Sean Penn will always be a fascinating great actor, but a thought hit me this morning as I watched this All The King's Men trailer (which I first saw in a theatre two or three weeks ago): Penn's Willie Stark, a ruthless, power-hungry politician, is not charismatic, much less attractive, and if I were a rural Southerner in the 1950s (or whenever) I don't know that I'd want to vote for the guy. So right away there's trouble because King's Men is about a guy who had an exceptional rapport with voters before anything else.

I could feel something vital coming out of Broderick Crawford 's Willie Stark in the 1949 version -- he wasn't handsome or smooth, but you could feel he'd been through tough times (a look of pushed-down hurt would pop through every so often), and you couldn't help but admire his gutsiness and the fact that he wouldn't be pushed around. I don't think Penn makes this character work half as well as Crawford did. The way he bellows his words and phrases when addressing voters with his voice sounding so ragged he almost squeals at times, Penn's not being very tall, the rage contorting his face and making his eyes seem beadier than usual, the street-fighter body language, the constant shine of sweat, the Southern accent that I don't believe despite its (probably) accurate sound -- none of it plays. He's not in any way sexy (not in terms of inner conviction or eloquence, certainly), and even in a Southern period film that's how most of us want our politicians to be on some level. I don't see how this won't be a factor in how paying audiences respond to Steven Zallian 's film when it opens in the early fall. The more I think about it, the more I'm persuaded that Zallian and producer Mike Medavoy erred in going with Penn, and for the very best reasons.

<< previous | next >>

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on June 8, 2006 at 7:45 AM

comment #1

Me says ...

When I first heard the casting, I figured they had gotten the news wrong, as I figured James Gandolfini would be a better Stark (an everyman who uses his anger to connect with the voters) and Penn would be a better Jack (a washed up former reporter-turned political operative, with some serious personal moral questions - which I never really pictured Jude Law playing very well). Also, while I haven't seen the first movie, the book was more about Jack than it was about Stark.

So, while I was already somewhat down on the filmmakers for changing the emphasis of the movie too much, hearing that Penn sounds like he squeals trying to be Stark doesn't help matters.

Posted by Me at June 8, 2006 8:53 AM

comment #2

John C. says ...

From the little that we see here, I'm afraid I'm not quite buying Sean Penn in the role either. And since I first heard about it, I've felt they totally mixed up the casting of Jude Law and Mark Ruffalo. Ruffalo would be so much more interesting to watch as Stark's ground-down-but-evolving hatchet man, Jack Burden; and Law is simply better suited, physically and technically, to complete the pair of "golden" Stanton siblings, the good Dr. Adam. Kudos for casting Jackie Earle Haley as Sugar Boy, though!

Posted by John C. at June 8, 2006 9:52 AM

comment #3

Nicol D says ...

I seem to recall that when this film was being cast 2 odd years ago Mel Gibson wanted the part but Amy Pascal (voice of progressive tolerance and diversity that she is) would not even let him read due to his religious beliefs.

Now I have no idea if this is true, but I tend to believe it.

This film was supposed to be out for the awards season last year but keeps on being postponed.

Whoever thought Penn could do folksy, rural little guy must be insane.

Penn is a great actor but does have his limitations. For pent up hate, anger and rage...he da man.

For conecting with small town and rural types...how can you play a character who connects with the very people you hate and loathe in real life?

Posted by Nicol D at June 8, 2006 10:35 AM

comment #4

Patrick says ...

Sean Penn has always been my major problem with
this film. They needed someone with some "SIZE"
to them. Like Ray Winstone or Brendan Glesson.
Pot marked, lived through some tough times face!
Only English, Irish, or Aussie actors can pull
that off these days. But the filmmakers went after
a name instead of casting the role with the most
appopriate actor. What a shame!

Posted by Patrick at June 8, 2006 11:06 AM

comment #5

Me says ...

John, you are so right. I forgot about the Ruffalo/Law thing. How they cast Ruffalo as the brother to Kate Winslet, and Jude Law as her less golden-boy love interest is beyond me.

Patrick, I think you've hit the nail on the head. They cast names for all of these roles without any thought to who fits which role best.

That said, I do enjoy it when an actor or actress successfully plays against type - but there's just too many cases in this lot to hope that it's going to work.

Posted by Me at June 8, 2006 11:50 AM

comment #6

jesse says ...

You're right, Nicol -- it does sound 100% believeable that Amy Pascal would refuse to even consider one of the biggest movie stars working today because he's a vocal Catholic. Those Hollywood types are always putting personal beliefs above money.

Posted by jesse at June 8, 2006 1:21 PM

comment #7

Daniel says ...

"For conecting with small town and rural types...how can you play a character who connects with the very people you hate and loathe in real life?"

My first answer to this, Nicol, is to recommend "At Close Range," an excellent small town/rural portrait in which Penn was quite good.

Then I'd suggest you watch "Indian Runner," "The Crossing Guard" and "The Pledge," the three features Penn has directed. If memory serves, all three use small town settings and all three are nuanced and textured films. I don't care much for "The Indian Runner," personally, but the other two are underappreciated gems.

Posted by Daniel at June 8, 2006 1:42 PM

comment #8

Andrew says ...

I get it. Now being anti-Bush means you hate small town people. Because you know, the Bush administration is all about helping the working man and not rich cityfolk like... well, like Sean Penn.

Unbelievable. Go play in traffic.

