Un roi à 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.

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.

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.

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').

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.