Chaplin in Review – PART X – A King in New York

11 07 2011

Copyright 1957 Charlie Chaplin Productions and Attica Film Company

★ ★ ★ 1/2

For good reason, Chaplin’s bitterness towards the United States was very high during the late 1950s.  His persecution under the Red scare and constant tailings and pressure from the FBI resulted in Chaplin being exiled in 1952.  Along with the forced sale of his personal assets, Chaplin also lost his beloved studio, Chaplin Studios, which was located at the corner of La Brea and and Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles.  For over 30 years, Chaplin had the convenience of working at his own studio, with crew members who were familiar with his work and style and, most importantly, on his own time.  In Europe, once Chaplin decided to move forward with another film, which, at first was a slight consideration of returning to Shadow and Substance, but later settling on A King in New York, Chaplin had to rent a studio in which to shoot which greatly hindered his normal process.

A King in New York was Chaplin’s return parry at the United States government.  The story centers around Chaplin’s character of King Igor Shahdov, a recently exiled king from a small, unnamed European country.  For reasons unknown, his prime minister has drained the country treasury and disappeared, leaving the king stranded and broke in New York City.  Trying to the make the best of his situation, Shahdov tries to present an appeal towards the peaceful use of nuclear power, in addition to settling into life in America in the 1950s.  Chaplin satirically takes jabs at much of American popular culture of this era including wide screen movies, rock and roll music and cosmetic surgery, among other things.  One night at a dinner party, which is unknowingly being broadcasted live on television, Shahdov alludes to the fact that he has had some theatre experience.  Because of this, he is eventually conned by young, pretty T.V. Specialist Ann Kay (Dawn Addams) into doing a deodorant commercial, which is filmed secretly and without his consent.  The commercial becomes a success and the king is offered many other opportunities for doing commercials and plugging various products.  At first he rejects all the offers, but, eventually, because of the need for money, ultimately accepts.  Soon after his newfound commercial successes, Chaplin runs into a small boy named Rupert (played by Chaplin’s older son with Oona, then 10-year-old Michael Chaplin), whose parents are about to be jailed for communist sympathies by the House of Un-American Activities.  Shahdov gives Rupert refuge in his hotel room, causing himself to become a suspect in communist sympathy.  In the end, Shahdov is disillusioned with the United States and leaves the country.

It would be 16 years before A King in New York was released to American audiences because of the obvious attacks on the country at the time; in Europe, the film received decent, but not glowing reviews.  Because of Chaplin having to rent studios and work with a crew he was not accustomed (and, for that matter, one that was not accustomed to him), Chaplin rushed the production and filmed this movie in record breaking time for a Chaplin film (12 weeks).  Also problematic to the production value was having to shoot London locations and in-studio sets to double for New York City.

Though Chaplin said he never set out to make a political film with this motion picture, it definitely has an underlying political tone that stands out to the viewer.  Furthermore, because of this, the somewhat lackluster production value and a script many say is not as generally tight as most Chaplin scripts, this film has been lamented by some audiences as not being very good.  For me, personally, I enjoyed the movie.  It is definitely not his best work, far from it in fact; however, it has it’s own place in his body of work and I can clearly see his reasons for making a film of this manner.

My only qualms about the film were the verbose political rants given by young Rupert.  To me, these became a little tiring and heavy handed, and I felt Michael’s performance was a bit stilted.  Apparently, Oona and Charlie constantly went back and forth as to who was the better child actor Chaplin had worked with, young Jackie Coogan in The Kid or young Michael in this film.  In my opinion, Coogan is the hands down winner of this verbal bet, but maybe Michael’s performance garners more praise than I feel due.  All film criticism, after all, is subjective.

Advertisement

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Reviews

Chaplin in Review – PART III – The Gold Rush

22 06 2011

Copyright 1925 Chaplin Studios and United Artists

★ ★ ★ ★ ★

Following the disappointment of his excursion into drama, Chaplin returned to comedy in 1925 with one of his most famous films, The Gold Rush.