Posted by Andrew at June 8, 2006 3:36 PM

comment #9

Mel says ...

Oh poor Mel Gibson. Boo Hoo! He's such a picked on rich white man! Oh the humanity! Who said Gibson has charisma and can do a James Carville accent? When has he done accents? Other then Aussie, non-regional American and 'Is that English'? Gibson like Costner once were young but now are middle-aged and still can't act.

Too bad David Milch didn't do the casting for this film. Sean Penn is a great actor but...Ruffalo is very good but probably underused as usual. I agree that it's looks like Law and Ruffalo should've swapped roles. Gandolfini?. Even the late great Canadian John Candy almost nailed a Louisiana voice in Stone's 'JFK'.

Posted by Mel at June 8, 2006 7:44 PM

comment #10

Mark Grasinski says ...

Andrew...coudn't have said it better myself.

Posted by Mark Grasinski at June 9, 2006 12:23 AM

comment #11

Mark Grasinski says ...

Oh...almost forgot....why don't all of you, including Jeff, at least see the damn movie before you make any definitive statements about what works and what does not. Are we at a place now where we don't have to bother seeing the whole thing to pass judgement? The two minute trailer is enough?

Posted by Mark Grasinski at June 9, 2006 12:26 AM

comment #12

Rich says ...

Mark,

Welcome to the era of what I call "pre-digestion." I may be mistaken, but I think AICN really started it (though, to be fair, it probably goes back to Hedda Hopper and the like). There is so much information about a movie available long before it ever premieres, and so many websites where people like to talk about this stuff, that it is natural that a lot of decisions about whether the movie is any good get made before anyone sees a single frame.

It's not unusual. Sports websites will tell you all about who will win a certain game or championship, never mind that the game hasn't been played yet.

Pre-digestion used to concern me because I think it did have a negative effect on films that deserved better. But then, despite the strongest efforts of sites like AICN, movies like X-Men 3 and The Fantastic Four were hits anyway. So I think moviegoers, to the extent they even read this stuff, have become savvy enough to have a chuckle and ignore it.

Posted by Rich at June 9, 2006 5:10 AM

comment #13

Mike Gebert says ...

There's no reason a little guy can't be full of fire on the stump-- Harry Truman was pretty slight and very average height, for instance-- and at this late date someone playing Willie Stark doesn't particularly have to resemble Huey Long, since few today have seen footage of him. (Is Ken Burns' doc on Long on video? I saw it 20 years ago and it was excellent, and not done in what has since become the snoozy Ken Burns style.)

BUT... my problem with Penn, besides what I posted a few weeks ago that you always feel like you're in for a heavy, joyless meal with him, is that he's an introspective, neurotic method type. Doesn't matter how great you are if you don't seem to have politics in your blood; Robert DeNiro couldn't play a convicing candidate either. Where John Travolta, for all that he failed to convince that he had an IQ as high as Bill Clinton's, at least looked credible lighting up a 1000-watt smile for a crowd and drinking in the adulation and energy. (Actually, hands down the best portrayal of a politician in a recent movie, even though the movie is bizarrely bad, is Jeff Bridges in The Contender. Though Paul Newman as Huey's brother Earl in Blaze is good, too.)

I'm not sure who should have played Stark in this movie-- though I agree that James Gandolfini was staring them in the face and the fact that they were too timid to take the chance on him (or too dumb to even notice him right in front of them) doesn't bode well for the movie. Maybe it'll be great, contrary to what posters above say judging a movie by the trailer is not the same as judging it outright, but boy, to me this looks like one of those way-too-plush, way-too-stately Depression-era yarns like Seabiscuit or The Road to Perdition. How did a decade whose own movies are so lively become a decade that movies about are so dull?

Posted by Mike Gebert at June 9, 2006 6:24 AM

comment #14

Dave Poland's Gut says ...

Why not have Jude Law play the charismatic politician part??? Seems tailor made for him. Penn peaked as Spicoli.

Posted by Dave Poland's Gut at June 9, 2006 11:26 AM

comment #15

Sandy says ...

Thanks Mike for finally getting around to the idea that we are talking about serious actors here
and judging over two hours of work by two minutes
chopped into little bits. They are actors and when
they are good they should be able to rise to the
character not bend it to their personality a la
movie stars. The caliber of actors here gave me the assurance that they could do so. After I have
seen the movie I'll know if Gandolfini might have
been better than Penn (you have apoint there)
and I agree that given the choice maybe Jude law
would even have been able to pull out a wonderful
Willy Stark. He has the ability no doubt, but did
he want to? To swap with Mark ruffalo is ridiculous because the brother and sister weren't
twins and I don't think ruffalo has the chops or
the charisma for Jack. Jude's looks are a given
it's what he does with his voice and body etc.that
make him so outstanding. It would have been more
than Ruffalo could have tackled. Jack is the real
lead in this movie. He is in it from beginnning to
end and it's his story. I have no trouble with any
one else. Anthony Hopkins looks perfect to me and
the one I worry about the most is Zalian. What I
am picking up from the recent remarks of those who
have seen the screenings is that the flow of the
story gets bogged down somewhere and the beginning and ending are confusing. I don't see why this should be since I didn't find those parts
of the novel confusing at all. But it is a big
sprawling book with enough for several novels in it and as such probably hard to tame. I guess they
need a good film surgeon right now and then I will
wait to judge when I see it.