Pacionsbo
Absolutely Fantastic
Hayden Kane
There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes
Fatma Suarez
The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful
gavin6942
A recently-deposed European monarch (Charles Chaplin) seeks shelter in New York City, where he becomes an accidental television celebrity and is later wrongly accused of being a Communist.Although the main character is obviously the king, we have to give credit to the Communist child (or perhaps more properly anarchist). This was quite a performance, and although I do not know who that boy was, I hope he has gone on to do well for himself.We also have the advertising woman, which rounds out the characters -- the political child, the commercialism of the woman. What does it all mean? I am not quite sure. But the film is such a fine critique of McCarthyism and commercialism. Indeed, does anyone think we are not inundated with pointless ads? The Communist aspects are a bit harder to judge. At the time, he probably received great flack for this (indeed, the film was poorly received). But he was also not completely innocent -- he certainly had leftist leanings, despite his denial of such. Perhaps not strictly Communist, but most likely he was sympathetic. And why not? The king was a Communist from 1940-1950 and then resigned. This seems fair -- it was not until after World War II that America became anti-Soviet. Looking back today (50 years later), it all seems silly.
Dimitri44
As I see it, first, with quick comments: The technical aspects of this film were perfect. Chaplin evidently had a high IQ, and he expressed his rebuttals in a light-hearted and dignified manner. The juxtapositioning of the Queen and the TV producer may have been his way of telling his personal life critics cast the first stone if you're qualified.Now, for a somewhat more extended commentary. Chaplin and his wife Oona may have made at the time what I see as a pandemic cult mistake that many made at the time of imagining that the Bolsheviks could have somehow meant well; but the reaction from politicians at the time was much worse. For them, an exorcist was and is needed, but such politicians were and are into an evil hopelessly too deep. Some of them even say that they've heard of Moses, Jesus Christ and Apostle Paul. Have they? Finally, Chaplin's script and delivery were superb. If this was 1957, this was an encore from the Golden Age.**Here is an addendum to this review. The purpose of congressional committee hearings is to gather facts, opinions, etc. for providing guidance for possible future legislation, and so the naming of names has nothing to do with this. In other words, the investigators for these committees always had all of these names in advance all the time; and so the committees were merely playing a trick in order to humiliate the witnesses, and to score points with the voters. This means that the judges should have always found that it was the committee chairmen who were in contempt of court.
jeremy3
Of course, Charlie Chaplin is mostly remembered for non-speaking roles. A King In New York is a satire by Chaplin about his impressions of America. It is refreshing to see a movie that is critical of America. Chaplin plays a king of a fictitious eastern European country who is forced, due to a coup, to flee to New York City. Chaplin show his versatility as a talking actor by really sincerely getting down the mannerisms of a European monarch. He is an older man, but very charming. Soon, however, the king finds that his natural goodness and true compassion is exploited by commercialism and political opportunism. At first the king is entranced by America's freedom, but soon discovers that American is a brash society of loud big bands, and brash advertising and movies. When the king finds himself broke, he is used by a beautiful young woman (Addams) to do advertisements. Addams excellently plays the superficial American. She is always smiling, but ever criticizing about the monarchs age and lack of television persona. When he gets self-conscious, she says 'No, you're great. You just can't appear on TV with a sagging face'. She convinces him to get a face lift, but it ends up that his face is so tight that if he laughs, he will end up in the hospital. The evening after the face lift, he unfortunately goes to a club and is subjected to slapstick humor that literally forces him to go back for emergency surgery.The movie's only flaw is that at times it gets a little dull. Other than that it is a brilliant look at America - where image and appearance are everything. The climax of the movie deals with McCarthyism. For dare helping out the child of disgraced communists (the child played by Chaplin's real life son), the king is forced before the Committee On UnAmerican Activities. The conclusion of the movie is very funny. In conclusion, this movie displays the full range of Chaplin's great talents. His comic touch, his dramatic-ism, his political satire, his slapstick gifts, and his kind demeanor are fully displayed in this film. I highly recommend this film.
ackstasis
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.