The film’s story is fairly straight-forward.  Chaplin plays the Lone Prospector who has come to the Klondike to be part of the Gold Rush.  Due to horrendous weather, the prospector (Chaplin’s Little Tramp), finds himself stranded in a small cabin belonging to fugitive Black Larson (Tom Murray).  Just when he thinks he is going to die by the fugitive’s hands, Big Jim McKay (Mark Swain) comes and saves the lone prospector.  The Black Larson is sent to look for food as starvation nearly takes their lives.  Some of the mishaps of hunger and cold are portrayed at this point in some brilliantly funny scenes including Chaplin seeing one of his fellow occupants as a large chicken, the famous dinner roll scene, in which Chaplin performs the roll dance, and his cooking and eating of his own leather shoe.  However, finally, their hunger is spared when a bear makes way to the cabin and is killed for food.  It is also to be known that Big Jim McKay has a hidden mine that will make him rich, that he insists he will go to when they are able to leave the cabin.  When the storm ends, the men leave the cabin and McKay departs for his hidden mine, only to find that the Black Larson has hold of his property.  The Black Larson and Big Jim fight it out yet again, the Larson this time hitting McKay in the head with a shovel causing temporary amnesia.  Following the battle, the Larson falls to his death in an avalanche.  The Lonely Prospector make his way to the nearest town, down on his luck as always.  He comes to a saloon where he sees Georgia (Georgia Hale), Queen of the Dancehall girls.  He becomes immediately infatuated with her and begins vying for her love.  During his pining for Georgia, Big Jim McKay makes his way in with just enough memory returned to recognize the Lonely Prospector.  Can Chaplin’s character help Big Jim find his hidden mine and fortune?  With the Lone Prospector get the girl of his dream, the beautiful Georgia?  Without spoiling the film, you’ll have to watch for yourself to find out.

Originally, planned to be shot in northern California on location, the film was ultimately shot at Chaplin Studios.  The remaining opening sequence from the brutal shoot in Truckee, Calif. is all that remained in the final film of the time the company spent shooting in the real Yukon.  Originally, Chaplin had cast the young angel actress from The Kid in the lead role, 16-year-old Lita Grey.  During filming, Chaplin and Grey fell in love and married in November 1924; Chaplin was 35 at this time, Grey, again, only 16.  Following their marriage and her subsequent pregnancy, Chaplin was forced to replace Grey with actress Georgia Hale for the role of the dancehall girl.  Unfortunately, the marriage between Grey and Chaplin was a difficult one and one that would, in the end, cost Chaplin dearly.  At the time they finally divorced in 1927, she received the largest matrimonial settlement in history to that date, which amounted to $825,000 (on top of nearly a million in court costs).  This, topped with a federal tax dispute around the same time, supposedly is what caused Chaplin’s hair to turn white at the young age of 38.

The replacement of Grey with Hale lead to a relationship between Chaplin and Hale that continued through the duration of filming and during Grey and Chaplin’s marriage.  Upon release, The Gold Rush was a major success and made a lot of money at the box office.  Many of Chaplin’s scenes mentioned earlier, like the roll dance, are some of his most famous moments.  Furthermore, this was long said to be Chaplin’s own personal favorite film that he made during his nearly 60 year career in motion pictures.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Reviews

Chaplin in Review – PART II – A Woman in Paris

21 06 2011

Copyright 1923 Charlie Chaplin Studios

★ ★ ★ 1/2

Continuing our review series through the feature films of Charlie Chaplin we come to what, I would say at least, is probably his least well-known feature, 1923’s A Woman in Paris.  Outside of not being as well known, this film holds another distinction: it was a serious drama.  Not only that, but Chaplin only took the writer/director/producer positions and only appeared, very briefly, as a porter with no lines.

Chaplin was famous for helping boost the careers of his various love interests through the years, as evidence will show in the films to come.  However, of all his romances, he probably gave Edna Purviance the best role, because this film had her as the leading actress without being a supporting character to Chaplin.  Unfortunately, despite his best efforts, the film didn’t propel Purviance to the level of stardom originally hoped, though it did end up helping Adolphe Menjou’s career to a degree.

The film is a melodrama that focuses on Purviance’s character of Marie St. Clair.  Her and her young boyfriend, aspiring artist Jean (Carl Miller), are planning to elope.  The night before their plans to move to Paris for marriage, Marie climbs down from her window to meet Jean in the courtyard.  When Marie’s father sees this through the window, he disowns her and kicks her from the house insisting that, “Maybe he will give you a room for the night!”  Marie follows Jean to his house, but finds that his parents aren’t happy about the arrangement either.  With nowhere to go, she decides to head for Paris early, Jean promising to follow her the next day.  However, when he gets back inside his home, he finds his father has died.  Because of this, he doesn’t make it to Paris as scheduled.  Time goes by and Marie becomes a mistress to the wealthy Pierre Revel (Adolphe Menjou).  One night, by chance occurrence after a party, Marie wanders into the wrong room and finds Jean, who now lives in Paris with his mother.  Marie asks Jean to paint her portrait in his studio.  During their meetings for the portrait, Marie finds out about Jean’s father’s death and they begin to rekindle their romance.  Without spoiling the ending, I will leave it at, just as things look good for the young couple, more effects of fate set in.

