Un re a New York

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

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').

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.

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.