1. King Of New York Game
2. Watch Kings Of New York

King of New York This low-budget crime thriller has the feel of a major blockbuster and owes its roots to the hard-edged crime movies of the 1930s. Christopher Walken stars as a drug kingpin who is released from prison and vows to use his position and influence-and criminal enterprise-for charitable means.

A King in New York is a 1957 Britishcomedy film directed by and starring Charlie Chaplin in his last leading role, which co-stars, among others, his young son Michael. The film presents a satirical view of the McCarthy communist-hunt era and certain other aspects of United States politics and society. The film, which was produced in Europe after Chaplin's exile from the U.S. in 1952, did not open in the United States until 1972.

King Of New York Game

Plot[edit]

'One of the minor annoyances in modern life is a revolution.' Deposed by revolution in his home country of Estrovia, King Igor Shahdov (Charlie Chaplin) comes to New York City almost broke, his securities having been stolen by his own Prime Minister. He tries to contact the Atomic Energy Commission with his ideas for using atomic power to create a utopia.

At a dinner party, some of which is televised live (unbeknown to him), Shahdov reveals he has had some experience in the theatre. He's approached to do TV commercials but does not like the idea. Later, he does make a few commercials in order to get some money.

Invited to speak at a progressive school, Shahdov meets Rupert Macabee (Michael Chaplin), a ten-year-old historian and editor of the school paper who doesn't want to disclose his political affinity due to fear of McCarthyism. Macabee proceeds to give Shahdov a stern Marxist lecture. Although Rupert himself says he distrusts all forms of government, his parents are Communists who are jailed for not giving up names at a Joseph McCarthy-type hearing. Because young Rupert had spent time with him, Shahdov is suspected of being a Communist himself, and has to face one of the hearings. He is cleared of all charges, but not before a scene in which Shadhov accidentally directs a strong stream of water from a fire hose at the members of the 'House Committee on Un-American Activities' (HUAC), who scatter in panic. He decides to join his estranged queen in Paris for a reconciliation.

In the meantime, the authorities force the child to reveal the names of his parents' friends in exchange for his parents' freedom. Grieving and guilt-ridden, Rupert is presented to King Shahdov as a 'patriot'. Shahdov reassures him that the anti-Communist scare is a lot of nonsense which will be over soon and invites him to come to Europe with his parents for a visit.

In addition to its condemnation of HUAC's methods, the film takes witty potshots at American commercialism, popular music, celebrity culture, and film. A dinner party scene includes a number of satirical portrayals of actors and public figures of the period, including Sophie Tucker.

Cast[edit]

• Charlie Chaplin as King Shahdov
• Maxine Audley as Queen Irene
• Jerry Desmonde as Prime Minister Voudel
• Oliver Johnston as Ambassador Jaume
• Dawn Addams as Ann Kay - TV Specialist
• Sid James as Johnson - TV Advertiser (billed as Sidney James)
• Joan Ingram as Mona Cromwell - Hostess
• Michael Chaplin as Rupert Macabee
• John McLaren as Macabee Senior
• Phil Brown as Headmaster
• Harry Green as Lawyer
• Robert Arden as Liftboy
• Alan Gifford as School Superintendent
• Robert Cawdron as U.S. Marshal
• George Woodbridge as Member of Atomic Commission

Reception[edit]

The film did well in Europe, but its lack of U.S. distribution severely hampered its commercial impact. The film divides opinion over its merits. Variety called it a 'tepid disappointment' and a 'half-hearted comedy with sour political undertones' with some 'spasmodically funny scenes'.^[1] The film has a 'fresh' rating of 80% on the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, based on 10 reviews.^[2]

Chaplin biographer Jeffrey Vance, writing in 2003, believes A King in New York to be an important film within Chaplin's body of work. He concludes his lengthy examination of the film with the statement, 'Although A King in New York targets the social and political climate of the 1950s, its satiric commentary is timeless. Despite its flaws, the film remains a fascinating study of life in America through the eyes of its most famous exile'.^[3]

The film was eventually released in the United States in March 1972, opening at the Little Art theatre in Yellow Springs, Ohio.^[4] It was then shown at the UCLA in November 1973^[4] and then opened at the Playboy theatre in New York on December 19, 1973.^[1]

References[edit]

1. ^ ^ab'Film reviews: A King in New York'. Variety. 12 December 1973. p. 18.
2. ^'A King in New York'. rottentomatoes.com. 1 January 1957. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
3. ^Vance, Jeffrey. Chaplin: Genius of the Cinema (2003): Harry N. Abrams, p. 329. ISBN0-8109-4532-0
4. ^ ^abMacklin, F Anthony (2 January 1974). 'On 'First' Claims, It's Always a Loss'. Variety. p. 21.

External links[edit]

• A King in New York on IMDb
• A King in New York at AllMovie
• A King in New York at the TCM Movie Database

Now comes 'King of New York,' Ferrara's most expensive and ambitious picture to date, with borrowings from a different classic.

Instead of 'Romeo and Juliet,' this one recycles 'Robin Hood,' with Christopher Walken as a New York drug kingpin who wants to use his profits to pay the budget of a hospital for poor people. The Walken character never quite gets around to explaining precisely how he plans to set up his financing, and I am not sure any money actually goes to the poor and sick, but it's a good idea, anyway.

Walken glides through the movie with his usual polished and somehow sinister ease, a man supremely confident of his ability to succeed in an arena where most people end up dead. Part of his genius is to control a large gang of black drug dealers, whose fealty to him is hard to explain, although perhaps they enjoy attending business meetings in his suite at the Plaza Hotel. Eventually the empire breaks up, however, in double-crossings and reprisals, broken loyalties and stool-pigeons, although it will take a viewer more clever than myself to explain exactly what happens in the fragmented labyrinth of the movie's plot.

All of Ferrara's movies make a point of interracial friendships and romance, and Walken has at least two black girlfriends among his other sidekicks. (I do not write 'at least' because I cannot remember the exact number, but because the relationships in this movie are so sketchy that it's hard to be sure.) Is there a point to be made here? No; Ferrara gives us a white leader of a black gang of drug dealers and scarcely seems to notice it.

The movie is much stronger in its particulars than in its over-all drift. There are a couple of genuinely effective scenes, including one where the Walken character is accosted by muggers on the subway, shows them his gun, frightens them, then pulls out money and throws it to them, promising there's more where that came from and that they should simply 'Ask for me at the Plaza.' (The lack of a scene showing the muggers inquiring after Walken at the Plaza's front desk is one of the movie's more regrettable lapses.) I am not sure that Walken is always sure exactly why his character behaves as he does (the screenplay has a cavalier way with details), but he has a way of slinking through the plot that's convincing. Walken is one of the few undeniably charismatic male villains of recent years; he can generate a snakelike charm that makes his worst characters the most memorable, and here he operates on pure style. No gaps in the film's logic, no inconsistencies in the plot, not even a decidedly peculiar ending can discourage him.

He's somehow able to convince us that he knows why everything is happening, even if most of the other characters (and the filmmakers) seem bewildered.

What Ferrara needs for his next film is a sound screenplay.

Watch Kings Of New York

He has gone about as far as a director can go on pure style, and he apparently isn't one of those filmmakers who can begin with a sketchy script and patch it up as he goes along. His effects are too good, his command of mood is too sure, for him to continue trying to bluff his way through half-written movies like this one. All it did was whet my appetite.