Compared to Chaplin’s comedies, this film was not nearly as well-received as most of his other work from the same era.  Like many comedy directors, it is sometimes hard for an audience to accept them with drama.  However, if you look at the melodramas being produced by other directors of the same time, this film actually works quite well and is better than many of its competitors.  Woody Allen is a similar artist who seems to fall into this paradox.  For years he has tried to make dramatic films interspersed with his comedies and, almost always, his dramas don’t fair as well as his comedies; except, perhaps, with Match Point.

Chaplin never made another film that was solely a drama.  In the 1970s, when he was in the process of recording scores for many of his silent films, he wrote and recorded a score to accompany this piece.  This would also mark the last time that Chaplin worked with Purviance as a leading lady.  However, his care for her continued for many years; supposedly, long after using her in any pictures, Chaplin kept her on the studio payroll to keep up her livelihood.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Reviews

Chaplin in Review – PART I – The Kid

20 06 2011

For the next eleven days, I am going to be doing a special Chaplin in Review series which will be a Chaplin Feature review, once a day, of his eleven feature films from 1921 to 1967.  Going in chronological order, the first film on the table is 1921’s The Kid.

Copyright 1921 Charlie Chaplin Studios

★ ★ ★ ★ 1/2

While completing his obligatory two-reelers for First National in the late 1910s, Chaplin built his own studio, Charlie Chaplin Studios, and started United Artists with Mary Pickford, her husband, Douglas Fairbanks and D. W. Griffith.  In 1921, though released through First National rather than United Artists as many of his future features would be, Chaplin released his first feature (at least where he was in creative control), The Kid.

The film allowed Chaplin, for the first time, to develop the style that he would ultimately be known for: the comedy drama.  The story starts with Edna Purviance, as a mother, who can’t keep her baby child.  In hopes the child will grow up in a better situation than she can provide, she leaves the baby with a note in a millionaire’s car.  However, by chance, the car is stolen and the thieves find the child, leaving the baby on the side of the street.  Chaplin, playing the eternal Little Tramp, finds the baby.  At first, he is reluctant to bring in the child, but in the end he does.  Five years pass and we see that Chaplin and his found son (Jackie Coogan) are quite close; actually, they are literally partners in crime.  The young Coogan breaks windows, while Chaplin as a window fixer comes to offer repair.  In the meantime, Purviance’s character has become a wealthy star who volunteers at various charity organizations for children to cope with leaving her poor son so many years prior.  When the boy falls ill, a doctor finds out that Chaplin is not the father, and orders men to take the boy.  From this point on, between various authorities and a reward from the now wealthy mother for $1,000, the boy and Chaplin’s relationship seems in deep peril.  The final scenes and dream sequence elucidate the mastery of Chaplin as an auteur of the film medium.

Coogan, who at the time was a vaudeville actor, became a huge movie sensation because of this film.  Funny as though it may seem, the cute kid Coogan eventually played Uncle Fester on the 1960s Addams Family television program as an adult.  Also, following the production of the picture, the negative became a part of a divorce struggle between Chaplin and his first wife, Mildred Harris.  She tried to get rights to the picture, so in an attempt to save his “baby”, Chaplin and several colleagues went to a hotel room in Salt Lake City with the negative to finish cutting and finalize the picture.  A sequence depicting this true life occurrence was produced in Keystone Cops chase vain for the biographical film Chaplin by Richard Attenborough in 1992.  In the end, Chaplin prevailed, and the film nor its rights made their way into Harris’s hands.

Like most of Chaplin’s features to come, The Kid was written, directed, produced, starring and, eventually, scored, by Chaplin.  Unlike many films of today that state “A ____ film” at the head credit, Chaplin’s films were most definitely his.  Every nuance was closely observed by Chaplin himself and tailored to his specification.  To make a film that not only, as the head credit says, is a “…picture with a smile-and perhaps, a tear,” but to do it with such a consistent mix of comedy and drama intertwined is truly an amazing achievement.

My two favorite sequences in the film are the sequence where the kid is taken from Chaplin by the orderlies under orders from the doctor and the dream sequence with the angels and demons (one such young angel being Lita Grey, Chaplin’s future wife).  The absolute horror and heartbreak as the young Coogan, crying and screaming, as he is taken away from his father is touching on every level.  Not giving up without a fight, Chaplin’s Tramp races over the rooftops after the truck the kid is in – arms outstretched, needing each other to go on in life.  In the dream sequence, the exquisiteness of  Chaplin’s ideals of good and evil come to a front between a utopian city of angels and the lecherous villains of the underworld who come to dismantle all that is good.

Even after 90 years, this film still holds all the smiles and tears that it first offered to audiences in 1921.  I’m sure it will continue to stand the test of time and think this is definitely not a bad place to start with Chaplin if you are generally unfamiliar with his work.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Reviews


%d bloggers like this: