A King in New York (1957)
Directed by Charles Chaplin

Film Review

When Charlie Chaplin had his visa revoked, preventing his return to America in 1952, he had every reason to be bitter. The most high profile casualty of the McCarthyist anti-Communist witch hunts that had poisoned the political and intellectual climate of America in the early 1950s, Chaplin was forced into exile in Europe and retaliated with A King in New York, a vehement assault on all things which, he believed, had robbed America of its true cultural and democratic values.  There is hardly an aspect of modern American life that Chaplin does not lay into.  Widescreen cinema, rock music, advertising, celebrity, cosmetic surgery and politics are all mercilessly lampooned by Chaplin, who appears to be far more preoccupied with settling old scores than seeking laughs.

Made at Shepperton Studios, England, on a tight budget, A King in New York is marred by some obvious technical flaws, the result of some aggressive penny pinching by an overly cost-conscious director.  The film's main failing, however, is its script, which lacks focus and is too broad a satire to be entirely effective.  Chaplin's habit of lecturing his audience on the failings of modern society is also apparent, most notably in the long outpourings of invective that he puts into the mouth of his ten-year-old son, Michael.  Yet, despite its many failings, A King in New York is a film that is extremely hard to dislike.  The film may not be as perfectly crafted nor as tirelessly funny as Chaplin's previous comic masterpieces, but it is an effective and quite daring commentary on the period in which it was made.  If nothing else, it deserves credit for being the first film to openly condemn the anti-Communist hysteria that was sweeping America at the time.

In his last major screen role, Chaplin is in fine form and turns in an engaging performance, although he is completely eclipsed in some scenes by his son Michael, who shows a maturity in his acting that is way beyond his years.  Chaplin's scenes with his son have a similar emotional warmth to those seen in The Kid (1921), mirroring Chaplin's partnership with the young Jackie Coogan.  As in that earlier film, Chaplin shows us that it is the children who suffer most from the societal ills; the most moving sequence is the one in which Michael Chaplin's character is revealed to have betrayed his parents' friends to the anti-Red brigade in order to have his parents released from prison.  No one films the suffering of children more eloquently and poignantly than Chaplin.

By virtue of its subject matter, it was many years (not until 1967) before A King in New York was screened in the United States.  The reaction to the film on its first release in Europe was generally positive, although since then critics and Chaplin enthusiasts have been divided as to its merits.  It certainly has more going for it than Chaplin's next and final film, A Countess from Hong Kong (1967), not least of which is an improbable (and highly amusing) encounter between Chaplin and another comedy giant in the making, Sid James.  There may be far fewer gags than we would expect from a Chaplin comedy, but the highly symbolic punchline, in which Chaplin literally dampens the ardour of the HUAC, is well worth waiting for.

Film Synopsis

Igor Shahdov, the King of Estrovia, leaves his country just as it is plunged into revolution.  He arrives in New York City, hoping to make his fortune by selling his blueprints for an atomic power station.  When his Prime Minister absconds with all his money, King Shahdov has no option but to appear in television commercials, trading on the fact he has become the latest media star having been secretly filmed at a dinner party.  He takes an interest in a ten-year-old boy, Rupert Macabee, whose parents are arrested for being members of the Communist Party.  Shahdov himself ends up being suspected of having communist sympathies and is summoned to the House Committee on Un-American Activities...