All the King's Men

Who decides what is or isn't a classic? Attending a Catholic high school and going through four years of Honors and A.P. English classes and doing the same in college, I read my fair share of "classics." Overall, I was typically able to see something in the book -- its style, the characters, the story, the premise -- that made it a classic. Now in no way does that mean I liked the book. In a lot of ways, I absolutely hated the books. I'm looking at you House of Seven Gables, among others. So who is it that decides a book deserves classic status?

Sitting on my bookcase for the last four-plus years was Robert Penn Warren's Pulitzer Prize winning novel, All the King's Men (<--- link to the novel, not the movie). I put it off, stalling after reading a chapter and wanting to kill myself. Every so often I like to torture myself as a reader though so I put my head down and barreled through it. How'd that go? I hated it. Warren's writing style is one that pisses me off, like he's patting himself on the back. "Oh, look what a good writer I am!" with his pages of description and wordiness that go nowhere. We get it. You're smart. Tell your damn story. The story and its characters -- especially the last 100 pages -- saved the book for me. Naturally, I had to check out the movies, starting with 1948's All the King's Men.  

An up and coming newspaper reporter, Jack Burden (John Ireland) is assigned to write a story about a backwoods politician, Willie Stark (Broderick Crawford), running for office. Jack is instantly drawn to the honest, genuine nature of Willie even when he loses several elections. Years down the road, Willie is nominated to run as a governor mostly as a way to split votes, but a weird thing happens. Willie starts to speak honestly to the voters, inspiring confidence from the get-go. The election for governor is a laugher, Stark taking it easily. Now working as an aide to Stark, Jack starts to see him change. The new governor has noble aspirations for what he wants to do while in office, but at what cost? How does he accomplish the things he wants? Corruption rears its head in the offices, making Jack question if Willie is in the right or going down a path he can't come back from?

I can think of two movies that are as good if not better than the novel/story they're based on.  In other words, the odds aren't with a director to improve on the source of their movie. Warren's book is interesting in that 600-plus pages not much happens while at the same time A LOT is happening. Amidst all his wordy descriptions, seemingly pointless and drifting asides, and passages that go nowhere are characters and a story of politics and its personalities that is very interesting. It just gets lost too much in Warren's "talent." Director Robert Rossen makes a noble effort to condense Warren's novel into a manageable 2-hour movie and succeeds for the most part. Some background and one key twist is dropped for sake of time, but Rossen's movie gets the heart of the story right, Willie Stark's rise to the top and his fight to stay up there.

Reading the novel, I was very aware that Broderick Crawford had played Willie in this first version of the movie. In my head as I read, I was picturing Crawford then, and it is a career best performance.  The burly actor with the deep, dark voice earned the only Oscar of his career for his performance as Willie Stark (somewhat loosely based on Louisiana governor Huey Long). A career character actor, Crawford didn't waste his chance at such a major role. I can't picture anyone else playing the part, and that's always a positive. He brings Willie Stark to life, a well-meaning backwoods guy who has his eyes opened up to the reality of politics, money and greed. His speech just hours after he discovers he's being duped to split votes is a definite high, Stark's rage and frustration at the predicament he's in boiling over. You can watch it HERE at Youtube.

With such a dividing figure at the forefront of the movie, obvious questions arise that people will obviously feel different about on a person-to-person basis. Through bullying, bribes and blackmail courtesy of Burden's notebook with all its dirt, Stark's gubernatorial terms accomplish a laundry list of things. A huge hospital is built to serve the people. Roads are improved, schools popping up all over, and a better way of life is created. There is a certain corruption you just expect with government as power individuals want to get things done and don't care how they get it done. Through all of Stark's corruption and badgering and bullying, there's still the part of me that is on his side just a little bit. He gets the job done and seems, seems to have the public's best interest at heart. Is that the case? Maybe not, but Stark here and in Warren's novel makes it an interesting question.

No doubt about it, Crawford is the reason to see this movie. The supporting cast varies from average to above average, some of the fault being attributed to 600-plus pages being condensed into a  110-minute movie. Characters aren't going to get the development, motivation or reasoning they did in the book. Ireland received a Best Supporting Actor nomination, but I thought his performance as Jack Burden was somewhat lacking without much in the way of energy. Mercedes McCambridge won the Best Supporting Actress for her role as Sadie Burke, Willie's aide/secretary who's involved with him in more ways than one. Joanne Dru plays Anne Stanton, Jack's girlfriend who's instantly drawn to Willie, John Derek is Tom Stark, Willie's adopted son, Shepperd Strudwick plays Adam Stanton, a respected doctor and Anne's brother who Willie wants to work with, and Raymond Greenleaf as Judge Stanton (Irwin in the novel), an aging but reputable public official suspicious of Willie's motives.

While Rossen's novel to film transition is a smooth one, there is still something missing. He films it in black and white, appropriate for the backwoods, dirt road setting of the story, and the movie feels real in its portrayals of the story and characters. It's interesting but without much in the way of energy.  The ending was also a little disappointing because it ends too abruptly. The novel allowed the ending to breathe, to let characters figure things out as needed. The 1949 film still is a good, interesting watch and does a worthy job of molding Warren's novel into something more easily digested.

