Opiniones de usuarios

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where he was greeted with great enthusiasm, though with his arrival came the news that the American government had rescinded his re-entry visa into the United States.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.

A King In New York was a pure delight to watch. Seeing perhaps the greatest actor of the first half of the century is always a treat and he doesn't disappoint in this film. Chaplin made this satire as a shot at the United States, who only five years earlier had denied him re-entry into the country. This was based on the fact he wouldn't come before the McCarthy hearing and make a statement on his supposed ties to the Communist party. Regardless of the basis for this film's comedy pieces, one can find a few moments where Chaplin is taking a direct shot at those who had doubted him.

The plot involves Chaplin as King Shadov, a ruler of a ficticious country whose people have ousted him based on his unwillingness to manufacture Atomic Bombs. He would rather spend the taxpayers money on finding ways to create atomic energy. Obviously this is a deliberate analogy of Chaplin being thought of as a communist although the complete opposite was the truth. So, the exiled leader goes to America in search of a fun vacation in which he can experience the excitement that he had heard about so many times before. The viewer follows Shadof and his trust aide throughout New York City and their many hilarious experiences. The best of which that come to mind are the scenes in which Chaplin pantomimes his order to a waiter who cannot hear him, the scene in which Chaplin recites the famous "to be or not to be" soliloque from Hamlet to guests at a dinner party and the scene in which Chaplin gets his finger stuck in a fire hose and cannot get it out.

One can see some elements of the tramp in Chaplin in this film including the facial expressions, his smile and the way he moves about gracefully. I had never seen Chaplin in a talking film before this one and was somewhat surprised to see how much of a great talking actor he truly is. For an actor who had done so much in silent films and only silent films, this film shows that Chaplin is one of the top actors of this century.

The only element of this film that somewhat disappointed me was the manner in which the hearings were brushed off. I believe that there was plenty of room for some gags to be thrown in here. Perhaps Chaplin felt as if he had already taken enough shots and didn't need to exploit this area.

This film is yet another example of the Chaplin greatness and I would recommend it to anyone who loves films or are interested in seeing film making magic.

8/10 stars.

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.

When I rented this movie, I had no idae what to expect. Charlie Chaplin in a talkie?! I had just seen (heard?) how poor Buster Keaton's awful voice destroyed his presence as the classic stone-faced pantomine. Might Mr. Chaplin's performance in a speaking role be as sadly disappointing???

The answer in a resounding word was, "NO!" If anything, Chaplin's voice and accompanying ability to express himself with words enhanced his screen presence by providing a new dimension with which to appreciate his seemingly limitless talent.

I'm not sure just how to explain this other than the fact that I watched most of the film with a big grin glued to my face. I marvelled at the subtleties of Chaplin's performance which distinguish him not only as a silent movie actor, but as an actor of ANY era! In today's world of over-the-top silliness and questionable acting passing as good comedy, his performance is a clear indication that intelligent comedy is not an oxymoron and that the "King" of it is the same person as the king of slapstick.

If you're the kind of person who appreciates the subtlety in Woody Allen's humor, you will find yourself marvelling at "A King in New York" and you will see (and hear!) a part of Charlie Chaplin you may not ever have known existed.

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

"A King in New York" is one of those few films that gets better and better every time you see it.

Yes, it's flawed--the sets look shabby, and some of the dialogue is stilted and melodramatic. Yet despite these shortcomings, AKINY still stands out as a wonderful, playful satire of 1950's America.

For those of you who may not know, Chaplin himself was targetted by the U.S. government at the time for his alleged communist leanings. In fact, AKINY had to be shot in Britain (Chaplin's birthplace) only because Chaplin and his family had been forbidden to re-enter the U.S after a short vacation overseas.

AKINY was Chaplin's response to the nonsense and paranoia that pervaded American society at that time. Chaplin also pokes fun at America's obsession with technology and the media--a point which is even more relevant today.

Chaplin plays King Shahdov, a deposed monarch who flees to America in the hopes of selling his plans for a peaceful, nuclear-based society (which never happens). Chaplin plays Shahdov as an honest, but hapless European monarch thrust into the dizzying whirl of modern America. Chaplin is at his absolute best here as a befuddled and somewhat puzzled outsider.

Shahdov soon meets up with two people. The first is Ann Kay (Dawn Addams), a beautiful young woman who seduces the King and lures him into appearing in her television commercials, and Rupert Macabee (played by Chaplin's son, Michael), a brilliant young boy whose parents have been imprisoned by HUAC. Also worth noting is Ambassador Jaume (Oliver Johnston), Shahdov's loyal friend and confidante. Johnston and Chaplin play off each other beautifully, and together they share some of the film's funniest moments.

AKINY is full of priceless "bits of business," as Chaplin used to say--there's a hilarious restaurant scene in which Chaplin mimes his order to the waiter in order to overcome the dreadful racket from the house band.

Then there's the scene in which Shahdov's newly lifted face become "unhinged" as he bursts into laughter at a comedy show. Chaplin slyly slips in and out of these bits (which are essentially silent comedy pantomimes dating back to his earliest days in English Music Halls) with great ease.

Such scenes provide the most satisfying moments in the film. Here, behind Chaplin's aged face and body, you can still see the little tramp come to life, and it's wonderful.

AKINY is vastly underrated by most critics who, for some reason, obsess over the sets, and virtually ignore what is truly one of Chaplin's masterpieces. AKINY is rarely screened in North America for some reason, so if you get the chance to see it, don't pass it up.

... 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.

It's not only one of Chaplin's best films, but one of the most important films about America ever made. Thrown out of the US for his liberal views, Chaplin became very irate at America. This is his response, a bare-knuckle boxing match with Uncle Sam - and this tramp doesn't pull punches. He doesn't leave a stone unturned, movies, music, high culture, television, education, fame, and especially the communist witch hunts. Best of all, he still exhibits his comic brilliance, and almost all the jokes land. Chaplin's son Michael is very good as a young boy who espouses communist ideals without the slightest provocation. The film ends without resolution, as this dark period of American history was still going strong. Only the hope that it is only a phase is expressed, but otherwise, the darkness is left to brood. People have accused the film of not being subtle, but it is far more so than the infinitely more popular The Great Dictator, and also more so than his other two talkies, Monsieur Verdoux and Limelight. All of those films are great, but they all end up with Chaplin telling us directly what he wants us to walk away with. A King of New York is, even if it has its clunky moments, an exceptional achievement. It's about time that it was rediscovered. 10/10.

Chaplin wanted to say more than a few, it seems. What a shame it all had to end like this. To all intents his final film, short on laughs and high on bitterness, it rarely achieves the heights of prior works.

Chaplin was never subtle when it came to satire, as the wonderful Great Dictator should attest. But, after being subpoenaed for suspected communist affiliations, what does he do? Makes a film about a man facing a subpoena for suspected communist affiliations. A discreet allusion this isn't.

Chaplin's son, Michael, is also roped in on the act as a boy versed in Marxism, and who gets to echo many of Charles' feelings. When first questioned by Chaplin's King Shahdov over whether he is a communist for his reading matter, he is told "do I have to be a communist to read Karl Marx?" "That's a valid answer", Shahdov counters. The boy, Rupert, then goes into a rant about committees dictating how people should think, and the removal of passport rights. His final outburst on the subject is the telling: "I'm so sick and tired of people asking me if I'm this, if I'm that. So that then if it pleases everybody, I'm a communist." Saying such things yourself is fine, but using a small child to make your political speeches for you is extremely unsettling.

The film, his first effort to be shot in England, tries to recreate New York with sets and stock footage, as the star was no longer allowed entry into the United States. A number of British actors help along the illusion by adopting US accents. Look out for a hoarse-sounding Sidney James (yes, he of dirty laugh and Carry Ons) as well as an impossibly young Frazer Hines. Chaplin would complete one more film after this, 1967's A Countess From Hong Kong, the only one of his films on the IMDb to be less well-regarded than this one. Containing just a bit part for Charlie, King is really the last time the public would have to see him fully on the screen.

