ÉVALUATION IMDb
7,4/10
17 k
MA NOTE
L'ascension et la chute d'un politicien corrompu, qui enrichit ses amis et reste au pouvoir grâce à son attrait populiste.L'ascension et la chute d'un politicien corrompu, qui enrichit ses amis et reste au pouvoir grâce à son attrait populiste.L'ascension et la chute d'un politicien corrompu, qui enrichit ses amis et reste au pouvoir grâce à son attrait populiste.
- A remporté 3 oscars
- 14 victoires et 8 nominations au total
Katherine Warren
- Mrs. McEvoy
- (as Katharine Warren)
Beau Anderson
- Undetermined Role
- (uncredited)
Sam Ash
- Undetermined Role
- (uncredited)
Richard Bartell
- State Legislator
- (uncredited)
Mary Bear
- File Clerk
- (uncredited)
Helena Benda
- Undetermined Role
- (uncredited)
Best Picture Winners by Year
Best Picture Winners by Year
See the complete list of Best Picture winners. For fun, use the "sort order" function to rank by IMDb rating and other criteria.
Histoire
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesNobody in the cast had a script; director Robert Rossen let the actors read it once and took it away from them. According to Broderick Crawford, "We really had to stay on our toes."
- GaffesWhen the doctor is playing a waltz at the piano, the right-hand portion of the music continues even when he lifts his right hand -- twice! -- to pick up a drink.
- Citations
Jack Burden: I tell you there's nothing on the judge.
Willie Stark: Jack, there's something on everybody. Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption.
- ConnexionsFeatured in Parker Lewis Can't Lose: Parker Lewis Must Lose (1990)
Commentaire en vedette
While I admit that CITIZEN KANE portrays the corruption of power better than any motion picture ever made, let's also be fair, because any Hollywood movie will suffer when compared with it. A more appropriate comparison would be the recent docudrama of Huey Long, KINGFISH. While John Goodman is excellent as Long and the movie worthwhile, it reveals just how good a film ALL THE KING'S MEN is.
Of course, Robert Rossen's picture has a drab look. It should. It suggests the drab appearance of most U.S. states (anyone who has visited Kansas will know why Dorothy and L. Frank Baum wanted to go over the rainbow) and the use of common townsfolk rather than Hollywood extras adds to this look, as do the drab locations (check out something like the Marlon Brando movie THE CHASE, a movie that should have a drab look, but instead looks like a glossy Hollywood backlot). Thank God Columbia, a studio that loved locations because it had no back lot, financed this movie!
I wouldn't call this film realistic, but I've read the pulitzer prize winning novel, and I wouldn't call it realistic either. Every page brims with beautifully poetic language which the movie often incorporates and which Rossen makes sound more like natural conversation than it really is. Compared to the book, the film, I think, reveals its real weaknesses: it does simplify moral issues and also reduces some of the characters to the level of melodrama (Willie Stark, in the novel, resembles more someone like Andy Griffith's character in A FACE IN THE CROWD: a charming good ole boy you want to love, but who will knife you in the back the next minute). Broderick Crawford, with his Bronx accent, hardly suggests either a hayseed or, as he calls himself "a hick," but he has a bullying power that I think is brilliant for the role. Personally, I'm glad neither Spencer Tracy nor John Wayne (both of whom Rossen wanted) got the part.
And I think this movie holds up very well, even in our post-Watergate era of cynical politics: like the novel, it shows how the populist leader can easily be a tyrant. This message is not in CITIZEN KANE: the lofty Kane was never one of the people; he just wanted to be one of the people. Considering how much Hollywood in the era of Harry Truman embraced the populist sentiment with the films of John Ford and Frank Capra, considering that dictators like a Hitler and a Stalin like to present themselves as one of the people and enjoyed popular support, considering how much Americans love politicians who are charming rather than substantial, I'd say Rossen's film hasn't dated at all.
Of course, Robert Rossen's picture has a drab look. It should. It suggests the drab appearance of most U.S. states (anyone who has visited Kansas will know why Dorothy and L. Frank Baum wanted to go over the rainbow) and the use of common townsfolk rather than Hollywood extras adds to this look, as do the drab locations (check out something like the Marlon Brando movie THE CHASE, a movie that should have a drab look, but instead looks like a glossy Hollywood backlot). Thank God Columbia, a studio that loved locations because it had no back lot, financed this movie!
I wouldn't call this film realistic, but I've read the pulitzer prize winning novel, and I wouldn't call it realistic either. Every page brims with beautifully poetic language which the movie often incorporates and which Rossen makes sound more like natural conversation than it really is. Compared to the book, the film, I think, reveals its real weaknesses: it does simplify moral issues and also reduces some of the characters to the level of melodrama (Willie Stark, in the novel, resembles more someone like Andy Griffith's character in A FACE IN THE CROWD: a charming good ole boy you want to love, but who will knife you in the back the next minute). Broderick Crawford, with his Bronx accent, hardly suggests either a hayseed or, as he calls himself "a hick," but he has a bullying power that I think is brilliant for the role. Personally, I'm glad neither Spencer Tracy nor John Wayne (both of whom Rossen wanted) got the part.
And I think this movie holds up very well, even in our post-Watergate era of cynical politics: like the novel, it shows how the populist leader can easily be a tyrant. This message is not in CITIZEN KANE: the lofty Kane was never one of the people; he just wanted to be one of the people. Considering how much Hollywood in the era of Harry Truman embraced the populist sentiment with the films of John Ford and Frank Capra, considering that dictators like a Hitler and a Stalin like to present themselves as one of the people and enjoyed popular support, considering how much Americans love politicians who are charming rather than substantial, I'd say Rossen's film hasn't dated at all.
- patrick.hunter
- 17 août 2000
- Lien permanent
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
- How long is All the King's Men?Propulsé par Alexa
Détails
Box-office
- Budget
- 2 000 000 $ US (estimation)
- Durée1 heure 50 minutes
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 1.37 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was All the King's Men (1949) officially released in India in English?
Répondre