In the middle of the McCarthy communist-hunt, Charlie Chaplin ended up being exiled from the United States due to his open criticisms of the government and society. Similar to his mockery of WWII in The Great Dictator, Chaplin took these frustrations to the big screen in 1957’s A King in New York. Which would also serve as Chaplin’s last leading performance, ending one of the best careers any actor has ever had.
Forced out of his country by revolution, King Igor Shahdov (Charlie Chaplin), moves to New York City where he quickly finds himself in the middle of a web of celebrity worship, bizarre social standards, and political turmoil. All while he tries to contact the Atomic Energy Commission with plans to create a Utopia.
Where Chaplin has made politically relevant films up to this point, A King in New York stands out among the rest, simply considering how many topics Chaplin touches on. Chaplin doesn’t hold anything back as he jumps from topic to topic. He clearly is angry and uses the film to vent his frustrations with every element of life. From the government, to the people, Chaplin wisely utilizes both comedy and emotion to make his case. Never preaching to the audience, but rather writing in natural encounters that play very well.
Related Review: Wild Strawberries
This social commentary might still provide entertainment, and an interesting look at some of the bigger conversations from this time in history, but also has the unfortunate side effect of dating the film. Where there still might be some relevant ideas in the film – such as the one-sided conversation in most political beliefs and the danger of villainizing an entire political party – there is also plenty in the film that sadly doesn’t hold much relevance in the modern world. Or leave an impact on modern audiences. It can only be assumed that this is one of the major reasons A King in New York fails to be a Chaplin film often talked about nearly as much as it should be.
Where A King in New York might be one of the most politically charged Chaplin films, it still does carry most of the impressive attributes associated with Chaplin’s earlier projects. Where the style of filmmaking isn’t quite as revolutionary or groundbreaking as something like The Circus for example, the film absolutely still carries an incredibly tight pacing and comedic timing that is a signature for Chaplin.
The cinematography from Academy Award winning Georges Périnal is extremely smart. As is the score, also from Chaplin. Yet the most impressive technical element isn’t the score or cinematography, but rather the acting itself.
Related Review: Pyaasa
Of course, Charlie Chaplin himself is incredibly fun and talented, but the surprise of the film was his son, Michael Chaplin, who nearly steals the show from his dad. Despite only being 10 at the time, Michael carries such a powerful line delivery and presence. Such a crafted and focused performance would be impressive from anyone, but having it come from a child is just an insane notion.
Like much from his later filmography, A King in New York might not be one of the most talked-about films from Chaplin’s filmography, though absolutely deserves to have a bigger conversation around it. This is a creative and clearly inspired commentary of the events of this time. ban artist who is angry, and not just going to let these events happen without getting a word in about them.
A King in New York clearly is a unique and defining look at society in America in 1957. And it wouldn’t be a proper look at the year in cinema without including it.
