"Kings" & N.Y. Times

email this story
read comments (17)
post a comment

N.Y. Times staffer David Halbfinger profiles All The Kings' Men director-writer Steve Zallian, apparently without his having seen the finished film. He writes that ATKM "is already being talked about as an Oscar contender," but he qualifies this by mentioning that Robert Rossen's original 1949 version, starring Broderick Crawford, won the Best Picture Oscar "and no remake has ever matched that feat, Academy researchers say."

Steve Zallian, Sean Penn

This seems to me like a typical N.Y. Times evasion. Halbfinger has surely dug around and been told what many, many people are saying about this film, which is that it's problematic on various levels (sluggish, creaky, talky) and will almost certainly encounter limited enthusiasm from the public, but he chooses instead to mention a statistic that implies that Oscar glory may be elusive.

There were expectations that Zaillian's film would open at the end of '05, but "when test screenings revealed that audiences were confused about the basic relationships among the main characters, Columbia Pictures agreed to delay the opening, and Mr. Zaillian went back to work." Eight months later Zallian "has emerged from almost a year of near-solitary confinement in an editing room to pronounce All the King's Men a finished product. His producers are hoping it will prove his masterpiece."

All the King's Men stars Sean Penn, Kate Winslet, James Gandolfini, Patricia Clarkson, Mark Ruffalo and Anthony Hopkins. It'll open nationwide on 9.22 following some special screenings in New Orleans.

I tried to see it at 5:30 pm yesterday afternoon at the Varsity, but I lost heart when an announcement was made that there were almost no seats available (I was standing near the end of a long line) so I went to three parties in succession and came back for the 10:30 pm screening. Unfortunately, the champagne at the parties on top of the usual late-night fatigue factor messed with my concentration.

I definitely saw portions of ATKM -- somewhere between half and three-fifths, I'd say. I know that the parts I was awake for (and I was very alert and attuned during my waking moments) felt enervated and boring. I know that the photography has a kind of drained sepia quality, and that a lot of the scenes are shrouded in dark- ness and flavored with lots and lots of southern-fried, neo-Faulknerian dialogue.

Clarkson has at least one great line: "The world is full of sluts on skates."

I'll have to take another shot at seeing ATKM when I get back Los Angeles, I guess. Or on DVD four or five months from now.

"Rescue" distribution<< previous | next >>"Dreamgirls", Ulmer, N.Y. Times

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on September 10, 2006 at 5:57 AM

comment #1

p.Vice says ...

If getting drunk doesn't make a movie easier to sit through, you know there's something wrong.

This is dead as far as Oscars are concerned. Why does nobody realize that Zaillian is never going to cut it as a director? Bobby Fischer was good, but he keeps trying to take on material that's way above his head. King's men might have worked as a 3 1/2 hour epic or an HBO miniseries, but there's no way a 2-hour feature can get the material right... as the overrated, dull 1949 version proves. We don't need anyone to make that point again.

Posted by p.Vice at September 10, 2006 8:06 AM

comment #2

KAM2112 says ...

you make yourself sound like a moron jeff. Why post anything if you didn't watch the movie?? not intrested in reading your drunken opinon of what may or may not be a good film.

Posted by KAM2112 at September 10, 2006 8:08 AM

comment #3

jeffreywells says ...

Wells to KAM2112: I was alert and sharp and totally taking it n during the portions that I saw when I was awake -- I just didn;t make it through the whole thing. Try putting in 17 to 18 hour days like I'm doing with all the running around and see how awake and alert you are around the 16th or 17th hour. I wasn't bombed, but bubbly will definitely make you sleepy. My mistake was not carrying my usual cans of Red Bull with me.

Posted by jeffreywells at September 10, 2006 8:21 AM

comment #4

Hykinzer says ...

The falling asleep I understand. It's the Neo-Faulknerian dialogue that perplexes me. I've read All the King's Men. If Warren's dialogue resembles anyone's, it would be Raymond Chandler's, like that "Sluts with skates" line. Faulkner wasn't too big on dialogue, and what he wrote certainly wouldn't feel comfortable on Humphrey Bogart's tounge like Warren's does.

Posted by Hykinzer at September 10, 2006 9:33 AM

comment #5

le corbeau says ...

