bkoganbing Although not a shred of footage was shot in New York and the cast was 98% British players, A King In New York which did not get released in the USA until the House Un-American Activities Committee had ceased to exist remains a stinging indictment of American culture of the McCarthy era. Charlie Chaplin being a premier victim of the era knew from whence he spoke and wrote.The idea of an exiled monarch from Ruritanian type royal house presumably under your typical royal family being a Communist is an oxymoron on the face of it. Yet that is exactly what Charlie Chaplin is accused of in A King In New York. Under what power an American Congressional Committee could compel testimony is still not clear, but HUAC did that too when it thought necessary.Chaplin decides to settle here, try out America before sending for his exiled Queen Irene Audley. But as funds run low, he's forced to sell his most prize possession, the good name of the monarchy in a slew of advertising schemes as launched by Dawn Addams and Sid James. 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. Later on when he takes the kid in after finding him on his hotel steps and the press hears him going on his Marxist jag, the exiled king is accused of being a Communist and has to go before HUAC. Chaplin waters down his testimony to the chagrin of the committee.Although Chaplin had abandoned his little tramp character at this point and the famous Hitler like mustache was gone, he still had some marvelous sight gags worthy of his silent classics. 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.

henryhertzhobbit 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. For me, the ones from that era that were funny were Oliver & Hardy, or later on Abbot & Costello. I loved this film but watched without even knowing it was a Charlie Chaplin movie when I first saw it. As proof that Charlie was correct in his assessment of the American lunacies and a denunciation of McCarthyism is the fact that the movie wasn't released in the US until the 1970s and probably wasn't viewed except by only a few Americans until the 1980s. I think the reason some people don't like it is because they want the Charlie Chaplin of the old silent film era. I would say they are not even the same person. After being hounded out of the United States and being told he would not be allowed to return, how do you expect him to feel? He had to become an almost totally different person after that kind of experience. The penultimate moment of the film for me is when he is labeled as being a Royal Communist. That has to be the most absurdly funny statement I have heard for a long time. His answer in a Latin sounding phrase made it even more humorous. I rate it right up there with Abbot & Costello's "Who is on first, What is on second, I don't know is on third ..." The ensuing actions of what starts it all hinges on those moments. Is it really possible to have a Royal Communist? If you like Oliver & Hardy, Abbot & Costello, or the Marx brothers you will like this movie.

CitizenCaine The nice thing about film is sometimes time has a way of improving our outlook on once-failed films. Sometimes they're just ahead of their time like The King In New York. Charles Chaplin wrote, directed, produced, and starred in The King In New York as the deposed King Shahdov fleeing an imaginary European country. He makes his way to New York City where he is inundated by the excesses and inconveniences of American life. The film contains nice pot shots taken at modern American targets, such as commercialism, new technology, noisy nightclubs, plastic surgery, rock music, and perhaps even Edward R. Murrow's "Person to Person". However, I think Chaplin was aiming for a higher target than these: the individual compromising his values when forced to do so.It's well known Chaplin was forced out of the United States for good in 1952. Between then and the making of this film, the H.U.A.C. hearings took their toll on the entertainment industry and private individuals as well. It's no surprise then Chaplin focused on those aspects of society closest to his personal concerns. The film tends to waver a bit in its second half. This is largely due to the communist hearing/witch hunt subplot involving Chaplin's son Michael, who plays the son of suspected leftist school teachers. Chaplin at first plays the scenario semi-serious, but then when he actually becomes victimized himself, he plays the climactic scene for laughs. 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. The public still had a sore spot for Chaplin at the time of its release, delaying its release in the United States some sixteen years. If the film had continued in its satirical vein during the second half of the film, it would have been more consistent in tone and in its focus. Instead we get an uneven film at the end, unsure of its focus. Shepperton Studios in England hampered Chaplin's normal creative process by limiting the shooting schedule. As a result, the film took only twelve weeks to shoot; where as, typically Chaplin would take up to a year to make a film previously. What happened to Chaplin in his last twenty-five years was unfortunate, and it's unfortunate for us he made only this film and one other before retiring for good. He composed the score for this film, (and the main theme is entitled The Sadness Goes On), and it's his last leading appearance in film. It's simultaneously entertaining and disappointing, and one wonders what Chaplin could have done with the material at his own studio had Shepperton not rushed it through production. **1/2 of 4 stars.

Enoch Sneed I am pleased to find I'm not the only reviewer who thinks this film is an overlooked part of the Chaplin filmography. It contains some very pungent observations on the American way of life and American society which are still relevant today.Apart from popular culture and materialism, Chaplin takes very careful aim at the "Reds under the bed" hysteria of the 1950's (the equivalent of this century's "war on terror"). He tells the story through the character of a young boy whose parents are charged with contempt by the HUAC. When the boy goes on the run and finds shelter with King Shahdov he is collected by an apparently kindly and fatherly law officer. Later, however, we see him put under enormous psychological pressure to name his parents' friends (the so-called "fellow travellers").The boy's final appearance is very moving. His school superintendent says "how well" Rupert is doing. All we see is someone whose spirit has been broken, and who is tormented by guilt and shame - all in the name of the Land of the Free.This film is very well worth watching, and not just in the context of its own times.