"A King in New York" *** (out of ****)
In order to understand Chaplin's "A King in New York" (1957) you must be aware of some history. In 1952 Chaplin was deported from America after being considered a communist or at least a sympathizer. The FBI had an extensive file on him after many of his films were seen as having "red" messages. Among them, "Modern Times" (1936), a film about the struggles of the working man. "The Great Dictator" (1940) where at the end of the film his character gives a speech claiming all people should live in peace and unite. I don't know how extreme these ideas or words are seen today but in their time Chaplin's words were threatening to American society.
A lot of people view "A King in New York" as Chaplin's rebuttal. A way to clear his name from the charges set forth. Both situations involve a foreigner coming to America, getting involved with the entertainment industry and being accused of communism. And because Chaplin had been exiled from America, a lot of people feel Chaplin wanted to get in some digs at American culture. Presenting Americans as uneducated and simplistic in their world view.
This is and isn't true. The film does deal with some of these issues. And I personally think Chaplin did want to set some facts straight and since Chaplin was a filmmaker, film was how he could best express himself. But that shouldn't repel audiences. Viewers should give the film a fighting chance and at least see it once with an open mind.
It is true "A King in New York" is not one of the master's great films. I doubt I will ever come across someone who will tell me this film is funnier than "The Gold Rush" (1925), "City Lights" (1932) or even "The Circus" (1928) but it is, in its own way, an important film in the Chaplin cannon. If only because he helps us gain a greater insight into Chaplin's mind and thoughts on politics and American pop culture.
Chaplin stars, in his last leading role, as King Shahdov. Shahdov has had to escape his country after the people have revolted against him. He comes to America, New York to be exact, in the hopes of waiting until the political firestorm blows over. But when Shahdov finds out his prime minister has stolen all the government funds, leaving him broke, Shahdov now finds himself stuck doing advertisements, becoming an instant celebrity.
As goofy as this plot may sound, so far, it is actually quite amusing and handled very well by Chaplin. This part of the film I think works best because it gives Chaplin the opportunity to get in some good social comments in a humorous way. Without revealing too much some good gags include Shahdov and his Ambassador Jaume (Oliver Johnston) going to see a movie. Before the movie starts a rock n' roll band is playing while adoring teenage girls look on, fainting. Of course this sort of thing was happening in America with Elvis Presley and would start all over again with The Beatles. Shahdov at one point, after watching this spectacle, leans over to Jaume and asks, "is this healthy"? Another interesting sequence has Shahdov at a dinner party, after an attractive TV host, Ann Kay (Dawn Adams) lures him to a party being thrown in his honor. What Shahdov doesn't realize is there is a secret camera recording everything for live television. And since it is on television there must be mention of sponsors, so during Shahdov's and Ann's conversation, she must somehow go into "commercials" for various products. Today this gag seems modern given reality television shows and films like "The Truman Show".
But then Chaplin gets political. He meets a young boy at a liberal school, Rupert Macabee (Michael Chaplin, Charlie's son). Rupert is an editor for the school's paper. He is outspoken and has left leaning tendencies. You could call him a communist. At first he denies it but later, when in trouble, after his parents, who are school teachers, are called before HUAC, does he admit it. And because he has an association with King Shahdov, who after seeing the boy walking in the cold invites him inside his hotel room, both are accused of being communist.
Even though Chaplin may get in some jabs at pop culture he goes out of his way to reinforce the idea America is a great country, even though he was in exile. At one point he briefly looks into the camera while giving a pro-America speech. He goes on and on about the rights guaranteed to American citizens and how America has always opened her arms to those fleeing tyranny. Remember Chaplin made a short comedy, "The Immigrant" (1917), which was about that.
This moral preaching however doesn't feel natural at times. The dialogue seems a little forced. It is a collection of speeches rather than free flowing dialogue. Chaplin was always accused of this in his sound films, especially his previous film "Limelight" (1952). But that film was more dramatic and reflective. There it seems more fitting as the Chaplin character looks back on his career. "A King in New York" is supposed to be a modern story. Such speeches seem out of place.
There is also a sub-plot going on between King Shahdov and his wife, Queen Irene (Maxine Audley). She was a young woman when they were married, for political reasons, but was in love with another. Since Shahdov's country is up in arms, he wants a divorcee, since he feels it is what the queen wants, even though we can tell he still loves her.
This part of the plot isn't given enough time and honestly doesn't feel necessary to the story.
As I mentioned in my last entry, on Woody Allen's "Sleeper", I view Chaplin as the greatest comedy filmmaker of all time. I understand everyone is entitled to their own opinion. There are two sides to every story they say. But, there are certain things I don't like to hear an opposing view on. Chaplin is one of those things. From as far back as I can remember (around the age of 3 or 4) I've always been a Chaplin fan. My reasons for liking his films may have changed since I was a young boy but he has always made me laugh and has always been an inspiration to me.
Yes there have been other great comics; Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd, Harry Langdon, Charley Chase and W.C. Fields, but Chaplin has meant the most to me. I don't like to knock down one person just to praise another and I'm not going to. I appreciate all of the great comics but think of how not only the history of comedy but the history of film as an art form would have changed if Chaplin didn't exist. It boggles the mind. His impact on film is immeasurable. The other comics had their impact on the culture too. No doubt about it. But only Chaplin became a world-wide icon. At one point it was said he was the most recognizable figure in history.
I mention this because I'm sure someone may think my appreciation for Chaplin clouds my judgement. That is the real reason I'm recommending "A King in New York". Not so. I was able to mention what I felt were the film's flaws; the dialogue, undeveloped plot points. But the film also has some funny sequences and amusing ideas. If I was truly so bias wouldn't I just give the film four stars, call it a masterpiece and be done with it?
Since, of course, Chaplin was in exile he couldn't film this picture in America so it was filmed in the UK. Though Chaplin made the film in 1957 it didn't open in America until 1972, the same is true for "Limelight", which actually won an Academy Award for it musical score. The reason the films did open in 1972 was because Chaplin was going to receive an honorary award and was allowed back into America to accept it. Now a new generation of film fans would discover Chaplin. Lets hope that continues today as well.
Posts
