Member Review The Legacy of the Civil War by Robert Penn Warren-book that coined the term "Treasury of Virtue"

Hey folks, I just found that the original 1949 All The Kings Men will be on TCM (Turner Classic Movies) channel this Thursday Jan. 25 @ 12:30 A.M. ET. Be sure to set it to record it if you have not seen it yet. I'm going to record, and I've seen it at least a dozen times before!

I will try to post a reminder later in the week...
 
Last edited:
Hey folks, I just found that the original 1949 All The Kings Men will be on TCM (Turner Classic Movies) channel this Thursday Jan. 25 @ 12:30 A.M. ET. Be sure to set it to record it you have not seen it yet. I'm going to record, and I've seen it at least a dozen times before!

I will try to post a reminder later in the week...
Thanks.
 
all_the_kings_men-5.jpg
 
This is from the review of All the Kings Men that appeared in the N.Y. Times in 1949:
Spoiler Alert: Do not read any farther at the link if you have not seen this film before. :smile:

MOVIE REVIEW
' All the King's Men,' Columbia Film Based on the Novel by Warren, at Victoria
By BOSLEY CROWTHER
Published: November 9, 1949

Out of Robert Penn Warren's prize novel, "All the King's Men," which was obviously based on the familiar rise and fall of the late Huey Long, Robert Rossen has written and directed, as well as personally produced, a rip-roaring film of the same title. It opened at the Victoria yesterday.

We have carefully used that descriptive as the tag for this new Columbia film because a quality of turbulence and vitality is the one that it most fully demonstrates. In telling a complicated story of a self-made and self-styled "red-necked hick" who batters his way to political kingdom in an unspecified southern state, the picture bounces from raw-boned melodrama into dark psychological depths and thrashes around in those regions until it claws back to violences again. Consistency of dramatic structure—or of character revelation—is not in it. But it has a superb pictorialism which perpetually crackles and explodes.

And because of this rich pictorialism, which embraces a wide and fluid scene, it gathers a frightening comprehension of the potential of demagoguery in this land. From ugly illustrations of back-room spittoon politics to wild illuminations of howling political mobs, it catches the dim but dreadful aspect of ignorance and greed when played upon by theatrics, eloquence and bluff. It visions the vulgar spellbinders and political hypocrites for what they are and it looks on extreme provincialism with a candid and pessimistic eye.

http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9405EFDB1E3BE23BBC4153DFB7678382659EDE
 
This is from the review of All the Kings Men that appeared in the N.Y. Times in 1949:
Spoiler Alert: Do not read any farther at the link if you have not seen this film before. :smile:

MOVIE REVIEW
' All the King's Men,' Columbia Film Based on the Novel by Warren, at Victoria
By BOSLEY CROWTHER
Published: November 9, 1949

Out of Robert Penn Warren's prize novel, "All the King's Men," which was obviously based on the familiar rise and fall of the late Huey Long, Robert Rossen has written and directed, as well as personally produced, a rip-roaring film of the same title. It opened at the Victoria yesterday.

We have carefully used that descriptive as the tag for this new Columbia film because a quality of turbulence and vitality is the one that it most fully demonstrates. In telling a complicated story of a self-made and self-styled "red-necked hick" who batters his way to political kingdom in an unspecified southern state, the picture bounces from raw-boned melodrama into dark psychological depths and thrashes around in those regions until it claws back to violences again. Consistency of dramatic structure—or of character revelation—is not in it. But it has a superb pictorialism which perpetually crackles and explodes.

And because of this rich pictorialism, which embraces a wide and fluid scene, it gathers a frightening comprehension of the potential of demagoguery in this land. From ugly illustrations of back-room spittoon politics to wild illuminations of howling political mobs, it catches the dim but dreadful aspect of ignorance and greed when played upon by theatrics, eloquence and bluff. It visions the vulgar spellbinders and political hypocrites for what they are and it looks on extreme provincialism with a candid and pessimistic eye.

http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9405EFDB1E3BE23BBC4153DFB7678382659EDE
Just finished the book.
 
Reminder : All the Kings Men will be on TCM tonight (Wed.) at 12:30 A.M. ET. Enjoy!


So far I haven't been able to stay awake to watch the whole movie but I am wondering if anyone else had watched it yet. And if so what did you think about it?

One thing that I did learn before I nodded off and that surprised the heck outta me, in the introduction and description of the movie, was that John Wayne was offered the part of Willie Stark and turned it down flat. He was so upset that he sent a note describing how he felt about the movie to his agent advising him, in essence, to warn off others against having anything to do with the movie.

Producer-director Robert Rossen offered the role of Willie Stark to John Wayne. Rossen sent a copy of the script to Wayne's agent, Charles K. Feldman, who forwarded it to Wayne. After reading the script, Wayne sent it back with an angry letter attached. In it, he told Feldman that before he sent the script to any of his other clients, he should ask them if they wanted to star in a film that "smears the machinery of government for no purpose of humor or enlightenment," that "degrades all relationships," and that is populated by "drunken mothers; conniving fathers; double-crossing sweethearts; bad, bad, rich people; and bad, bad poor people if they want to get ahead."

He accused Rossen of wanting to make a movie that threw acid on "the American way of life." If Feldman had such clients, Wayne wrote that the agent should "rush this script... to them." Wayne, however, said to the agent that "You can take this script and shove it up Robert Rossen's derrière . . . " Wayne later remarked that "To make Huey Long a wonderful, rough pirate was great . . . but, according to this picture, everybody was sh!t--except for this weakling intern doctor who was trying to find a place in the world."
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041113/trivia
I don't know, I just can't seem to picture The Duke...

