All the Kings Men ****

Of all the great scenes that I have watched, reviewed and written (credits include The African Queen and The Night of the Hunter), the one I still think would have been better than all the others, but was never filmed was the debate between senators Robert Hayne and Daniel Webster.

This incident took place in 1830 and revolved around a land bill and some add-ons regarding land grants which lead to a discussion about "state's rights." With that in mind, the usual battle lines were drawn. The speeches have nothing to do with this topic per se, but went deeper into the whole source of the conflict between the two regions.

Hayne went first and he was obviously speaking for John C. Calhoun, who was vice president at the time and therefore not allowed to speak on the Senate floor. The speech contained several digs at New England and after each dig all eyes turned toward Daniel Webster, the great orator and champion of the region. The way I pictured it, Black Dan smiled after every insult knowing that his time to drop the hammer was coming. Webster's response was one of the most famous speeches of all time with the great concluding line: "Liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable."

Look at that Senate; Webster, Calhoun, Henry Clay, Thomas Benton - giants all of them. Can you think of anyone today who is in that class? The same goes for movies. I often complain that they don't make'em like Humphrey Bogart, Clark Gable and John Wayne anymore.

Well, I got to thinking about that while watching All the King's Men. The movie starred Broderick Crawford, who did a nice job here, and there is a remake in the works, which is going to star Sean Penn. Now, B.C. was a nice man and an honest actor, but I can't possibly say with a straight face that he is the same class of talent that Sean Penn is.

With that said, I guarantee you the older movie will be better. Why? Because, and here's the big revelation, Penn's leading man will be a faulted and weak man while Crawford's Stark was a larger than life giant. It has nothing to do with the actors playing the parts. It's a cultural difference. Now people want to relate to their heroes while back then people wanted to look up to them. Back then, Franklin Roosevelt was put on a pedestal. Today, that pedestal would be blown up. If Penn was an actor back then, I would not be surprised if he could be just as big as the other giants of that era and handle those larger than life rolls. He has the talent. Today, he's not given the opportunity.

All the King's Men was originally a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel loosely based on the life of Louisiana politician Huey Long. The book follows the political career of Willie Stark (played by Crawford), who got into politics after a local school collapsed due to faulty construction and corrupt contractors. A political machine in the state used the naive Stark to split the vote of the opposition, allowing their candidate to win. After the defeat, Stark was drinking whiskey and with a steely look in his eyes vowed that he would be back and next time it would be different. Four years later Stark ran again using many of the same tactics that the machine employed. This time Stark won and continued with his more amoral ways to consolidate power while giving the impression that he was still a man of the people. The movie's climax takes place when Willie asks his assistant Jack Burden to dig up some dirt on Judge Irwin, one of Stark's enemy's and a father figure to Jack.

Crawford does some nice work here, but the real credit goes to the casting director, because the roll is a perfect fit. Stark in the older movie is charismatic, larger than life, amoral and Machiavellian. He obviously has faults but the character is so mesmerizing that you understand why people follow him. Penn's version of the character will probably involve a lot of crying. This is not Penn's fault. It's because that's what you want. Leonardo DiCaprio is your fault. Celine Dion singing that horrible song while pounding her chest is your fault. What’s Eating Gilbert Grape is your fault. Nicholas Cage is your fault. Fried Green Tomatoes is your fault. I'm glad I died fifty years ago. Better that than watch "Titanic."

Oh, but you say I'm being far too dramatic here. This is just finger-pointing and fear-mongering. Let me give you an example. Back in the 1940s, Jimmy Cagney (the MAN!!!) played a mother-obsessed gangster who died on the top of a gas tower about to explode while screaming "Top o' the World, Ma!" Today, the family of that gangster would have had an intervention and a shrink would have helped him deal with his demons. Which is great for the gangster, but makes for a horrible movie.

Think I'm joking? Have you seen the Sopranos? The bottom line is that Shakespeare was right when it comes to bad movies. The fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves. Viva Broderick Crawford.