A KING IN NEW YORK was Charles Chaplin's penultimate film and his first in his native Britain.The actual plot,that of an exiled European monarch (King Shadov) and his various adventures in the USA's biggest city,was most certainly intended irony by Chaplin as he himself was in exile from the US after years of harassment and condemnation from McCarthyites,the HUAC,moralists and various other right-wing factions.It was many years before he was persuaded to return to the US in the early 1970's (to receive an honorary Oscar),and indeed this film was not shown there until around the same era.
Chaplin clearly had many issues he wanted to address at the state of American society at this time,and although it is perfectly laudable to bring up these many subjects in a satirical film,the perceptions of US society involved (film,television,advertising,plastic surgery,education,etc.) are sadly not all that funny,cutting or ruthless enough,but rather half-hearted and uninventive.The best moments occur in the first half or so,with an adroit lampoon of film trailers and widescreen ratios;some neatly executed (but all too brief) mime concerning the description of caviar and turtle soup,and the highlight being King Shadov's struggle to contain his laughter during a slapstick nightclub act after undergoing plastic surgery.
However,other would-be mordacious barbs at other subjects such as TV and advertising are rather placidly administered (at least Chaplin's skit on a reality-style TV show is surprisingly prescient),and the second half of the film turns far more serious when the matter of the McCarthyite witch hunts comes to prominence.The film certainly gets bogged down at this point with tedious,witless,pompously over-sermonising dialogue,most of which is uttered by Chaplin's ten-year old son Michael,portraying a boy that the King meets during a visit to a school,whose parents are affected by the anti-communist purges.To be fair,Chaplin Jnr actually gives a fine performance,perhaps a slightly more assured one than his celebrated father whose clipped,rather hesitant manner of speaking conveys a reluctance to enunciate too excessively (not very surprising,as Chaplin always made it clear he was far more comfortable with pantomime than speech).This may be the reason why he gave his son the most sententious lines in his script,which don't as much come across as normal conversation but rather as gross political pronouncements,further emphasised by a continually wagging finger.Chaplin was justified to feel bitter at his treatment by the American authorities,but the sledgehammer non-subtlety he employed to make his point here was woefully superfluous,and it is only his son's natural adeptness at performing that prevents the scenes involved slipping this side of total embarrassment.
Because it was produced in the UK,the film further suffers within it's limitations of monetary production compared to the US.Much stock footage of the Big Apple is utilised,plus some rather obvious back projection and super-impositions,giving the film a rather stagey,claustrophobic if not cheap feel,with famous cameraman Georges Perinal unable to give the film a visually stylish look with the unexceptional set designs at his disposal.Most of the British supporting cast don't make any attempt with American accents,though the inimitable Sid James comes off best in this aspect,with Dawn Addams also not too bad with her transatlantic drawl (though her occasional romantic mutterings with an obviously ageing Chaplin are a trifle creepy).Familiar British performers make brief appearances (such as George Woodbridge and Jerry Desmonde),with Oliver Johnston as the King's confidante coming off best,and an unexpected cameo from a very young Frazer Hines (he of EMMERDALE FARM) as an unhygienic cookery pupil at the school King Shadov visits.
If Chaplin had not concentrated too much on the political elements and pared down the masses of straight,expository dialogue related to this,A KING IN NEW YORK would have probably been a quicker,more biting invective on America in the 50's.It is therefore mostly the case that only brief sequences in the first hour come off with any sort of distinction;the rest,predominately an essay on his personal bitterness,should've been disposed of.
RATING:6 out of 10.
Chaplin clearly had many issues he wanted to address at the state of American society at this time,and although it is perfectly laudable to bring up these many subjects in a satirical film,the perceptions of US society involved (film,television,advertising,plastic surgery,education,etc.) are sadly not all that funny,cutting or ruthless enough,but rather half-hearted and uninventive.The best moments occur in the first half or so,with an adroit lampoon of film trailers and widescreen ratios;some neatly executed (but all too brief) mime concerning the description of caviar and turtle soup,and the highlight being King Shadov's struggle to contain his laughter during a slapstick nightclub act after undergoing plastic surgery.
However,other would-be mordacious barbs at other subjects such as TV and advertising are rather placidly administered (at least Chaplin's skit on a reality-style TV show is surprisingly prescient),and the second half of the film turns far more serious when the matter of the McCarthyite witch hunts comes to prominence.The film certainly gets bogged down at this point with tedious,witless,pompously over-sermonising dialogue,most of which is uttered by Chaplin's ten-year old son Michael,portraying a boy that the King meets during a visit to a school,whose parents are affected by the anti-communist purges.To be fair,Chaplin Jnr actually gives a fine performance,perhaps a slightly more assured one than his celebrated father whose clipped,rather hesitant manner of speaking conveys a reluctance to enunciate too excessively (not very surprising,as Chaplin always made it clear he was far more comfortable with pantomime than speech).This may be the reason why he gave his son the most sententious lines in his script,which don't as much come across as normal conversation but rather as gross political pronouncements,further emphasised by a continually wagging finger.Chaplin was justified to feel bitter at his treatment by the American authorities,but the sledgehammer non-subtlety he employed to make his point here was woefully superfluous,and it is only his son's natural adeptness at performing that prevents the scenes involved slipping this side of total embarrassment.
Because it was produced in the UK,the film further suffers within it's limitations of monetary production compared to the US.Much stock footage of the Big Apple is utilised,plus some rather obvious back projection and super-impositions,giving the film a rather stagey,claustrophobic if not cheap feel,with famous cameraman Georges Perinal unable to give the film a visually stylish look with the unexceptional set designs at his disposal.Most of the British supporting cast don't make any attempt with American accents,though the inimitable Sid James comes off best in this aspect,with Dawn Addams also not too bad with her transatlantic drawl (though her occasional romantic mutterings with an obviously ageing Chaplin are a trifle creepy).Familiar British performers make brief appearances (such as George Woodbridge and Jerry Desmonde),with Oliver Johnston as the King's confidante coming off best,and an unexpected cameo from a very young Frazer Hines (he of EMMERDALE FARM) as an unhygienic cookery pupil at the school King Shadov visits.
If Chaplin had not concentrated too much on the political elements and pared down the masses of straight,expository dialogue related to this,A KING IN NEW YORK would have probably been a quicker,more biting invective on America in the 50's.It is therefore mostly the case that only brief sequences in the first hour come off with any sort of distinction;the rest,predominately an essay on his personal bitterness,should've been disposed of.
RATING:6 out of 10.