All+The+King%2527s+Men%252C+1949..jpg

 
So far I haven't been able to stay awake to watch the whole movie but I am wondering if anyone else had watched it yet. And if so what did you think about it?

One thing that I did learn before I nodded off and that surprised the heck outta me, in the introduction and description of the movie, was that John Wayne was offered the part of Willie Stark and turned it down flat. He was so upset that he sent a note describing how he felt about the movie to his agent advising him, in essence, to warn off others against having anything to do with the movie.

Producer-director Robert Rossen offered the role of Willie Stark to John Wayne. Rossen sent a copy of the script to Wayne's agent, Charles K. Feldman, who forwarded it to Wayne. After reading the script, Wayne sent it back with an angry letter attached. In it, he told Feldman that before he sent the script to any of his other clients, he should ask them if they wanted to star in a film that "smears the machinery of government for no purpose of humor or enlightenment," that "degrades all relationships," and that is populated by "drunken mothers; conniving fathers; double-crossing sweethearts; bad, bad, rich people; and bad, bad poor people if they want to get ahead."

He accused Rossen of wanting to make a movie that threw acid on "the American way of life." If Feldman had such clients, Wayne wrote that the agent should "rush this script... to them." Wayne, however, said to the agent that "You can take this script and shove it up Robert Rossen's derrière . . . " Wayne later remarked that "To make Huey Long a wonderful, rough pirate was great . . . but, according to this picture, everybody was sh!t--except for this weakling intern doctor who was trying to find a place in the world."
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041113/trivia
I don't know, I just can't seem to picture The Duke...

All+The+King%2527s+Men%252C+1949..jpg


And so John Wayne made The Sands of Iwo Jima instead, for which he was nominated for an Oscar. Broderick Crawford won that year for All The Kings Men.
 
Pat you just reminded of a c-span video on All the Kings Men, the book that is. I have another one laying around here somewhere. :O o:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?167453-1/robert-penn-warrens-all-kings-men

Robert Penn Warren's All the King's Men The panelists, themselves Louisiana natives, discussed Robert Penn Warren’s Pulitzer Prize-winning book, All the King’s Men. The 1947 novel is the fictional story of politician Willie Talos, loosely based on real-life Louisiana politician Huey Long. The book had recently been republished by Harcourt featuring a new introduction by scholar Noel Polk. During the discussion, the panelists answered questions from members of the audience. close

People in this video
More People
Hosting Organization
 
Last edited:
Pat you just reminded of a c-span video on All the Kings Men, the book that is. I have another one laying around here somewhere. :O o:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?167453-1/robert-penn-warrens-all-kings-men

Robert Penn Warren's All the King's Men The panelists, themselves Louisiana natives, discussed Robert Penn Warren’s Pulitzer Prize-winning book, All the King’s Men. The 1947 novel is the fictional story of politician Willie Talos, loosely based on real-life Louisiana politician Huey Long. The book had recently been republished by Harcourt featuring a new introduction by scholar Noel Polk. During the discussion, the panelists answered questions from members of the audience. close

People in this video
More People
Hosting Organization
I will try to watch it. Thanks.
 
My guess is that Mr. Warren is commenting on the American Heritage, Bruce Catton view of the Civil War in which each side was right and a romantic gloss is applied to the misery of the experience.
In 1961, in the aftermath of World War II, the feel good story of the Civil War is not surprising.
However, what Warren is pointing towards is the trap of the story and its likely consequence which would be an undeserved glorification of war.
That feel good story creates the potential for the Vietnam and the division of society along lines of age and race.
The Great Alibi is a comment on the fact that no one ever held the Confederate leadership responsible for the results of the war. The leadership was reduced to being just the noble figure of Robert E. Lee. Decisions to continue fighting after September 2, 1864 are never criticized, never really discussed, under the Great Alibi.
The Treasury of Virtue phrase has equal teeth. The United States did not embrace black equality or even the survival of the Indians. Grant had to fight a continual losing battle to maintain that blacks were then citizens, and Indians were at least people.
Nor did the United States step up to its role as world power.
In the wake of the Civil War ideas about Anglo/American leadership, world federation and the end of war were being discussed.
But it took the 20th century, genocide and nuclear weapons to make people take the challenge seriously.
Therefore, I think Robert Penn Warren's analysis and comments have great value.
 
My guess is that Mr. Warren is commenting on the American Heritage, Bruce Catton view of the Civil War in which each side was right and a romantic gloss is applied to the misery of the experience.
In 1961, in the aftermath of World War II, the feel good story of the Civil War is not surprising.
However, what Warren is pointing towards is the trap of the story and its likely consequence which would be an undeserved glorification of war.
That feel good story creates the potential for the Vietnam and the division of society along lines of age and race.
The Great Alibi is a comment on the fact that no one ever held the Confederate leadership responsible for the results of the war. The leadership was reduced to being just the noble figure of Robert E. Lee. Decisions to continue fighting after September 2, 1864 are never criticized, never really discussed, under the Great Alibi.
The Treasury of Virtue phrase has equal teeth. The United States did not embrace black equality or even the survival of the Indians. Grant had to fight a continual losing battle to maintain that blacks were then citizens, and Indians were at least people.
Nor did the United States step up to its role as world power.
In the wake of the Civil War ideas about Anglo/American leadership, world federation and the end of war were being discussed.
But it took the 20th century, genocide and nuclear weapons to make people take the challenge seriously.
Therefore, I think Robert Penn Warren's analysis and comments have great value.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
 
Back
Top