Chaplin wanted to say more than a few, it seems. What a shame it all had to end like this. 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. But, after being subpoenaed for suspected communist affiliations, what does he do? Makes a film about a man facing a subpoena for suspected communist affiliations. A discreet allusion this isn't.
Chaplin's son, Michael, is also roped in on the act as a boy versed in Marxism, and who gets to echo many of Charles' feelings. When first questioned by Chaplin's King Shahdov over whether he is a communist for his reading matter, he is told "do I have to be a communist to read Karl Marx?" "That's a valid answer", Shahdov counters. The boy, Rupert, then goes into a rant about committees dictating how people should think, and the removal of passport rights. His final outburst on the subject is the telling: "I'm so sick and tired of people asking me if I'm this, if I'm that. 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. A number of British actors help along the illusion by adopting US accents. Look out for a hoarse-sounding Sidney James (yes, he of dirty laugh and Carry Ons) as well as an impossibly young Frazer Hines. Chaplin would complete one more film after this, 1967's A Countess From Hong Kong, the only one of his films on the IMDb to be less well-regarded than this one. 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... naughty ones." There are also one or two barbs thrown at the US film industry, including a snotty dig at "banal movie magazines". At one point Chaplin enters a cinema where we see three fictitious trailers. One of them, Killer With A Soul seems to poke fun at the loss of innocence in cinema, with the tagline "Bring The Family". Another is a distasteful – and quite childish – mockery of transsexuals, called Man Or Woman? and ends with the punchline "we can go to Denmark." As with the majority of the film, it never really amuses, as it all seems so resentful, and laced through with spite. The slapstick elements are also contrived and somewhat obvious.
Not a poor film by any means, the pace certainly never drags, but it is weak by Chaplin's own high standards. However, it is hard not to get a lump in your throat as Shahdov's plane flies away for the final time...
2012 Post-script: Having seen A Countess From Hong Kong since writing this review, it's notable that, while Brando is completely miscast, it has some merit, including Chaplin's ruminations on political issues. 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". At the risk of being churlish, it's also somewhat amusing how members seemingly use the "useful" vote button depending on whether they agree with the review. To date I've reviewed 13 Chaplin films, the majority favourable. None have had as many "unuseful" votes as this one. Maybe I'm wrong, and this review
Chaplin was never subtle when it came to satire, as the wonderful Great Dictator should attest. But, after being subpoenaed for suspected communist affiliations, what does he do? Makes a film about a man facing a subpoena for suspected communist affiliations. A discreet allusion this isn't.
Chaplin's son, Michael, is also roped in on the act as a boy versed in Marxism, and who gets to echo many of Charles' feelings. When first questioned by Chaplin's King Shahdov over whether he is a communist for his reading matter, he is told "do I have to be a communist to read Karl Marx?" "That's a valid answer", Shahdov counters. The boy, Rupert, then goes into a rant about committees dictating how people should think, and the removal of passport rights. His final outburst on the subject is the telling: "I'm so sick and tired of people asking me if I'm this, if I'm that. 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. A number of British actors help along the illusion by adopting US accents. Look out for a hoarse-sounding Sidney James (yes, he of dirty laugh and Carry Ons) as well as an impossibly young Frazer Hines. Chaplin would complete one more film after this, 1967's A Countess From Hong Kong, the only one of his films on the IMDb to be less well-regarded than this one. 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... naughty ones." There are also one or two barbs thrown at the US film industry, including a snotty dig at "banal movie magazines". At one point Chaplin enters a cinema where we see three fictitious trailers. One of them, Killer With A Soul seems to poke fun at the loss of innocence in cinema, with the tagline "Bring The Family". Another is a distasteful – and quite childish – mockery of transsexuals, called Man Or Woman? and ends with the punchline "we can go to Denmark." As with the majority of the film, it never really amuses, as it all seems so resentful, and laced through with spite. The slapstick elements are also contrived and somewhat obvious.
Not a poor film by any means, the pace certainly never drags, but it is weak by Chaplin's own high standards. However, it is hard not to get a lump in your throat as Shahdov's plane flies away for the final time...
2012 Post-script: Having seen A Countess From Hong Kong since writing this review, it's notable that, while Brando is completely miscast, it has some merit, including Chaplin's ruminations on political issues. 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". At the risk of being churlish, it's also somewhat amusing how members seemingly use the "useful" vote button depending on whether they agree with the review. To date I've reviewed 13 Chaplin films, the majority favourable. None have had as many "unuseful" votes as this one. Maybe I'm wrong, and this review