatriotic and indignantly refused the part. Crawford, who eventually took the role, won the 1949 Academy Award for Best Actor, beating out Wayne, who had been nominated for his role in Sands of Iwo Jima.

The film was shot at various locations in California using local residents, something that was fairly unknown for Hollywood at the time. The old San Joaquin County courthouse in Stockton, built in 1898 and demolished about a dozen years after the film's release, was featured prominently.

Paul Tatara, a film reviewer for CNN, describes the film as "one of those pictures that was saved in the editing". Al Clark did the original cut but had trouble putting all the footage that Robert Rossen had shot into a coherent narrative. Robert Parrish was brought onboard by Rossen and Columbia Studios head, Harry Cohn, to see what he could do. Since Rossen had a hard time cutting anything he shot, after several weeks of tinkering and cutting, the movie was still over 250 minutes long. Cohn was prepared to release it in this version after one more preview, but this threw Rossen into a panic, so Rossen came up with a novel solution. Rossen told Parrish to "[s]elect what you consider to be the center of each scene, put the film in the synch machine and wind down a hundred feet before and a hundred feet after, and chop it off, regardless of what's going on. Cut through dialogue, music, anything. Then, when you're finished, we'll run the picture and see what we've got". When Parrish was done with what Rossen had suggested, they were left with a 109-minute movie that was more compelling to watch. After All the King's Men won its Academy Award for Best Picture, Harry Cohn repeatedly gave Parrish credit for saving the film, even though Parrish only did what Rossen told him to do. The editing gambit gives the film a memorably jagged urgency that's unique for a studio-era film. Although Clark is credited as the "Film Editor" (with Parrish being credited as "Editorial Advisor"), both Clark and Parrish received a nomination for an Academy Award for Best Film Editing.

6. Reception :-

I. Critical response

When the film was released, it received wide acclaim. Film critic Bosley Crowther lauded the film and its direction in his review, writing, "Robert Rossen has written and directed, as well as personally produced, a rip-roaring film of the same title ... We have carefully used that descriptive as the tag for this new Columbia film because a quality of turbulence and vitality is the one that it most fully demonstrates ... In short, Mr. Rossen has assembled in this starkly unprettified film a piece of pictorial journalism that is remarkable for its brilliant parts." Critic William Brogdon, writing for Variety magazine, was complimentary as well and praised Broderick Crawford's work, "As the rural Abe Lincoln, springing up from the soil to make himself a great man by using the opinionless, follow-the-leader instinct of the more common voter, Broderick Crawford does a standout performance. Given a meaty part, his histrionic bent wraps it up for a great personal success adding much to the many worthwhile aspects of the drama."

II. Noir analysis

Film historian Spencer Selby calls the film "[A] hard-hitting noir adaptation of Warren's eloquent novel".

Joe Goldberg, film historian and former story editor for Paramount Pictures, wrote about the content of the plot and its noirish fatalistic conclusion, "The plot makes sense, the dialogue is memorable, the story arises from the passions and ideas of the characters. It deals with graft, corruption, love, drink and betrayal, and the subversion of idealism by power, and it might even make someone angry... The story moves toward its conclusion with the dark inevitability of film noir."

III. Accolades

In 2001, the film was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant". The Academy Film Archive preserved All the King's Men in 2000.[8] To date, it is the last Best Picture winner to be based on a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel.

7. Academy Awards 1949:-

All the King's Men received seven Academy Awards nominations, winning three.

Best Motion Picture Won Robert Rossen Productions–Columbia (Robert Rossen, Producer)
Best Director Nominated Robert Rossen
Winner was Joseph L. Mankiewicz - A Letter to Three Wives
Best Actor Won Broderick Crawford
Best Writing, Screenplay Nominated Robert Rossen
Winner was Joseph L. Mankiewicz - A Letter to Three Wives
Best Supporting Actor Nominated John Ireland
Winner was Dean Jagger - Twelve O'Clock High
Best Supporting Actress Won Mercedes McCambridge
Best Film Editing Nominated Robert Parrish and Al Clark
Winner was Harry W. Gerstad - Champion

8. 1949 Best Picture - 'All The King's Men' - Review

In 1950, the 22nd Academy Awards ceremony was held at the RKO Pantages Theatre in Los Angeles. Honouring the films released between January 1, 1949 and December 31, 1949 the awards were held on March 23. For the third time in fours year, the venue of the ceremony was changed. This time, it was the biggest movie house in Hollywood, with a seating capacity of 2,812. After so much change, this would remain the venue for the next 11 years.

After the rise of Technicolor cinematography, the 1950 ceremony would stand as the final time all five Best Picture nominees were black-and-white films. Despite failing to win Best Picture, the year’s most nominated and awarded film was The Heiress, with eight nominations and four wins. It also delivered Olivia de Havilland her second Best Actress win in three years, but, sadly, her final nomination.

After consistently failing to be nominated for his work, Fred Astaire was awarded an honorary Academy Award for “his unique artistry and contributions to the technique of musical pictures.” It was presented to him by his long-time screen partner, Ginger Rogers.

