A King in New York (1957)

This is the best film dealing with the communist witch trials I have ever seen. It is black-comedic spoof on a subject that still hasn't been spoofed enough...the UnAmerican Activities Hearings. Sure it has a funny and effective "european royalty thrown into American culture" plot but this film really has more serious and important plans for the viewer....

Watch it and don't feel guilty think

Fmovies: 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!"

When I was a child, Charlie Chaplin's name was anathema. Here was the

personification of the "Red Peril," made worse still by the fact that we

had loved and trusted him through a lifetime of film. When A KING IN NEW

YORK came out it couldn't even get a distributor in the U.S. so virulent

was the hatred for "turncoat" Charlie.

Now, forty seven years later, and thanks tp the amazing TCM, I have

finally seen A KING IN NEW YORK and though it is somewhat uneven and

episodic, I believe it to be one of the best of Chaplin's films.

A mixture of broad slapstick and wry and subtle satire, the film is

often hilarious while at the same time touching and thought provoking.

Satire has to be the hardest form of art to translate to the screen and

there are few films that even try to tackle it, (Frank Tashlin's

hilarious WILL SUCCESS SPOIL ROCK HUNTER? one delightful example), so A

KING IN NEW YORK is welcome as an attempt to satirize a rather

unsettling time in US history.

There are many brilliant scenes in A KING IN NEW YORK; the ones in the

movie theater, at the "Montesori" type school and shooting the Scotch

commercial among the best. Above all, the warmth, humanity and total

befuddlement of the King, as performed by Chaplin, is the glue that

holds the enterprise together.

In every frame, Chaplin is mesmerizing and Dawn Addams, playing it way

over the top as the epitome of the "woman in the grey flannel suit"

(one, by the way,that is covered by a floor length mink!), is a constant

delight. Excellent too is Michael Chaplin, the director's son, as a

young genius who spouts the joys of Communism at the drop of a hat.

Joe McCarthy is gone (so far!), Chaplin is dead and we are left in yet

another unsure world. Comedy, as always, will help get us through. A

KING IN NEW YORK gives us that comedic respite, while proving, so many

years later, that governments are, after all, transitory things while

art last forever.

A comedic gem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A King in New York fmovies. 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.

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'.

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').