A King in New York
Tags: satire

Plot synopsis:
"One of the minor annoyances in modern life is a revolution." Due to a revolution in his country Estrovia, King Igor Shahdov (Charlie Chaplin) comes to New York City with almost no money, his securities having been stolen by his own Prime Minister. He tries to contact the Atomic Energy Commission with his ideas for using atomic power to create a utopia.
At a dinner party, some of which is televised live (unbeknown to him), he reveals he has had some experience in the theater. He's approached to do TV commercials but does not like the idea. Later, he does make a few commercials in order to get some money.
Invited to speak at a progressive school, he meets Rupert Macabee (Michael Chaplin), editor of the school paper, a ten-year-old historian who gives him a stern anarchist lecture. Although Rupert himself says he distrusts all forms of government, his parents are communists who are jailed for not giving up names at a Joseph McCarthy-type hearing. Because young Rupert had spent time with him, Shahdov is suspected of being a communist himself, and has to face one of the hearings. He is cleared of all charges, but not before a scene in which Shahdov accidentally directs a strong stream of water from a fire hose at the members of the "House Committee on Un-American Activities" (HUAC), who scatter in panic. He decides to join his estranged queen in Paris for a reconciliation.
In the meantime, the authorities force the child to reveal the names of his parents' friends in exchange for his parents' freedom. Grieving and guilt-ridden, Rupert is presented to King Shahdov as a "patriot". Shahdov reassures him that the anti-communist scare is a lot of nonsense which will be over soon, and invites him to come to Europe with his parents for a visit.
In addition to its condemnation of HUAC's methods, the film takes witty potshots at American commercialism, popular music, celebrity culture, and film. A dinner party scene includes a number of satirical portrayals of actors and public figures of the period, including Sophie Tucker.

Review: "A King in New York" is one of those few films that gets better and better every time you see it.Yes, it's flawed--the sets look shabby, and some of the dialogue is stilted and melodramatic.
Yet despite these shortcomings, AKINY still stands out as a wonderful, playful satire of 1950's America.For those of you who may not know, Chaplin himself was targetted by the U.S. government at the time for his alleged communist leanings.
The first is Ann Kay (Dawn Addams), a beautiful young woman who seduces the King and lures him into appearing in her television commercials, and Rupert Macabee (played by Chaplin's son, Michael), a brilliant young boy whose parents have been imprisoned by HUAC.
Chaplin slyly slips in and out of these bits (which are essentially silent comedy pantomimes dating back to his earliest days in English Music Halls) with great ease.Such scenes provide the most satisfying moments in the film.
Regardless of the basis for this film's comedy pieces, one can find a few moments where Chaplin is taking a direct shot at those who had doubted him.The plot involves Chaplin as King Shadov, a ruler of a ficticious country whose people have ousted him based on his unwillingness to manufacture Atomic Bombs.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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')..
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.
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..
When A KING IN NEWYORK came out it couldn't even get a distributor in the U.S. so virulentwas the hatred for "turncoat" Charlie.Now, forty seven years later, and thanks tp the amazing TCM, I havefinally seen A KING IN NEW YORK and though it is somewhat uneven andepisodic, I believe it to be one of the best of Chaplin's films.
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!".
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.
Seeing the king sell all kinds of 'royal' products was pretty amusing itself.But when he visits a 'progressive' school and hears young Michael Chaplin spouting off the virtues of Karl Marx at the drop of a hat, he's taken with the kid although exasperated at being the butt of the jokes of these unruly kids.
A King In New York, born out of Chaplin's exiled bitterness remains a really unjustly neglected piece of comedic satire and relevant truths of the time..
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.
A KIng in New York (1957) was the second to last film that Charles Chaplin completed before his retirement.
Too find out the answers to these questions and many more you'll have to watch this Charles Chaplin classic A KING IN NEW YORK.I was surprised by how well this film was.
Chaplin Has His Say. As probably one of Chaplin's lesser efforts, this falls short of the level of sheer genius to the level of mere mortal excellence.As proof of Americans' depressing ability to laugh at any ethnic group or nationality except for themselves, at the time, this movie got many Americans' hackles up, and by the looks of the comments here, still does for some people.
However, Chaplin's tone in this film, described by some as bitterness, I would more accurately call incisiveness.Of course this movie had to be made in Britain, and wasn't shown in the USA for about 20 years, until after the youthquake of the late 1960's and the changing of the generational guard, proving Americans are not fond of having their foibles and hypocrisies pointed out to them in a rather obvious manner.Some of the more satirical aspects of the film, including the film trailers, TV advertising, the reality television show (Chaplin about 40 years ahead of the curve on that one) and the whirlwind feel of New York City, represent rather gentle pokes at a society in which, to remind everyone, Chaplin had worked in and made his fame and fortune in for over 40 years.It's only when the Senator McCarthy inspired storyline takes hold, around halfway through the film, that the story turns markedly more serious.
Chaplin sprinkles the film throughout with references to the US Constitution, and freedom of speech, and "American blood boiling." Clearly he is on the side of freedom versus totalitarianism, and against the witch hunt like tactics of HUAC that destroyed American careers, drove people into poverty or exile, and provably never found one person that was a real, imminent danger to American society.
