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). This was quite a performance, and although I do not know who that boy was, I hope he has gone on to do well for himself.We also have the advertising woman, which rounds out the characters -- the political child, the commercialism of the woman. What does it all mean? I am not quite sure. But the film is such a fine critique of McCarthyism and commercialism. Indeed, does anyone think we are not inundated with pointless ads? The Communist aspects are a bit harder to judge. At the time, he probably received great flack for this (indeed, the film was poorly received). But he was also not completely innocent -- he certainly had leftist leanings, despite his denial of such. Perhaps not strictly Communist, but most likely he was sympathetic. And why not? The king was a Communist from 1940-1950 and then resigned. This seems fair -- it was not until after World War II that America became anti-Soviet. Looking back today (50 years later), it all seems silly.

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.

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.

One of the inconveniences of the modern world is that kings are now subject to revolution; fortunately for King Shahdov he managed to flee his European kingdom with his wealth before his people could overcome him. 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. Wholly made in England after Chaplin after he left America and was refused re-entry, it will be of no surprise to find that this film is a rather barbed commentary on many aspects of American life but what will surprise many is just how blunt the majority of it is. Despite apparently taking nearly two years to write, the plot is essentially a series of scenarios that allow for various satires of the US and as such it is very broad and obvious. Many others have commented on the lack of laughs but I didn't really have a problem with this because a filmmaker is quite welcome to branch out and do something more than comedies if they so desire. However what I do have a problem with is the way that I was hammered with the points being made in a way that suggests I would not be smart enough to understand unless it was painted in massive letters.This is not to say that the film is without value because actually the points it makes are interesting enough to carry the film even if they are crudely made. Watching it from fifty years in the future it has an extra value in seeing the "problems" of American society being highlighted and comparing them with today – the same in many areas with only the scale being different. Otherwise though it simply is not clever or subtle enough to stand up as anything more than an OK film. Where it should be biting and cutting like a sharp weapon it comes over like a lead-pipe of satire – it is still interesting but it is hard to overlook that it is a very blunt tool.