The nominees:
All the King’s Men
Battleground
The Heiress
A Letter to Three Wives
Twelve O’Clock High

1. The winner : -

I. All the King’s Men

Based on Robert Penn Warren’s Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, All the King’s Men is the tale of the rise of an ambitious and ruthless politician. Willie Stark (Broderick Crawford) is a small-town man with big-city ambitions. Running for treasurer in his hometown, his campaign of honest politics draws the attention of journalist Jack Burden (John Ireland). But when his bid for office ends in failure, after the powerful men of his town destroy his chances with a smear campaign, Stark rises above, spending the next few years becoming a lawyer, and fighting for the downtrodden members of his community. When he’s cruelly used as a candidate for governor to simply split the opposition’s vote, he begins to understand the ruthless nature of politics. Biding his time, and recruiting Burden as his right-hand man, he returns four years later to run for governor again, this time with a stronger determination, and a biting public speaking persona. Running on a message of returning power to the people, he sails to victory. But it’s not long before the dirty business of politics begins to change Stark into one of the corrupt men he once fought so vehemently against, and he’ll soon do anything to retain his power.

II. Why did it win?

Released at a time when the unscrupulous activities of many of those with political power were coming to light, All the King’s Men struck a chord with many who began to question if honesty was still a trait to be found in government officials. There were rumblings of corruption in the Truman administration, and with the rise of the Soviet Union marking the beginning of the Cold War, the general public were beginning to grow weary of politicians and how they gained and held power. The timing for a film like All the King’s Men could not have been more perfect.

Taking heavy influence from the story of Huey Long, a Louisiana governor many either called a populist hero or a corrupt dictator, All the King’s Men highlighted how absolute power corrupts absolutely, and proved even those with the noblest of intentions can often fall to the weight of their own immense influence. But questioning the moral fabric of American politics was not a popular subject. Many in Hollywood wanted nothing to do with the production, finding its very existence horribly offensive. Director Robert Rossen originally offer the role of Willie Stark to John Wayne, who angrily rejected the film as “unpatriotic” and accused Rossen of a making a film which “threw acid on the American way of life.” In an ironic twist of fate, Wayne would ultimately lose Best Actor for his role in Sands of Iwo Jima to Broderick Crawford for the very role he turned down.

With a controversial topic once again capturing the audience’s attention, the film was a resounding success at the box-office, bringing in $2.4 million at the US box-office. It received rave reviews from the critics, with The New York Times calling it a “rip-roaring film” that is “remarkable for its brilliant parts.” Broderick’s performance was a key-factor to the film’s critical success, with Variety declaring it the “standout performance of the year.” With a relatively-light year, and no real competitors to compete with, All the King’s Men was able to easily capture Best Picture.

III. Did it deserve to win?

Viewing the film in a post-Trump 2017 context takes on a whole new level of relevance and rather disturbing accuracy. While its themes of government corruption and power manipulation ultimately had an unexpected connection to the Nixon administration, a few decades later, the story of the rise of an unexpected politician to unprecedented power seems eerily familiar right now. Even more recognisable is Stark’s booming and clamorous style of public speaking, and his penchant for working a crowd into a wild frenzy. In one particular scene, he encourages his supporters to “nail up anybody who stands in your way,” to which the crowd responses with loud chants of “Nail ’em up! Nail ’em up!” Sound familiar?

Early in the film, Stark stumbles in his first attempts at speaking to a rally, after losing the crowd’s interest by boring them with policy speeches. He soon realises he will have far greater success by simply stirring them up, and appealing to their anguish at feeling like big-city government has forgotten the small-town man. He promises them the world, without giving specific details on how he’s going to give it to them, and whips them into an uncontrolled frenzy. And those that do dare defy him? Well, he instructs his cronies to remove them from his rallies, by any means necessary. Again, does all this not sound hauntingly familiar?!

But for all his disturbing and unsettling qualities, those around Stark simply fall in line, and never question his outlandish behaviour. Jack Burden knows his new boss is a crook, and he knows he should be stopped from achieving unstoppable power. But, like most of us who see corruption and greed, he has no idea what to do, and thus, begrudgingly follows, unwavering in his support. This again speaks to the rise of Trump, with so many in the Republican party knowing how dangerous and irresponsible Trump’s campaign (and now administration) were becoming, and yet, were completely powerless to stop it. When someone captures a crowd and becomes the voice of the people, can they ever really be silenced?

Taking its connection to the modern-day out of the equation, the film simply speaks to the notion of how power can corrupt anyone, and the idea that compromise and manipulation, both legal and illegal, are perhaps the only way to ever really achieve one’s political agenda. It’s hard to believe anyone who rises to the top never stepped on anyone to get there, and if that person can achieve great things that benefit the masses, perhaps the ends may justify the means. It’s a moral dilemma the film doesn’t seek to answer, but it showcases how it can all spiral out of control, with devastating effects for the poor souls closest to those in power.

In terms of its cinematic qualities, the film is cemented by the powerful and compelling performance of Broderick, and the conflicted character journey of Burden, handled with perfect precision by Ireland. As awful as his character may be, Broderick is captivating to watch, and it stands as one of the greatest performances of this era. The film is shot and edited in a frenetic newsreel style, which at time can be quite jarring, but ultimately extremely effective. The middle of the film sags, but the climax is sensational.

With its narrative that remains as relevant and important today, as it did in 1949, the film is a gripping cautionary tale that proves we really haven’t learnt anything in the almost-70 years since its release. Powerful men are still twisting the public. Corruption is still rife in politics. And a loud-mouth non-politician can still sweep to power on the backs of small-town people. If a film still being incredibly relevant decades later isn’t the sign of a deserving Best Picture winner, I don’t know what is.

***