FILM
CH~oNICLE
81
morally, psychologically sick. But this the movie fails or refuses
to
un–
derstand; it takes Burden largely at his own valuation, as if he were
faced with a problem of choice that is relevant to an adult intelligence.
Now the truth is that the film's simplistic view of Burden's rela–
tionship to Stark is not without
some
warrant in the novel. Burden's
story is written in the first person singular, and the low ceiling of his
mind too often limits the book's perceptions. That Burden may not have
been wholly mistaken in his support of Stark is a conclusion at least pos–
sible when one reads the unfortunate line Warren gives to Stark after
Stark's assassination:
"If
it hadn't happened, it might-have been dif–
ferent-even yet." But though this sort of sentimentality may slip through
the net of Warren's intentions, there are clearly other things in his novel
which suggest a more perceptive view of Burden's attachment to Stark;
a hint that that attachment may
be
due to Burden's need for a new
social-parental authority and to a history of sex-fright; a portrayal of
Stark which, even if not quite clear, is not split into black-and-white ex–
tremes in the manner of the film; and, most important of all, Warren's
own prose which often enforces irony and complication of meaning.
Now the producers of the film had a choice of how to read the
book, and adhering to the iron law that Hollywood will always
sink
to
the bottom, they read it as Warren's most harsh critics had insisted it
had to be read.
If
the book were actually as intellectually vulgar as they
seemed to think, they were guilty of adhering too faithfully to it. But
in fact, of course, they quite missed its complexities and ambiguities of
meaning.
.
When Burden, or Burden
vis-a-vis
Stark, is not the center of action,
the film sometimes improves on the novel; it discards the tattered flash–
back device, allowing the story to flow out in a direct dramatic line, and
it dispenses with Burden's banal philosophizing. Though its attempts
to
focus on intimate human relationships are merely trivial, the film be–
comes highly charged when the camera is permitted to watch Stark's
rise to power. Here the novel's energy and mobility are realized in strik–
ing visual terms. Steadily and without tricky jugglings of perspective,
the camera charges in
to
watch Willie as he orates,
his
listeners as they
acknowledge his charisma, a procession of hill-billies come to help their
friend Willie beat down the "politicians." There is one clever shot which
freshens an old device: Willie's followers wait near the Capitol, they
are shown in their internal fluidity and separateness, and then the camera
suddenly stops dead before a loudspeaker which, in its impersonal arro–
gance, conveys Willie's dominance to his listeners, suddenly passive and
homogeneous.
