This was the last film starring Charlie Chaplin and he went on to do only a very brief cameo in the last film he directed, THE COUNTESS FROM HONG KONG. And, while it lacks the quality of many of his famous full-length films, it is well worth your time.
One of the reasons I say that the film lacks quality is the unevenness of the film. While the music Chaplin composed is very good and parts of the film are quite touching, other parts look a bit choppy and some of the camera work is rough. But, considering that mediocre Chaplin is still head and shoulders above most other work, this can all be forgiven.
Chaplin plays the deposed benevolent king of a fictional European country. When he arrives in America, he is treated like a celebrity and he intends to make it his new home. However, over time his opinion about living here sours--partly due to the intensity and shallowness of American culture but mostly due to the zealous anti-Communist movement of the day.
The film consists of two parts. The initial portion is pretty light-hearted and involves Chaplin's becoming acquainted with American culture (such as TV, Rock and Roll and even plastic surgery). While I have heard some comment that this makes the movie seem too episodic and lacks focus, I actually liked this part and found it charming--even though not all the gentle ribbing worked in every case.
The second part begins when Chaplin visits an odd "progressive school" in the city. Here children are encouraged to express themselves and avoid inhibitions. In reality, it means that the kids are brats and have absolutely no discipline. This is a pretty funny segment--particularly when Chaplin is introduced to the editor of the school paper (actually played by Chaplin's 10 year-old son, Michael). This kid (Rupert) is incredibly obnoxious and instead of discussing politics with the democratic-natured king, he "speachifies" about the evils of all government and sounds a lot like Leon Trotsky! Although it is not apparent at first, this little vignette actually changes the course of the film. A bit later, Rupert is seen wandering about New York in the snow all alone. The king sees him and takes pity despite their political differences. He feeds and clothes the kid and Rupert repays him by telling people that he is the king's nephew. Well, people think that because the kid sounds like a Communist that the king must also be one--leading to a lot of confusion and a few laughs.
It turns out that the kid had run away from the school after his parent had been forced to testify before the House Committee on Un-American Activities. The parents admit that they had been Communists in the past but refused to implicate others, so they are jailed for contempt. Next, the committee subpoenas Chaplin to testify while federal agents begin badgering Rupert to get him to talk. This leads to a very tiring and badly written part of the film. On the way to testify, Chaplin gets his finger stuck in a fire hose and he eventually has to charge into the committee room with it still stuck on his hand. Then, the hose gets connected to another hose and turned on--at which point, Chaplin thoroughly douses the committee. This part of the film just isn't very funny and lasts way too long.
Despite this hosing, the scene abruptly ends and newspapers announce that Chaplin is cleared and he is once again beloved by the American people. Why and how this occurs is beyond me, as the last scene ended with the committee charging him with contempt! It is like there is a missing scene explaining how this all occurred. Regardless, Chaplin is tired of the hysteria about Communism and vows to return to Europe. On the way, he stops to see Rupert and finds his spirit is broken...as Rupert was tricked into betraying his parents' former associates. The film then ends as it shows Chaplin and his trusted aid flying out of New York.
While Chaplin denied that this film was an attempt to get back at America for its shabby treatment of him in the early 50s, it is pretty obvious that this movie is a comedic and very poignant attempt to do precisely that. It reminds me a lot of the Woody Allen film THE FRONT, though it preceded it by almost two decades. While it was true that there was significant infiltration of our government by Stalinist spies (based on recent data released by the Kremlin), along with legitimate concerns many innocent people were hurt just because of their political leanings. Chaplin's leftist beliefs and movies that depicted the little guy as being oppressed by an uncaring Capitalist society came back to haunt him during this era of fear. In the end, he was forced to return to Europe to live out the remainder of his life. So, in many, many ways, this movie was an autobiographical film wrapped in comedy.