Hykinzer, you surely know that Faulkner did write dialogue for Humphrey Bogart-- for an adaptation of Chandler no less? (The Big Sleep.)

Faulkner understood that he couldn't write Faulkner for the movies.

Posted by le corbeau at September 10, 2006 10:41 AM

comment #6

le corbeau says ...

By the way, that yellow nostalgia-light thing (I call it Seabiscuit lighting) is just about a stay-away sign for me-- it always promises a movie about the past that's going to be slow, elegiac, underline everything eighteen times, beat me over the head with history. Haven't these people ever seen a movie that was actually made in the 30s or 40s? They were fast paced, cynical, modern, shiny, FUN.

Posted by le corbeau at September 10, 2006 10:45 AM

comment #7

JChasse says ...

"Ben Hur" was remade in 1959 and won the Academy Award for Best Picture. Times Arts & Leisure reporters make more errors than any group of "serious mainstream" journalists that come to mind- it seems like there's always 4-5 corrections in the Sundasy paper concerning articles published previously.

Posted by JChasse at September 10, 2006 10:58 AM

comment #8

JChasse says ...

Posted by JChasse at September 10, 2006 11:00 AM

comment #9

Cadavra says ...

Yes, but the original version predated the Oscars. I think the point he was making that it would be the first time the remake of a Best Picture winner would itslf win for Best Picture.

Posted by Cadavra at September 10, 2006 11:10 AM

comment #10

Nicol D says ...

A friend of mine once said he sat behind Roger Ebert at a TIFF screening...he said Rog slept through the whole thing and even occasionally snored.

And y'know what...that's life. We've all nodded out through films but I have to say, the visualization of it is quite funny.

Thanks for the candor. How many champagnes was that again?

Posted by Nicol D at September 10, 2006 11:38 AM

comment #11

MPNeeb says ...

>>and no remake has ever matched that feat, Academy researchers say.

In addition to 'Ben-Hur,' Lord of the Rings technically qualifies as a remake.

Posted by MPNeeb at September 10, 2006 2:14 PM

comment #12

le corbeau says ...

Actually, there's a fair number of remakes, especially lately. (Just never a remake of a previous Best Picture winner which also won.) Depending on your definition, they could include all of the following:

Mutiny on the Bounty-- historical events filmed before as In the Wake of the Bounty, Errol Flynn's first film.

Hamlet-- filmed before multiple times, mainly in the silent era.

Marty-- had been a TV drama before being made into a film.

Gigi, West Side Story, My Fair Lady, Oliver! and Chicago-- all musicals based on material which had previously been filmed non-musically.

Ben-Hur, as noted.

Gladiator-- not officially based on 1964 film The Fall of the Roman Empire, but close enough to it that Dreamworks bought the remake rights rather than risk legal trouble.

Return of the King, as noted.

Posted by le corbeau at September 10, 2006 3:20 PM

comment #13

nemo says ...

"Times Arts & Leisure reporters make more errors than any group of "serious mainstream" journalists that come to mind- it seems like there's always 4-5 corrections in the Sunday paper concerning articles published previously."

Check out the Sunday interview with Sophia Coppola. The Times interviewer meets Coppola in Paris in a famous old Sartre hangout on the Left Bank. In honor of the occasion the Times interviewer magically transports the cafe across the Seine to the Right Bank. Parisians and expatriates alike are agape with wonder.

Posted by nemo at September 10, 2006 7:14 PM

comment #14

Nate West says ...

"I was very alert and attuned! The photography has...quality! Scenes are shrouded in darkness and flavored! Great!" -- Jeffrey Wells

Posted by Nate West at September 11, 2006 2:31 AM

comment #15

Dixon Steele says ...

Variety's Todd McCarthy just slammed the shit out of it (Monday issue). Ouch.

Posted by Dixon Steele at September 11, 2006 12:32 PM

comment #16

bmcintire says ...

Mgmax (and Jeff) - one or both of you have made the same comment about sepia-toned ("Seabicuit-lighting") films set in the 30's and 40's being a turn-off. Films from that period were fast-paced, cynical, shiny, modern and FUN. And in response to that interpretation, look at the drubbing CHICAGO got from Jeffrey. Of course, had it not won or been nominated for best picture, he'd probably hate it much less.

Posted by bmcintire at September 11, 2006 1:59 PM

comment #17