A King in New York

... while he himself was basically exiled in a strange land. 1957's "A King in New York" shows Chaplin at the end of his film career. In fact, it is the last film in which Chaplin himself stars. Refused permission to reenter the U.S. in 1952 due to the idea that he held anti-American beliefs, he actually made this film about a deposed European king in New York in England. The film suffers from production values that are not as high as they were in Chaplin's earlier films, and if you have the version Warner Brothers put out in 2004, the commentary points out that Chaplin had much trouble making this film mainly because he was not dealing with familiar personnel in his own studio as he had in his earlier efforts. The film's political statements are heavy-handed, but there are still some good comic turns by Chaplin and his viewpoints and comic bits on America and rampant commercialism and consumerism still hold up today. In fact, they are probably much more relevant today than they were when this movie was first made.

If you are curious about Chaplin's work you need to eventually view this film, just don't start your journey here. If you are just starting out, I recommend you view Chaplin's Mutual Comedies. These are 12 two-reel comedies Chaplin made in 1916 and 1917 and show his comic technique evolve from the pants-kicking fests of his Essanay and Keystone films into the sophisticated technique he had from the end of the series onward. Also, the Mutual period was named by Chaplin himself as the era in both his personal and professional life in which he was the happiest.

Am a big fan of Charlie Chaplin, have been for over a decade now. Many films and shorts of his are very good to masterpiece, and like many others consider him a comedy genius and one of film's most important and influential directors.

It is hard to not expect a lot with all his feature films between 'The Kid' and 'Limelight' being very good to masterpieces. On that front Chaplin's penultimate film 'A King in New York' disappoints a little. As far as his feature films go it is one of his weaker ones, being nowhere near the standard of 'The Gold Rush', 'The Kid', 'Modern Times', 'The Great Dictator' and especially 'City Lights'. As far as his overall career goes it is nowhere near among his worst, including his early career short films it is much better than the worst of his Keystone period and even his much improved Essanay period had a couple of lacklustre ones. He also did a couple of historical curios and patchworks that this is also superior to.

'A King in New York' has its problems. It is one of his least visually refined feature films. Some of the camera work and editing are rough and the evoking of New York is not very convincing at all, it was made in England rather than being authentic and it is very obvious it was not shot in New York.

Chaplin also lays it on far too thick with the political elements which, while admirably cutting and personal, felt very heavy-handed and not always needed. Especially what is said from the young boy. Chaplin is no stranger to including politics in his films and short films and they are not subtle, but it comes over as very bitter and aggressive here in a way that wasn't there previously. A few parts go on too long too and could have been trimmed

However, the music is good, neither intrusive or out of place. Chaplin does give a typically great performance and the supporting cast acquit themselves well too. Chaplin is not at his most inspired in the directing but the expertise is still there and handled well.

The film is never dull either, while the satirical element is sharp, the comedy is genuinely funny, there is some very thought-provoking insight and there is some sentiment/pathos that is very touching while not being over-the-top or overused.

Summing up, good but didn't blow me away. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Now, I've yet to see A COUNTESS FROM HONG KONG, but out of Chaplin's full-length talkies, I didn't find A KING IN NEW YORK terrible by any stretch. In fact-- and I might lose cinephile points for admitting it-- I'd take this over the more prestigious LIMELIGHT any day! It's less self-indulgent and self-loving, and the satire of American media culture still mostly works.

Why does this get so much hate? Maybe it's the film's roughness. It's clearly set-bound and those sets do look cheap most of the time. But money can't buy inspiration, and I think this movie has more than enough inspiration to make up for its lesser production values. Many of the vignettes are delightful and the bittersweet edges (the subplot with Shadov's estranged queen, the character arc of the philosophical young boy) lend this film a great deal of memorability.