All the King's Men <---TCM trailer/clips (1949): ***/****

Drango

The Civil War was the bloodiest conflict in American history, but the Confederate surrender at Appomattox was far from the end of the war for much of the country. Not even accounting for the loss of life, huge portions of the South had been literally destroyed by the war. Business and industry literally had to be built from the ground up.  The Reconstruction Era followed the Civil War and lasted all the way into the late 1870s as America healed from the wounds of the war.

As few Civil War movies as there are (good ones at least), I can think of very few movies dealing with the Reconstruction, and that's part of what drew me to 1957's Drango. I will admit that at first I thought I had stumbled onto some weird American hybrid and a predecessor to the 1966 spaghetti western Django, but I was sorely mistaken.  During the war, North fought South in an attempt to regain control in the country, the North trying to free the slaves and the South fighting for states' rights (in a very simplified explanation of the war). But once the North had won, it was up to the U.S. government to rebuild because if the country hoped to move on, something had to be done to help the war-torn southern states.

Just months removed from the Confederate surrender and the end of the Civil War, two Union officers, Major Clint Drango (Jeff Chandler) and Capt. Marc Banning (John Lupton), ride into the town of Kennessaw Pass in Georgia. Drango has been tasked with starting the rebuilding process but immediately sees that the townspeople want nothing to do with him or his efforts, holding a deep hatred and resentment for what Union forces did just a year before in General Sherman's infamous march to the sea. Dealing with some inner demons, Drango goes to work, trying to go about the rebuilding the right way, by winning over the people instead of forcing them to do something.  His plan takes time, but it starts to show signs of working, only to see the groundwork torn apart by a Confederate officer, Clay Allen (Ronald Howard), who hopes to start the war all over again, resorting to terror tactics.

While few parts of the country went untouched during the war years between 1861 and 1865, few regions were as heavily impacted as the state of Georgia.  Trying to destroy Confederate infrastructure, General William Tecumseh Sherman basically unleashed his army through Georgia, burning, looting and destroying an entire state.  His March to the Sea is infamous in its brutal effectiveness and efficiency. In a historical context, it was necessary if brutal. Seeing the aftermath though, even in a movie made almost 100 years later, is startling, and we're just seeing one small Georgia town.  Crops burned, stores stolen, houses, churches and businesses burned to the ground.  It's easily understandable to see why these Southerners hold such a bubbling resentment of any help from Union officers.  Any complaints about the movie aside, that's Drango at its best.

Dying at the young age of 42 from blood poisoning following a back surgery, Jeff Chandler never became the star he could have.  In a 15-year span though, he was able to make over 40 movies, most of them B-movies and not major studio productions. But as was the case here with Drango, he delivers a moving performance that shows he was capable of the bigger, flashier roles.  His Clint Drango was part of Sherman's army, destroying as much of Georgia as possible, so he wants to right at least one wrong. He bonds with Joanne Dru's Kate, the daughter of a Union sympathizer who also deals with the glares, looks and judgments of the townspeople. He knows the job laid out for him is extremely difficult, but he intends to follow through, no matter how long it takes.

Portraying a post Civil War very bitter south is a trick subject here, especially with a movie that's only 92-minutes long.  For my liking, the townspeople's sentiment bounces around too much.  They're incredibly fickle, swaying and changing with every fresh wind coming down the road.  First, they hate Drango, then love him when they see his intentions are true, and then hate him again.  Maybe a longer, more developed movie could have covered these changes more effectively, but we're left with this shorter version.  It is frustrating also to see a people so full of hate they won't accept the helping hand being offered them.  Instead of moving on and putting their hate behind them, they're basically willing to wither away and die before admitting they need help. True to history? Maybe, but frustrating still.

In the opening credits, I was briefly under the impression that I was about to watch a 9-hour movie judging by the cast listing which was spread out over four or five pages of very small print.  After Chandler and Dru, the acting ranges from hammy and bad to moving and emotional.  Howard is a superb villain, charming and conniving all rolled up into one.  Donald Crisp is Judge Allen, the town patriarch blinded by his feelings who starts to see the error of his ways. The beautiful Julie London plays Shelby Ransom, Clay's girlfriend who questions what he's up to. Lupton isn't around enough to make much of an impression as Banning, but that's not his fault. Some of the townspeople include Parley Baer, Walter Sande, and Barney Phillips.

An interesting little picture covering a time in American history that is often overshadowed by the events that preceded it, and the events that would follow.  If you can find a copy, definitely a movie worth watching.

Drango (1957): ***/****

Siege at Red River

I feel kind of stupid using a historical lead for a movie of this caliber, but hey, write what you know, when you know it.  I needed a lead, and this one came to mind.  As late as the Civil War, military "tactics" involved opposing armies standing across from each other in an open field and firing at each other.  Brilliant planning and nice use of soldiers' lives, huh? Well, weapons makers obviously saw the lunacy of it and started developing weapons that could kill men faster and more efficiently. Enter the Gatling gun, one of the first rapid fire guns and predecessor to the modern machine gun. It was developed during the Civil War but never actually used in combat.