King Shahdov is probably one of the least endearing Chaplin characters as he is painted as a lecherous man who peers through keyholes at bathing women and says things like "I must tell you some of my jokes... naughty ones." There are also one or two barbs thrown at the US film industry, including a snotty dig at "banal movie magazines". At one point Chaplin enters a cinema where we see three fictitious trailers. One of them, Killer With A Soul seems to poke fun at the loss of innocence in cinema, with the tagline "Bring The Family". Another is a distasteful – and quite childish – mockery of transsexuals, called Man Or Woman? and ends with the punchline "we can go to Denmark." As with the majority of the film, it never really amuses, as it all seems so resentful, and laced through with spite. The slapstick elements are also contrived and somewhat obvious.

Not a poor film by any means, the pace certainly never drags, but it is weak by Chaplin's own high standards. However, it is hard not to get a lump in your throat as Shahdov's plane flies away for the final time...

2012 Post-script: Having seen A Countess From Hong Kong since writing this review, it's notable that, while Brando is completely miscast, it has some merit, including Chaplin's ruminations on political issues. Like A King in New York it's a mediocre piece and not the work of a genius, but it's a shame Chaplin wasn't making more films towards the end of his life, even if both pictures do fall firmly in the camp of "it's regrettable he didn't retire after Limelight". At the risk of being churlish, it's also somewhat amusing how members seemingly use the "useful" vote button depending on whether they agree with the review. To date I've reviewed 13 Chaplin films, the majority favourable. None have had as many "unuseful" votes as this one. Maybe I'm wrong, and this review

A great film that was neglected by the good old US of A when it was released in the late 50's. It was brandished as being to critical of the political atmosphere of the United States at the time. It's funny that Chaplin could manage to offend both Adolf Hitler (The Great Dictator) and the fascist-like/inspired 'anti-communist' movement of the 50's/early 60's U.S.A. There is actually a common link in those two movements (Naziism and the 50-60's 'anti-communist movement in the USA but I won't get into that here). Anyway, it is sad that this film is overlooked as it is one of Chaplin's best and should be looked as one in a career overview of this great filmmaker. Besides him, in the film there really is not any awe-inspiring actor/actress but Chaplin brings out the best in everyone and elevates them from eternal anonymity to something of recognition. His son Michael Chaplin for example is used quite wonderfully in this film. I later bought Michael Chaplin's late teenage memoir 'I Couldn't Smoke the Grass on my Father's Lawn' based on seeing him in this film and him impressing me so. It's too bad he could not develop more as an actor or recording star (he released a single in Britain in the mid-60's). I heartily recommend this film. See it and be open minded. Take a look at the way your country was run 50 years ago and ask yourself have things really changed this day in age when the 'communists' have know been replaced by the 'terrorists'.

With his country in revolt, King Shahdov escapes to New York. His funds soon start to run dry so he uses his fame to make money appearing in advertisements. He helps a boy who has run away from home but this lands him in trouble with the communist witch-hunt of the time.

A Charlie Chaplin comedy that, like many of his comedies, contains some interesting social commentary.

It starts entertainingly enough, with King Shahdov's escape and his settling into New York. The "forthcoming attractions" during his visit to a cinema are hilarious and made me think this could rival Chaplin's classic comedies like City Lights, Modern Times, The Gold Rush, The Kid, The Circus and The Great Dictator.

Unfortunately, however, the comedy, and the film in general, is a bit uneven. There's some very funny moments but then also some scenes that just fall flat, e.g. The scenes involving his appearance at the school were largely quite irritating. The appearance of Dawn Addams as Ann Kay was a major positive though...

The drama side is also a bit weak and the sub-plot involving the boy initially seemed to more rely on empty sentimentality and some silly hijinks than anything else. However, this does evolve into a decent examination on the absurdity of the communist witch-hunts of the late-40s and early-50s. The subject is quite a personal one for Chaplin as the FBI used these witch-hunts as part of their campaign against Chaplin and this drove him out of the US.

Unfortunately, while the McCarthyism sub-plot is reasonably profound and has a satisfactory conclusion, it is resolved far too quickly, making it seem like a quaint little add-on to the main plot. Chaplin could have done much more with this and made it the main focus of the film. Considering how personal the topic was for him, I'm surprised he didn't.

