Although he tinkered with an anti-war comedy in the last ten years of his life, Charles Spencer Chaplin's last motion picture was this film: A COUNTESS FROM HONG KONG. It was not the most dismal one of his career - A KING IN NEW YORK had that melancholy distinction. But A COUNTESS FROM HONG KONG is almost as bad.
The distinction between the two is a minor one: A KING was made out of anger - Chaplin had been proud of his adopted country, the United States, but after 1936 he felt increasingly alienated from it. A multi-millionaire, his anti-Nazi stance was not popular in many quarters among isolationists in the late 1930s (and his left of center view on labor's rights did not sit well either). J. Edgar Hoover put him on a list of "suspicious" foreigners to watch. Then came his paternity trial which left a sour taste in his mouth (the scientific evidence against paternity was rejected by the jury). His change of direction with THE GREAT DICTATOR and MONSIEUR VERDOUX lost many fans who could not understand why Chaplin had to turn to monsters like Hitler and Landru in his movies. Then came LIMELIGHT, where he seemed preachy and too full of pompous philosophizing. And then, when going back to Europe on a trip, the third rate Attorney General of the day (McGranary) pulled his passport and refused to allow him to return claiming he was a Communist. This and the McCarthy period's blacklist made him disappointed and bitter - and he used A KING IN NEW YORK to pulverize the defects he now found in American society.
Some of the bitterness is still obvious in A COUNTESS FROM HONG KONG. The key to the plot is that Marlon Brando (who comes from a prominent American family like the Rockefellers or Kennedys) is about to get an important diplomatic post, which may lead to bigger political prizes (read "the White House") in a few years, if he behaves himself and returns to his icy wife Tippi Hedrin. Anything, after all, for political success in Puritanical America. Brando is almost willing to do it, but he is taking a boat to Hawaii to meet Hedrin (who is coming from the states) and while on the boat he meets Loren. Loren is the title character, a Russian aristocrat who lives as a call-girl in Hong Kong, and has stowed away on the boat. She had met Brando at a party before the boat sailed, so she is sticking close to him and his aide (Sydney Chaplin).
Chaplin apparently planned this film in the 1930s (which would have made more sense - down-at-their-heels Russian aristocrats were more notable in 1937 than in 1967). But the script was never acted on. My guess is that it was really just a passing fancy, and that it lacked the thought that went into CITY LIGHTS or MODERN TIMES or VERDOUX. Chaplin when he really got into a story turned out excellent film. Here his characters go through tired paces: case in point, the scene where Brando, Loren, and Sydney Chaplin are conferring around a table in Brando's cabin during a rough sea, and a burning cigar helps make them all sea sick. Even Chaplin himself (as an old steward) also turns up sea sick. But the timing of the gag is too slow, and it really does not seem that funny to begin with. Compare it with Chaplin's joke at the start of THE IMMIGRANT, where we see the tramp apparently heaving over the side of the boat taking him to the U.S., only to see (a moment later) he is smiling triumphantly - he caught a fish! That was clever.
Some performers were wasted. Dame Margaret Rutherford, who certainly was an expert comic, appears as an elderly nervous passenger for two minutes or so on screen - one never understood why she was even brought into the film. Patrick Cargill was Brando's valet. He is asked to marry Loren in one sequence, and he plays a meaningless game of peekaboo under a blanket with Loren looking surprised at his antics. Well she should be - they were witless.
Yet, to be fair, Loren is on record as thinking A COUNTESS was an elegant film. I really can't see that - there is no delicacy about it. I just think it was passable as a temporary entertainment - something to watch on a wet afternoon, if you had nothing better to watch. It's just too bad it would prove to be Charlie's last work on screen.
The distinction between the two is a minor one: A KING was made out of anger - Chaplin had been proud of his adopted country, the United States, but after 1936 he felt increasingly alienated from it. A multi-millionaire, his anti-Nazi stance was not popular in many quarters among isolationists in the late 1930s (and his left of center view on labor's rights did not sit well either). J. Edgar Hoover put him on a list of "suspicious" foreigners to watch. Then came his paternity trial which left a sour taste in his mouth (the scientific evidence against paternity was rejected by the jury). His change of direction with THE GREAT DICTATOR and MONSIEUR VERDOUX lost many fans who could not understand why Chaplin had to turn to monsters like Hitler and Landru in his movies. Then came LIMELIGHT, where he seemed preachy and too full of pompous philosophizing. And then, when going back to Europe on a trip, the third rate Attorney General of the day (McGranary) pulled his passport and refused to allow him to return claiming he was a Communist. This and the McCarthy period's blacklist made him disappointed and bitter - and he used A KING IN NEW YORK to pulverize the defects he now found in American society.
Some of the bitterness is still obvious in A COUNTESS FROM HONG KONG. The key to the plot is that Marlon Brando (who comes from a prominent American family like the Rockefellers or Kennedys) is about to get an important diplomatic post, which may lead to bigger political prizes (read "the White House") in a few years, if he behaves himself and returns to his icy wife Tippi Hedrin. Anything, after all, for political success in Puritanical America. Brando is almost willing to do it, but he is taking a boat to Hawaii to meet Hedrin (who is coming from the states) and while on the boat he meets Loren. Loren is the title character, a Russian aristocrat who lives as a call-girl in Hong Kong, and has stowed away on the boat. She had met Brando at a party before the boat sailed, so she is sticking close to him and his aide (Sydney Chaplin).
Chaplin apparently planned this film in the 1930s (which would have made more sense - down-at-their-heels Russian aristocrats were more notable in 1937 than in 1967). But the script was never acted on. My guess is that it was really just a passing fancy, and that it lacked the thought that went into CITY LIGHTS or MODERN TIMES or VERDOUX. Chaplin when he really got into a story turned out excellent film. Here his characters go through tired paces: case in point, the scene where Brando, Loren, and Sydney Chaplin are conferring around a table in Brando's cabin during a rough sea, and a burning cigar helps make them all sea sick. Even Chaplin himself (as an old steward) also turns up sea sick. But the timing of the gag is too slow, and it really does not seem that funny to begin with. Compare it with Chaplin's joke at the start of THE IMMIGRANT, where we see the tramp apparently heaving over the side of the boat taking him to the U.S., only to see (a moment later) he is smiling triumphantly - he caught a fish! That was clever.
Some performers were wasted. Dame Margaret Rutherford, who certainly was an expert comic, appears as an elderly nervous passenger for two minutes or so on screen - one never understood why she was even brought into the film. Patrick Cargill was Brando's valet. He is asked to marry Loren in one sequence, and he plays a meaningless game of peekaboo under a blanket with Loren looking surprised at his antics. Well she should be - they were witless.
Yet, to be fair, Loren is on record as thinking A COUNTESS was an elegant film. I really can't see that - there is no delicacy about it. I just think it was passable as a temporary entertainment - something to watch on a wet afternoon, if you had nothing better to watch. It's just too bad it would prove to be Charlie's last work on screen.