Charles Chaplin had a love-hate relationship with the United States of America. On the one hand, it was in Hollywood that the British-born comedian and filmmaker built a successful life and career, immortalising himself as one of the most beloved directors and stars in the history of cinema. On the other hand, Chaplin's political attitudes during the 1940s – that America should form an alliance with the Soviet Union in order to fight Adolf Hitler's fascist regime – led to his being labelled a Communist or Communist sympathiser. In 1952, Chaplin returned to his home-town of London for the premiere of the brilliant 'Limelight (1952),' where he was greeted with great enthusiasm, though with his arrival came the news that the American government had rescinded his re-entry visa into the United States. Over the next few years, the aging filmmaker toyed with numerous ideas for his next film – including a possible resurrection of the Little Tramp – before settling upon 'A King in New York,' whose screenplay took about two years to complete.

'A King in New York (1957)' tells the story of King Shahdov (Chaplin), a dethroned monarch who seeks refuge in the United States, his entire wealth cunningly stolen from him. The film starts off as an amiable slapstick comedy, which is basically what I had been expecting, before branching off into darker territory, become a scathing satiric assault on almost everything that America stands for. When he first arrives in the country, King Shahdov revels in the peace and liberty of this grand nation, exclaiming to his dedicated ambassador, Jaume (Oliver Johnston): "if you knew what it means to breathe this free air. This wonderful, wonderful America. Its youth, its genius, its vitality!" However, through his relationship with a brilliant young boy, Rupert Macabee (Chaplin's own son, Michael), whose parents happen to be members of the Communist party, Shahdov becomes embroiled in the period's rampant McCarthyist witch-hunts, revealing the devastating truth that perhaps America's notions of freedom have become a mere illusion.

Despite Chaplin's insistence that "my picture isn't political," it most undoubtedly is, with the director – just as he did in the final scenes of 'Monsieur Verdoux (1947)' – evidently expressing his distaste for what society has become. It's easy to dismiss 'A King in New York' as pro-socialist propaganda, but to do so would be completely missing the very idea behind the film. Personally, I'm unsure of Chaplin's official stance on Communism itself, but the filmmaker certainly reviled the manner in which the United States government approached the issue, citing it as an immoral invasion of privacy and liberty. Chaplin described himself as having no political convictions: "I am an individualist, and I believe in liberty." Perhaps referring to the Hollywood blacklist, he once said: "These are days of turmoil and strife and bitterness. This is not the day of great artists; this is the day of politics."

'A King in New York' was filmed at Shepparton Studios in London, and the film does a very successful job of imitating the hustle-and-bustle of the Big Apple. As well as expressing his stance on McCarthyism, Chaplin also aims a few effective jabs at commercialisation and popular culture, prophetically predicting the prominence of commercial chain-stores, cosmetic surgery and reality television {when King Shahdov is unwittingly coaxed into attending a televised dinner party, continually baffled as to why his lady interest (Dawn Addams) keeps unexpectedly launching into advertisements}. Though my review has stressed the political implications of the film, 'A King in New York' also works pretty well as a light comedy, and I almost died laughing when Chaplin walked into the House Committee on Un-American Activities with a fire-hose attached to his finger. Michael Chaplin's impassioned tirades on the degradation of America were also a riot to watch, even if the young actor can occasionally be spotted mouthing his father's lines. Owing to its somewhat disagreeable stance towards the United States, Chaplin was unable to find any willing American distributors, and so 'A King in New York' remained unseen there until the 1970s. "Freedom of speech," indeed.

Someone once described "A King in New York" as the worst film ever made by a major artist. I can think of many worse examples and while this late Chaplin picture may lack the genius of his earlier work, (it was his penultimate film; he made it several years after "Limelight" and before "A Countess from Hong Kong"), it is an often very funny satire on what Chaplin perceived as 'the modern age'. Driven out of America by McCarthyism, Chaplin constructed his New York in a British studio and typical of its writer, director, star and composer it makes no apology for its attack on right-wing politics, in particular the HUAC, as well as television, Cinemascope and plastic surgery. It's also less sentimental than it might have been, (always Chaplin's biggest fault), but the plot involving a child played by Chaplin's own son Michael, does the film no favours. On the other hand, Chaplin himself is superb and Dawn Adams is surprisingly good as a television star. No masterpiece, then but not quite the disaster some people have said of it either.