Ultimately a reasonably entertaining and profound film.

If you are not doing research on Chaplin and are looking for an entertaining but obscure film, avoid the King of New York. Simply put this film is a mess. The story makes little sense, the pace just stumbles along and even 50 years on, the humor shows signs of age. Chaplin's problems with the US authorities clouded his artistic judgment and although his frustrations are understandable, his creativity suffered and this is very evident on the screen.

Although Monsieur Verdoux and Limelight will never be considered classics, they worked despite their flaws. A King In New York simply stumbles along to a very unsatisfying end. And while the comments from Jim Jarmusch on the DVD feature are accurate – Chaplin had a wonderful way of satirizing America's rampant consumer culture – Jarmusch is simply being generous to Chaplin by saying that this film is well executed. One can almost sense Chaplin's sense of dislocation of having to work in London after 4 decades in the States and owning his own film studio.

This film is required viewing for those studying the entire life and works of Chaplin, but as entertainment (always Chaplin's aim) it falls flat on it's face. It's doubly tragic that this artist, who contributed so much to America and the world should have been hounded out of the country with such vehemence. Equally astounding is how the American public accepted this treatment of a cultural icon with such equanimity. There's small comfort in the fact that the later works of other masters of film from the first half of the twentieth century (i.e. Preston Sturges, Erich Von Stroheim & Orson Welles ) were equally pallid and uninspiring. This film was intended as a comedy, but it simply leaves you feeling very sad.

A KING IN NEW YORK is an overlooked comedy gem. It isn't on the same level as THE GOLD RUSH or CITY LIGHTS, but it has many comic highlights (including the King trying to order a meal at a cafe, but unheard by the waiter due to a loud rock n' roll band.) Other highlights include the trip to the movie theatre, and the TV ad for the Wine. It has some touching moments too, such as the King helping a young boy whose parents are being questioned as Communists. This is a Chaplin masterpiece, despite its few flaws.

Frankly I expected a bit of bitterness and stronger satire from the way the Great man (along with many more) were treated by his Adopted (and other's birth) country. Some others (e.g. Dassin) like him too went back to Europe and flourished, however none of them really brought out their bitterness in their media. Probably looking at the market, where taking that out would surely mean censor and probably ban, even after the McCarthyism had abated ? May be who knows. The story is of a monarch, deposed by revolution, only unlike almost all the real-life deposed Royalties, e.g. Shah of Iran, this fictitious King chose US as his sanctuary., or may be watching it, the ex-Royals preferred Europe ? This movie is a satire on two aspects - the commodification of a person - who has some public appeal. This was a deposed king, and as an Ex Royalty, the brand image was already there. Rest was easy - first to honey-trap him, and then exploit.

There was a practical weakness in this though. It is natural that the target didn't realise it, but his practically manager-honey should have, that she was rapidly depreciating his brand value by placing him on inappropriate commercials. But in practical life too it happens, the commercial mind will make hay till the sun shines, and then look for the next field. I won't question the impracticality of the plot, since it isn't. I will only point the impracticality of the mind-set in the unadulterated commercial mind. And this isn't really limited to one country/ market, it is everywhere, at least now.

The second aspect, which I had expected him to be more vocal and biting, but wasn't, is in the Witch-Hunting. It was at its peak during the HUAC/ McCarthy - probably unmatched elsewhere except some quarter-century back in the Soviet or another one and quarter century back in France (I will not go further back, like Spanish Inquisitions). The basic principle of all these inquisitions were same - suspected of being in contravention to basic faith - and hence Guilty, unless found innocent, beyond a shadow of doubt. I won't even hint that it doesn't exist even today - it does and is thriving - not only in monarchies or dictatorships, but even in full democracies (that is as self-claimed, most of these are categorized by the democracy report as Flawed Democracies).