Now as for the good and the bad about this film. The film has many amusing little segments and is quite charming. Its autobiographical aspects make for an interesting insight into Chaplin's psyche and even without that, it is a pretty good film.
One of the reasons I say that the film lacks quality is the unevenness of the film. While the music Chaplin composed is very good and parts of the film are quite touching, other parts look a bit choppy and some of the camera work is rough. But, considering that mediocre Chaplin is still head and shoulders above most other work, this can all be forgiven.
Chaplin plays the deposed benevolent king of a fictional European country. When he arrives in America, he is treated like a celebrity and he intends to make it his new home. However, over time his opinion about living here sours--partly due to the intensity and shallowness of American culture but mostly due to the zealous anti-Communist movement of the day.
The film consists of two parts. The initial portion is pretty light-hearted and involves Chaplin's becoming acquainted with American culture (such as TV, Rock and Roll and even plastic surgery). While I have heard some comment that this makes the movie seem too episodic and lacks focus, I actually liked this part and found it charming--even though not all the gentle ribbing worked in every case.
The second part begins when Chaplin visits an odd "progressive school" in the city. Here children are encouraged to express themselves and avoid inhibitions. In reality, it means that the kids are brats and have absolutely no discipline. This is a pretty funny segment--particularly when Chaplin is introduced to the editor of the school paper (actually played by Chaplin's 10 year-old son, Michael). This kid (Rupert) is incredibly obnoxious and instead of discussing politics with the democratic-natured king, he "speachifies" about the evils of all government and sounds a lot like Leon Trotsky! Although it is not apparent at first, this little vignette actually changes the course of the film. A bit later, Rupert is seen wandering about New York in the snow all alone. The king sees him and takes pity despite their political differences. He feeds and clothes the kid and Rupert repays him by telling people that he is the king's nephew. Well, people think that because the kid sounds like a Communist that the king must also be one--leading to a lot of confusion and a few laughs.
It turns out that the kid had run away from the school after his parent had been forced to testify before the House Committee on Un-American Activities. The parents admit that they had been Communists in the past but refused to implicate others, so they are jailed for contempt. Next, the committee subpoenas Chaplin to testify while federal agents begin badgering Rupert to get him to talk. This leads to a very tiring and badly written part of the film. On the way to testify, Chaplin gets his finger stuck in a fire hose and he eventually has to charge into the committee room with it still stuck on his hand. Then, the hose gets connected to another hose and turned on--at which point, Chaplin thoroughly douses the committee. This part of the film just isn't very funny and lasts way too long.
Despite this hosing, the scene abruptly ends and newspapers announce that Chaplin is cleared and he is once again beloved by the American people. Why and how this occurs is beyond me, as the last scene ended with the committee charging him with contempt! It is like there is a missing scene explaining how this all occurred. Regardless, Chaplin is tired of the hysteria about Communism and vows to return to Europe. On the way, he stops to see Rupert and finds his spirit is broken...as Rupert was tricked into betraying his parents' former associates. The film then ends as it shows Chaplin and his trusted aid flying out of New York.
While Chaplin denied that this film was an attempt to get back at America for its shabby treatment of him in the early 50s, it is pretty obvious that this movie is a comedic and very poignant attempt to do precisely that. It reminds me a lot of the Woody Allen film THE FRONT, though it preceded it by almost two decades. While it was true that there was significant infiltration of our government by Stalinist spies (based on recent data released by the Kremlin), along with legitimate concerns many innocent people were hurt just because of their political leanings. Chaplin's leftist beliefs and movies that depicted the little guy as being oppressed by an uncaring Capitalist society came back to haunt him during this era of fear. In the end, he was forced to return to Europe to live out the remainder of his life. So, in many, many ways, this movie was an autobiographical film wrapped in comedy.
Now as for the good and the bad about this film. The film has many amusing little segments and is quite charming. Its autobiographical aspects make for an interesting insight into Chaplin's psyche and even without that, it is a pretty good film.