James Hitchcock "All the King's Men" was based on a novel by Robert Penn Warren, which in turn was based upon the career of the controversial politician Huey Long. The Long figure here is Willie Stark, a farmer from a poor rural district in an unnamed state. Stark begins his career as a campaigner against corruption in local government and qualifies as a lawyer so that he can help his impoverished neighbours, but is unsuccessful in an attempt to become county treasurer. He is persuaded to run for governor, unaware that he has been nominated by supporters of the incumbent in the hope that Stark will split the vote and thereby harm the chances of the opposition candidate. In the course of his campaign, however, Stark discovers hitherto untapped powers of oratory and becomes a popular figure; he finishes second in the poll, only losing narrowly. Four years later he runs again and wins. The story is told from the point of view of a young journalist, Jack Burden. Burden comes from one of the state's aristocratic "old money" families, who generally despise Stark as a vulgar populist. Burden, however, initially admires Stark as a man who will get things done. Other important characters are Burden's equally aristocratic girlfriend Anne Stanton, her brother Adam, a doctor, and their uncle, a judge.Burden resigns from his newspaper to become a worker on Stark's staff, and the film tells the story of gradual disillusionment with Stark who, once in office, becomes as corrupt and autocratic as the politicians he once campaigned against. Judge Stanton, appointed as the state's Attorney-General, resigns when he realises that Stark is protecting an associate who is guilty of embezzlement. Stark's private character also deteriorates when exposed to the temptations of power; once a teetotal family man he becomes a drunken womaniser, taking (among others) Anne as his mistress. The film was a great success when it was released in 1949, both critically and commercially. It won the "Best Picture" Oscar, with "Best Actor" going to Broderick Crawford and "Best Supporting Actress" to Mercedes McCambridge as Stark's aide Sadie. Robert Rossen (who also acted as writer and producer) was nominated for "Best Director" but lost out to Joseph L. Mankiewicz. These awards were certainly well-deserved, especially Crawford's as he gives a spellbinding performance as Stark, the simple, bumbling country hick turned would-be dictator. The film has been compared with that other great study of the corruptions of power, "Citizen Kane", although unlike Orson Welles neither Rossen nor Crawford went on to become a great Hollywood icon. Rossen, who died while still in his fifties, only made ten films, none of the others as famous as this one, although some of them are certainly good. Crawford, this film apart, is more remembered for his work in television, especially the police drama "Highway Patrol", than in the cinema. The film was made shortly after the end of World War II and during the early part of the Cold War. It is therefore perhaps unsurprising that Rossen draws clear parallels between Stark's career and those of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin- the balcony oratory, the torchlight rallies, the giant banners with portraits of the Leader hanging from public buildings and the strong-arm tactic used to silence opponents of the regime. (The word "stark" is, significantly, German for "strong"). Yet Rossen is more objective than one might imagine. The film is not just a long diatribe against dictatorship and in favour of democracy. Even when disillusioned Burden continues to work for Stark because, whatever his other faults may be, Stark makes good on his boast to be a man who gets things done. He is responsible for an ambitious public works programme to provide the state with much-needed schools, hospitals and highways, and it is this which accounts for his continuing popularity among the state's poorer inhabitants, especially in rural districts, who refuse to believe stories of Stark's corruption and abuse of power. By contrast, the clique of old-money politicians who controlled the state before Stark's rise to power never did anything to benefit anyone other than themselves. They, moreover, were not only corrupt but also equally capable of resorting to strong-arm tactics, although because of their control of the media these were rarely reported. You could even draw from the film the moral that, as Tim Rice put it, "There is evil, ever around fundamental, system of government quite incidental", and that you might as well vote for the sonofabitch who gets things done rather than for the sons of bitches who don't. The film therefore effectively has a double meaning. On the one hand, it can be seen as an "it could happen here" warning against the dangers of dictatorship. Some historians believe that, had Long not been assassinated in 1935, he could have become an American Mussolini. On the other hand, it is also a warning against the dangers of democracy, especially the temptation to regard winning elections as an end in itself, a game to be played for the benefit of the politicians rather than for the benefit of those who elect them. (Since the end of the Cold War this has become a temptation to which Western democracies have become particularly prone). It is this complexity of meaning which, along with its great central role, some good supporting performances and an intelligent script, makes "All the King's Men", in my opinion, the greatest film ever made about American politics. 10/10

Hitchcoc In the early part of the century, there arose a couple forces that dominated the politics of the south and potentially the nation. Father Coughlin was a radio preacher who taught a populist agenda. Huey Long was a Southern ideologue who convinced a lot of people that their lives could be better if he was able to become their spokesman. It turns out that the two of them were utterly corrupt and events put an end to their influence. "All the King's Men" is not a biography of Huey Long. The likes of Huey Long created the environment where a guy like Willie Stark could gain a foothold. Broderick Crawford gives an Academy Award winning performance as Stark. He is a man of great complexity. The movie manages to not get preachy. It shows how his campaign is intricately put together with a little bit of arm twisting and some strong arming. This is a fine movie, worth seeing again and again.

DKosty123 This is very much a period piece. Robert Rosen directs & his direction here is not quite where he was when he would do " The Hustler " later but this is still a solid film. This is Broderick Crawford playing a fictional version of Huey Long known as Willie Stark.While his intentions of getting into politics are good, he winds up selling himself out to accomplish good in the same way everyone who gets elected still does. His one line about nailing the fat guys in a speech is very much reflective of the Obama line of paying all our governments bills by "taxing the rich" which people still bought hook line & sinker in our last election.In this movie, we even find out that even when a politician is a true outsider, once they get inside they become the rich. That is why no matter how much someone calls for "change we can believe in" things never change. In the case of Huey Long, the book this is based upon was obviously not written by one of his biggest fans.Still, this is a worthwhile picture though a bit dated. It has been redone recently with Jude Law in the cast. Guess if I run into that one, I will look at it. Politics don't seem to change, no one is ever all knowledgeable about what is really going down.

secondtake All the King's Men (1949)The reference to Humpty Dumpty isn't lost here--the hero, a likable protagonist headed for a fall, is the egg, the egg who would be king. We, the people, are the king's men. And all of this is not fantasy, but a fantastical version of the real Huey Long story, the governor and then senator who didn't exactly fall to pieces, but who became a troubling despot of a democratic sort.Long was a come-from-nowhere governor of Louisiana just as the Depression began. His motto: every man a king. Widely admired and hated to this day, he makes natural movie material, and this 1949 version focuses on just that main thread of gutsy idealism and bald powermongering. And the connection between the two, which is a kind of megalomaniacal ego, a charisma borne of blindness (which people admire because it seems so honest), and raw energy. The later movie (2006) is painfully strained and full of itself, and I'd avoid it completely. This one is not a masterpiece, but it has a fast pace, a lot of great acting, and a slightly better sense of authenticity, enough to succeed.Key to its success is Broderick Crawford, whose acting lifts a mundane (if smart) kind of filming to a higher pitch. Director Robert Rossen is totally in control, however, and if there is little magic to the writing or the construction of the film, in film-making terms, the story is told with such compact force, all you notice is Crawford and the twisting turns of events.