Unfortunately the movie has lost its sting (probably as I mentioned deliberately, to have the access to the off-shore market), it toned down the sting on both the aspects - Commodification of Human as well as the Witch-hunt - or I would say thoroughly watered it down ? It did show some sympathy at the victims of the witch hunt, the precocious Rupert (Michael Chaplin) - could be any innocent person, guilty by association, not necessary a child by physical age. And the scene at the court, "If you don't name others, you are guilty of contempt of court" did really happen, but the movie took it in passing, didn't focus on these. Even the victim of the commodification seemed to be a willing one, despite being well aware of his being manipulated through Honey-trap. Even in the last scene - "Who gave you the fur coat", indicate his being aware of Anne's "professional" personal attachment. But even after that, he seemed to be ready to overlook it, or may be he played the part of Gallant King, by not pointing out. As a story - if I don't think of Chaplin's own tribulations - this is passably OK.

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.

It had been over 20 years since Charlie Chaplin last adorned his beloved character 'The Tramp.' Although in his later performances, the aspects of the icon are inescapable, A King In New York deliberately brings the slapstick back into an interesting context. He is not a tramp, nor a barber, but a king. A king whose unfortunate attempts at sophistication end up humiliating. It's a clear critique on the buffoonery of authority figures as he obliviously goes out for entertainment in New York while his home country is rioting against him. The lure of celebrity is a temptation to all and Chaplin protests that it's irresponsible for these types of powerful figures to be drawn to it. His last two films, The Great Dictator and Limelight, were two of his best films that were seamlessly able to blend comedy with a message and emotion.

Unfortunately, A King In New York doesn't have the same weight to it emotionally and leads it inevitably into being lesser Chaplin. That said, it's still hilarious, with great satire and slapstick, a highlight being where the king's curiosity gets the better of him and he puts his finger in a fire hose and drags it through the following scenes. Chaplin has always had a talent for getting the best out of a simple joke. It's a shame that he felt the need to have his political point on a soapbox in the form of a young child. It's distracting and feels unnecessary. The film's effect would've been far greater without it being spoken as Chaplin's king was enough to get the message. Although, in finally watching his unpopular films, they have made me realise how he has an unconditional place in my heart as all director, writer and performer.

7/10

Charlie Chaplin's A King in New York is a fine film to see when it's a laid-back afternoon and it comes on TV, as it's a bit of a surprise to come upon. It's a later Chaplin film, where he's no longer the iconic Tramp, yet in a way the logic of one of those films in terms of the society at large is still being toyed with. This time, instead of being on poverty row with holes in his shoes and a sweet and enduring love for a street girl, he plays a king whose country has gone to war and without many prospects financially comes to America to do commercials for products that he would surely rather not be pushing on the public. As life does imitate art (as far as the stereotype goes it does have a ring of constant truth), Chaplin at the time was an exile, kicked out of America for being a supposed communist, and with his non-prolific career going a little bit on the slide, he made the film as a quasi-light attack on American consumerism, of the vanity and stupidity that can come out of prosperity.

But at the same time, there is still the sensibility that Chaplin loves life and individuals, if not certain groups. This can be seen in the child character- one of Chaplin's own sons- who through his very intelligent but arrogant manner is one of the nicer and funniest characters in the film. While a lot of the humor, sometimes rather dry, is in seeing Chaplin's King and his assistant/butler talk of money problems and in the observations of the 'other', the best scenes come in showing what levels King Shadhov has to sink to in trying to pay his expensive hotel bills and stay afloat in a strange land. My favorite scenes where Shadhov's botched plastic surgery debacle, where it's funnier seeing the King trying not to laugh at a slapstick spectacle than the actual spectacle itself, and the scenes of the King trying to shill the items, often to the dissatisfied directors (I'm reminded of Lost in Translation, and in fact Chaplin's scenes are probably more successful than Coppola's).

Although the film is preachy at times- it's best when Chaplin goes for the more succinct jabs as opposed to the grandstanding, ironic since it worked perfectly at the end of the Great Dictator- the overall high-spirited and serenely theatrical direction makes this a worthwhile effort. Far from being the controversial film it got a reputation as following a non-release in the 50s in the US, it's only a cunning satire, with moments light and foreboding, and it deserves to be seen just as much as Chaplin's classics (if only by his fans, who might be apprehensive at the filmmaker making too many 'statements').

