Frankly I expected a bit of bitterness and stronger satire from the way the Great man (along with many more) were treated by his Adopted (and other's birth) country. Some others (e.g. Dassin) like him too went back to Europe and flourished, however none of them really brought out their bitterness in their media. Probably looking at the market, where taking that out would surely mean censor and probably ban, even after the McCarthyism had abated ? May be who knows.
The story is of a monarch, deposed by revolution, only unlike almost all the real-life deposed Royalties, e.g. Shah of Iran, this fictitious King chose US as his sanctuary., or may be watching it, the ex-Royals preferred Europe ?
This movie is a satire on two aspects - the commodification of a person - who has some public appeal. This was a deposed king, and as an Ex Royalty, the brand image was already there. Rest was easy - first to honey-trap him, and then exploit.
There was a practical weakness in this though. It is natural that the target didn't realise it, but his practically manager-honey should have, that she was rapidly depreciating his brand value by placing him on inappropriate commercials. But in practical life too it happens, the commercial mind will make hay till the sun shines, and then look for the next field. I won't question the impracticality of the plot, since it isn't. I will only point the impracticality of the mind-set in the unadulterated commercial mind. And this isn't really limited to one country/ market, it is everywhere, at least now.
The second aspect, which I had expected him to be more vocal and biting, but wasn't, is in the Witch-Hunting. It was at its peak during the HUAC/ McCarthy - probably unmatched elsewhere except some quarter-century back in the Soviet or another one and quarter century back in France (I will not go further back, like Spanish Inquisitions). The basic principle of all these inquisitions were same - suspected of being in contravention to basic faith - and hence Guilty, unless found innocent, beyond a shadow of doubt. I won't even hint that it doesn't exist even today - it does and is thriving - not only in monarchies or dictatorships, but even in full democracies (that is as self-claimed, most of these are categorized by the democracy report as Flawed Democracies).
Unfortunately the movie has lost its sting (probably as I mentioned deliberately, to have the access to the off-shore market), it toned down the sting on both the aspects - Commodification of Human as well as the Witch-hunt - or I would say thoroughly watered it down ? It did show some sympathy at the victims of the witch hunt, the precocious Rupert (Michael Chaplin) - could be any innocent person, guilty by association, not necessary a child by physical age. And the scene at the court, "If you don't name others, you are guilty of contempt of court" did really happen, but the movie took it in passing, didn't focus on these. Even the victim of the commodification seemed to be a willing one, despite being well aware of his being manipulated through Honey-trap. Even in the last scene - "Who gave you the fur coat", indicate his being aware of Anne's "professional" personal attachment. But even after that, he seemed to be ready to overlook it, or may be he played the part of Gallant King, by not pointing out. As a story - if I don't think of Chaplin's own tribulations - this is passably OK.
There was a practical weakness in this though. It is natural that the target didn't realise it, but his practically manager-honey should have, that she was rapidly depreciating his brand value by placing him on inappropriate commercials. But in practical life too it happens, the commercial mind will make hay till the sun shines, and then look for the next field. I won't question the impracticality of the plot, since it isn't. I will only point the impracticality of the mind-set in the unadulterated commercial mind. And this isn't really limited to one country/ market, it is everywhere, at least now.
The second aspect, which I had expected him to be more vocal and biting, but wasn't, is in the Witch-Hunting. It was at its peak during the HUAC/ McCarthy - probably unmatched elsewhere except some quarter-century back in the Soviet or another one and quarter century back in France (I will not go further back, like Spanish Inquisitions). The basic principle of all these inquisitions were same - suspected of being in contravention to basic faith - and hence Guilty, unless found innocent, beyond a shadow of doubt. I won't even hint that it doesn't exist even today - it does and is thriving - not only in monarchies or dictatorships, but even in full democracies (that is as self-claimed, most of these are categorized by the democracy report as Flawed Democracies).
Unfortunately the movie has lost its sting (probably as I mentioned deliberately, to have the access to the off-shore market), it toned down the sting on both the aspects - Commodification of Human as well as the Witch-hunt - or I would say thoroughly watered it down ? It did show some sympathy at the victims of the witch hunt, the precocious Rupert (Michael Chaplin) - could be any innocent person, guilty by association, not necessary a child by physical age. And the scene at the court, "If you don't name others, you are guilty of contempt of court" did really happen, but the movie took it in passing, didn't focus on these. Even the victim of the commodification seemed to be a willing one, despite being well aware of his being manipulated through Honey-trap. Even in the last scene - "Who gave you the fur coat", indicate his being aware of Anne's "professional" personal attachment. But even after that, he seemed to be ready to overlook it, or may be he played the part of Gallant King, by not pointing out. As a story - if I don't think of Chaplin's own tribulations - this is passably OK.