Still, that allows for some good storytelling opportunities of the gun almost being used in the Civil War and later during the fighting between the cavalry and the Indians in the west.  So take it with a grain of salt, 1954's Siege at Red River is pure historical drivel that doesn't always make a ton of sense (in a lot of ways). It's another odd, little Civil War western that is sold as part of a DVD packaging of a bunch of average to bad westerns. There are so many elements working against each other and working together in subsequent scenes that there is no way on God's green earth this movie should work...in any way.  It does though, flaws and all.  'Red River' is no classic, and maybe it's not even very good all things considered. I liked it though, and that's all I care about, entertain value.

After robbing a Union train in Ohio of one of the few models of a Gatling gun in existence, Confederate spies Capt. James Farraday (Van Johnson) and Sgt. Benjy Guderman (Milburn Stone, later of Gunsmoke fame) travel west to avoid the Union soldiers searching for the missing gun. They are holed up in a small western town where a Pinkerton agent, Kelso (Jeff Morrow) and Union cavalry commanded by Lt. Braden (Craig Hill) arrive soon after, not knowing who has the gun, only that someone in town is hiding it. Farraday and Guderman meet a young woman, Nora (Joanne Dru), the owner of a nursing home, hoping she'll be able to help, but ultimately turn to a horse wrangler/rustler, Manning (Richard Boone), to help them get through the Union lines. The Pinkerton agent and the cavalry are closing in though, but they've got to keep their eyes on Manning too who looks like he'll take the first chance he can get to turn them in for the biggest payday.

I don't know if I can think of a single western that features as many discordant elements all in one place as this movie.  For the most part, that's a positive.  It starts as a Civil War movie, moves west, and then by the end is a straight cavalry vs. Indians flick. In between those things, we've got a traveling salesman (Johnson) selling "muscle builders" while also performing the song, Tapioca, as a signal to other Confederate agents. Then there's Van Johnson as a driven, almost obsessed Confederate agent. On the other side, there's Van Johnson, ladies man who woos Joanne Dru. Also for good measure, Stone's Sgt. Benny gets Dru drunk to throw her off their trail, Morrow's Kelso doesn't tell anyone what's going on and then flips out when things don't go his way, Hill's Lt. Braden is a talented scout/tracker masquerading as an officer, and by the end we've got an epic grouping of Indian tribes that threaten to take over the American west...oh, and there's the Civil War too.

An underrated actor and one of my favorites, Van Johnson is an interesting choice to play the lead in this Civil War western.  He had a knack for starring in comedies, even romantic comedies, but was nonetheless able to play heavy dramatic roles.  In 1954 along with 'Red River,' he starred in one of his most dramatic roles, The Caine Mutiny.  This is a mix of a little bit of everything.  As needed, Johnson moves back and forth seamlessly between drama, action, romance and comedy.  It's always the sign of a good actor when it doesn't feel forced watching that change back and forth. As the straight villain, Richard Boone nails his part, the wrangler/rustler who has some ulterior motives as to what he wants to do with the Gatling gun. His Brett Manning has a bit of the gay caballero thing going on, with an odd outfit that includes a "very stylish" tie and his penchant for using a whip to strike rivals. A little flamboyant, but a worthy rivalry through all the craziness.

Not all the weirdness works though, and there's a fair share.  For one, and it's a big issue, is the whole driving force of the movie.  Johnson and Stone rob a Union train (which is a mess itself with people shooting each other left and right with no explanation) in hopes of turning the tide of the war which isn't going well for the South.  So the robbery seems to take place in Ohio -- judging by a map that's shown after the robbery -- and then head....southwest into Indiana and Missouri.  Head east or southeast, but not that direction. The decision to do so in the story is for one reason and one reason alone....the story requires the Indians to be a key part of the story late. It's just a ridiculous premise, turn the tide of war by going where there are no Confederate armies for hundreds and thousands of smiles.  Then there's Joanne Dru who will she is a fine actress has a knack for ruining westerns she's in (see Red River and She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, the 2nd one not so much). She's very tolerable here until her change of tone drunk scene out of a bad slapstick comedy. She also falls for Van Johnson with the snap of a finger after hating him for most of the movie.

Little things end up being the tipping point here.  Director Rudolph Mate has a real mess of a movie overall. Through the haze of the mess, it is a beautiful movie.  I'm really not sure where this story is supposed to take place, but seeing similar locations as John Ford used in Fort Apache and some other westerns is never a bad thing. The Utah locations are a big selling point here, especially late when the Civil War plot gets left behind for a more traditional western oater.  The finale is a gem as the all-powerful Gatling gun gets stolen and re-stolen and then is finally used late during an Indian attack on a lonely cavalry outpost. As is the formula opened up by the movie, we've got a Union patrol, an enormous Indian war party, a Gatling gun, and Johnson's Confederate spy wavering over what he should do.  For good measure, the cavalry and Indians have one last go at each other at a shallow water hole. Reading other reviews, I see I'm one of the few who liked this movie. It isn't great, and I can't say I'll seek it out again. But for a western I went into with low expectations, they were easily met and then some.

Siege at Red River (1954): ***/****