Mr. Chaplin should have heeded Goldwyn's advice. A telegram is terse and to the point. If the message of this movie is to call attention to the evils of McCarthyism, the message has been diluted by jabs at TV advertising, Cinemascope, teenagers, and by the inclusion of dragged out archaic slapstick, and an implausible romance. Falling fully clothed into a bathtub was old twenty years earlier. The business with the fire hose went on much too long and looked as if it had been lifted from a 1918 Chaplin short.The denouement is witless. If only HUAC could have been wiped away by spraying it with a fire hose. The kid, Rupert, had a stage father instead of a stage mother.

What I find amazing is that even in the year 2001 people are so brain-washed by our corporate media that they can complain about Chaplin's bashing the McArthy era. This embarassing chapter in America's history (up there with slavery, the "Jim Crow" south, and Japanese internment camps of WW2) was responsible for thousands of Hollywood job losses, the imprisonment of the great writer Ring Lardner, the expatriation of Chaplin, Paul Robeson, et al.

And all of this for a ridiculous "witch hunt" by some sanctimonious & hypocritical power-hungry politicians; with trumped up hearings gathered together faster than you can say "Monica." Well eventually it ended up backfiring on the anti-commie crowd of course, although I guess sure helped Ronald Reagan to be president of the Screen Actors Guild, then CA, and the White House weren't far behind (easy when you sell out enough I guess).

But gee, since Chaplin was up against these zealots (who are the real "anti-American" ones if people actually knew their history), I suppose we should be able to forgive him for not being so subtle in "A King in New York!"

'A King in New York' is by no means a masterpiece, it doesn't hold the candle against Chaplin's previous, better movies. Nonetheless, this is a great movie that is a must see. Unfortunately, it doesn't get the attention it deserves. Despite technical shortcomings, the story is interesting (but not flawless), satire is sharp, and the film is much more than just a political commentary. But what is most amazing - the film is aged so well. Its social commentary is as relevant today as it was in the 1950s (and not only in America). Chaplin took a pretty big bite with that film. Although most people turn their attention to the political commentary that the film makes, but the more interesting part is the sharp satire about society in general. Chabs at vanity (not only the story around plastic surgery, but also that little scene where the judges putting on the make-up to look good for the television), fame, wealth, hunger for attention, and egocentrism, even the media gets its fair share with their constant hunger of sensation and scandal. With political commentary Chaplin hit the two birds with one stone - on the other side is the government which suppresses the freedom of speech, on the other end there are ideological parents who brainwash their children. The brilliant scene where King Shadov is faced against Rupert (Michael Chaplin is just amazing) who obnoxiously cites everything he has read and heard without allowing Shadov to counterargument. There are always two sides of political indoctrination (and this again, is seen today - absolute truth on both sides and nothing in between). Serious issues in the very thick sauce of fantastic comedy.

And the humor is good. Chaplin makes good use of his physical comedy. Especially in the scene in the bathroom where he and his ambassador (Oliver Johnston) trying to peek through the keyhole to see the woman in the neighboring bathroom. The story itself is uneven, but the dialogue is a masterclass of subtle and clever remarks.

In the end, the technical flaws of the film might even be its strength - the visual roughness lets the smoothness of the satire shine even more. A feel-good movie with a lot to tell us

I was very disappointed in this movie and surprised to see it so highly rated by IMDb viewers. I think you have to want to like this film a great deal in order to find much joy in it. I can see why Chaplin's own story would tip some folks toward giving it the sympathy vote, but face it, if this were, heaven forbid, the only Chaplin film you had ever seen, wouldn't you come away from this wondering why he was regarded as such a comic genius? It has intermittent moments of satirical insight and a broad range of targets in its send-up of 1950's American culture. But Chaplin did it with so much more balance between entertainment and enlightenment in films like "The Great Dictator" and "Modern Times" that this one suffers greatly by comparison. Cheap-looking sets, relatively no-name actors, and a rather rushed pace in far too many scenes keep this "King" off my list of royal Chaplin experiences.