Looking back from this point, almost everyone agrees that HUAC and its blowback were a blot on the history of the United States and its aspirations of freedom, and rightfully so.Although this aspect of the film is a bit heavy-handed, and the rather sad ending is somewhat disappointing but rather realistic within the context of the times, I feel that this only detracts mildly from the comedy on offer, Chaplin's amazing screen presence, and artistry as a writer, actor and director.
Why don't you judge it reasonably, dear American IMDb users?For those people who do not know any background story about this film:There was an important biographical turn in Chaplin's life in the mid 50's: he actually shot A King In New York in Switzerland.
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).
It had been over 20 years since Charlie Chaplin last adorned his beloved character 'The Tramp.' Although in his later performances, the aspects of the icon are inescapable, A King In New York deliberately brings the slapstick back into an interesting context.
His last two films, The Great Dictator and Limelight, were two of his best films that were seamlessly able to blend comedy with a message and emotion.Unfortunately, A King In New York doesn't have the same weight to it emotionally and leads it inevitably into being lesser Chaplin.
1957's "A King in New York" shows Chaplin at the end of his film career.
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'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.
"A King in New York" is a very smart and underrated movie by Charles Chaplin.
While it brings the slapstick comedy that made him famous first, putting the deposed King Igor Shahdov from fictional European country Estrovia in absurd situations and making funny facial expressions, the film also presents a very important political discussion about McCarthyism and the Communist-hunting obsession, besides very nice sketches about TV shows, advertisements and cinema (the short trailers shown in the first part of the story are hilarious, and so is Ann Kay's behavior in from of the cameras).
Chaplin had left the United States because of the cold war right- wing paranoia that victimized, Therefore, he produced this film in Britain, his home country, in order to satirize that undemocratic situation, just like he had done with Nazism in "The great dictator".
If you are not doing research on Chaplin and are looking for an entertaining but obscure film, avoid the King of New York.
To all intents his final film, short on laughs and high on bitterness, it rarely achieves the heights of prior works.Chaplin was never subtle when it came to satire, as the wonderful Great Dictator should attest.
So that then if it pleases everybody, I'm a communist." Saying such things yourself is fine, but using a small child to make your political speeches for you is extremely unsettling.The film, his first effort to be shot in England, tries to recreate New York with sets and stock footage, as the star was no longer allowed entry into the United States.
Containing just a bit part for Charlie, King is really the last time the public would have to see him fully on the screen.King Shahdov is probably one of the least endearing Chaplin characters as he is painted as a lecherous man who peers through keyholes at bathing women and says things like "I must tell you some of my jokes...
Like A King in New York it's a mediocre piece and not the work of a genius, but it's a shame Chaplin wasn't making more films towards the end of his life, even if both pictures do fall firmly in the camp of "it's regrettable he didn't retire after Limelight".
The American Way and Chaplin's Take on It. Many admirers of the golden era of Chaplin's work may wish to think that "A King in New York" (1957) never existed, but if we get past its seeming difference with the director's preceding oeuvre, we come to glorify the fact that the film did in fact come to existence.
At its heart, "A King in New York" is a satire of the American way of life which is dominated by falsity, betrayal and competition, emerging as the capitalist ideology whose weaponry includes the culture industry, superficial worship of youth; and the media as a de-democratizing power.
On that front Chaplin's penultimate film 'A King in New York' disappoints a little.
A King in New York feels a lot like Chaplin's temper being released in the form of a film.
He arrives in New York keen to re-establish himself and maintain his status as a monarch but it is not long before American life overtakes him and he feels the effect of television, advertising, plastic surgery and political witch-hunts.Although I was concerned what I would find, I felt I should check out some of Chaplin's final films.
Well, people think that because the kid sounds like a Communist that the king must also be one--leading to a lot of confusion and a few laughs.It turns out that the kid had run away from the school after his parent had been forced to testify before the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
This part of the film just isn't very funny and lasts way too long.Despite this hosing, the scene abruptly ends and newspapers announce that Chaplin is cleared and he is once again beloved by the American people.
A King In New York is a satire by Chaplin about his impressions 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.
I watched a lot of early Charlie Chaplin films and can only say that like Red Skelton, to me they were neither funny nor what I would classify as great.
I think the reason some people don't like it is because they want the Charlie Chaplin of the old silent film era.
After seeing the boy broken by government officials, the king consoles him before returning to his own country, exasperated with American life.Clearly the film was ahead of its time.
His character, King Shadov, is presented before the house of Un-American Activities Committee as a suspected Commie, mirroring Charlies real life experiences in the states just a few short years earlier.If ever a film delivered the ultimate two-finger gesture and a final winning laugh then this was it.
A KING IN NEW YORK is a curious film in the Chaplin-canon.
In the same way, he hardly made KING in a desire to let out his opinions, at least not solely so; rather, I believe that in search of new comedy material, he decided to use themes which had obsessed him much in the last few years, making the McCarthy-era and American culture obvious choices.Chaplin tries to chew a lot, but I think he succeeds most of the time, as his covering of nearly every theme in the film somehow relate to one another.
It has been pointed out that Chaplin here was working without his own studio and employees, for the first time in forty years, which possibly made him less open for criticism from others while making the film, or he may not even have been offered it.
A KING IN NEW YORK is by no means his best film, but it must rank among his funniest, and is quite thought-provoking every once in a while.