A King in New York / A Woman of Paris (1973)

Too Little Too Late

Of the two movies in this DVD, "A King in New York" is clearly the better one. There were moments in it when I laughed out loud. They mainly occurred during Chaplin(the King)'s exploration of New York City. The previews at the movie theater and his experience at the night club were, I suppose, Chaplin's comments on how the Arts had commercialized themselves. There were a few other jokes in reference to advertizing that worked fairly well. However, the movie eventually revealed its' purpose as a condemnation of the Rosenberg Trial (Wow, I didn't see that one coming). Chaplin gave an acceptable performance and I came away reasonably glad that I had seen it. No need to watch it again, though.

The second film in the DVD, "A Woman of Paris" was made about 30 years earlier. It did not star Charlie Chaplin (who DID direct it) and there was even a disclaimer in this silent movie that clarified that Mr. Chaplin would NOT be appearing in the movie. This was a reasonably well-made story of the innocent young beauty whose circumstances led her down the wrong path. It is Not a comedy. In fact it's rather tragic although it ends with an upbeat message. The actors were unknown to me except for Adolphe Menjou who seems to have made a career of being a supporting actor. The director obviously meant to create an emotional story. However, Chaplin the actor was far better at creating emotions than was Chaplin the director. Chaplin the actor could create a story with little, if any, dialogue. Chaplin, the director, needed a lot of dialogue cards to set the stage and enhance the story. Chaplin directed himself to much success. That's because he had better talent to work with than he did in "A Woman of Paris". September 30, 2008

The Shadow King

All these reviews and no one mentioning the exceptional child actor who plays Rupert Macabee. I remember Michael Chaplin growing up and rebelling against his old man, writing his memoirs--"I Couldn't Smoke the Grass on My Father's Lawn." Then dying far too young, and perhaps the poignance of that early death colors my response to his performance here as the left-wing little boy who gets tamed by the House Un-American Activities Committee.

The boys school scene, the juvenile delinquents popping up from behind bazaar stalls to pop spitballs at Shadhov and his ambassador--sort of puerile and not very amusing, but as soon as Shadhov meets little Rupert (at age 10, editor of the school newspaper, and unable to stop mouthing the left rhetoric he learned from his parents), the picture takes on a greater depth of feeling. Previous to this it has been a fitfully amusing satire of US foibles in midcentury--rock music, body odor, commercialization of the intimate, but when Rupert starts hollering his impassioned pleas for social revolution, something seems seriously wrong and the King realizes that American has become a schizophrenic culture. Later on, the boy is found outside the Ritz and the King takes him to his suite, drawing him a hot bath (there is an inspired pantomime scene involving stripping Rupert of his clothes, while Shadhov moves from spot to spot so the audience never sees anything of the boys' body), and he seems to soften a little.

If there is a weakness to the film, it is that Dawn Addams, as the television presenter Ann Kay, is not drawn into the HUAC story with sufficient skill. Thus charming as she is, she remains outside the disturbing political content of the action, and also outside of its real feeling. Maxine Audley, as the Queen, fares better--though she isn't as glamorous, and her faded prettiness pales next to Dawn Addams' go-go Dawn Powell-ness. August 8, 2008

A Woman of Paris: My New Favorite Chaplin Film

I was impressed by the realistic depiction of the characters, subtle acting and imaginative camera work. I didn't miss the sight gags since the story is so involving. I don't think you can have a proper appreciation for Chaplin's genius without seeing A Woman of Paris. It is certainly not a minor footnote, but one of the signal films of his career. Chaplin cannot resist his melodramatic instincts, and the plot veers off course toward the end, but for the first 3/4 of the film Chaplin manages to make twenties Paris come alive. These figures from another era nevertheless have the solemn ring of truth, as Chaplin paints with a finer brush than he ever had in his career. It is sad that A Woman of Paris has been relegated to a footnote in Chaplin's career, and to a pairing with the totally dissimilar and in many ways inferior, A King in New York. It is a wise, wonderful movie about the tricks of fate life can play in our lives, and about the particularly crushing effect life can have on women, who often are judged more harshly by society for making unconventional choices. This movie is highly recommended. Five well earned stars.

January 10, 2008

Not your "typical" Chaplin movies

Both of these films, 1923's "A Woman of Paris", and 1957's "A King in New York" are probably not what you'd expect in a Chaplin film based on the totality of his body of work both in features and in shorts. However, that doesn't mean they're not worthwhile viewing. It just means if you are new to Chaplin, you might not want to start here.

"A Woman of Paris" showed Chaplin's talent behind the camera without him appearing in front of it, except for a lone cameo in which he quickly appears and then disappears acting as a luggage boy. He made it for two reasons, to do some pioneering in cinematic technique and to help give his long time costar and companion Edna Purviance a career boost. The film is actually quite good with great performances by Purviance and by Adolphe Menjou as a carefree playboy. The film did make a star out of Menjou. It didn't really help Purviance that much. The film is about a pair of star-crossed lovers that circumstance drives apart and then brings back together and the eventual tragedy that occurs due to the weakness of will of Purviance's one time fiance, played by Carl Miller. The film was a failure at the box office, not because it was bad, but because audiences expected to see Chaplin when they went to a Chaplin film. The commentary on the film mentions the fact that after the failure of this film Chaplin went back to formulas that were tried and true for him and never really went out on a limb experimenting again, which is too bad for all of us.

1957's "A King in New York" shows Chaplin at the end of his film career. Refused permission to reenter the U.S. in 1952 due to the idea that he held anti-American beliefs, he actually made this film about a deposed European king in New York in England. The film suffers from production values that are not as high as they were in Chaplin's earlier films, and the commentary points out that Chaplin had much trouble making this film mainly because he was not dealing with familiar personnel in his own studio as he had in his earlier efforts. The film's political statements are heavy-handed, but there are still some good comic turns by Chaplin and his viewpoints and comic bits on America and rampant commercialism and consumerism still hold up today. In fact, they are probably much more relevant today than they were 50 years ago.

If you are curious about Chaplin's work you need to eventually view both of these films, just don't start your journey here. If you are just starting out, I recommend you view Image Entertainment's Mutual Comedies. These are 12 two-reel comedies Chaplin made in 1916 and 1917 and show his comic technique evolve from the pants-kicking fests of his Essanay and Keystone films into the sophisticated technique he had from the end of the series onward. Also, the Mutual period was named by Chaplin himself as the era in both his personal and professional life in which he was the happiest. December 24, 2007

A VISIONARY VIEW OF AMERICA

1957. Written and directed by Charles Chaplin. Brilliant satire of the U.S.A. of the fifties. Chaplin squares up with the McCarthy paranoia, the television era and with a country that refused to renew his residence permit in 1952. October 19, 2007

More reviews at Amazon.com ...