Read more
The story of how Charlie Chaplin spent twenty of the last years of his life in self-imposed exile from the United States, where he had lived for nearly fifty years, because of relentless criticism during the 1950s Red Scare, which in Chaplin's case masqueraded as a moral crusade against Chaplin, who had a sorry reputation for liaisons with very young women. During these years in exile, he made his last, and by general agreement, worst films -- and then returned home to a triumphant reception.
About the author
Scott Eyman has written acclaimed biographies of Mary Pickford and Ernst Lubitsch, as well as the film history THE SPEED OF SOUND: HOLLYWOOD AND THE TALKIE REVOLUTION.
Summary
The “shocking” (The Wall Street Journal), must-read story of Charlie Chaplin’s years of exile from the United States during the postwar Red Scare, and how it ruined his film career, from bestselling biographer Scott Eyman.
Bestselling Hollywood biographer and film historian Scott Eyman tells the story of Charlie Chaplin’s fall from grace. In the aftermath of World War II, Chaplin was criticized for being politically liberal and internationalist in outlook. He had never become a US citizen, something that would be held against him as xenophobia set in when the postwar Red Scare took hold.
Politics aside, Chaplin had another problem: his sexual interest in young women. He had been married three times and had had numerous affairs. In the 1940s, he was the subject of a paternity suit, which he lost, despite blood tests that proved he was not the father. His sexuality became a convenient way for those who opposed his politics to condemn him. Refused permission to return to the US after a trip abroad, he settled in Switzerland and made his last two films in London.
In Charlie Chaplin vs. America, Scott Eyman explores the life and times of the movie genius who brought us such masterpieces as City Lights and Modern Times. “One of the finest surveys of the man and the artist ever written” (Leonard Maltin) this book is “a sobering account of cancel culture in action.” (The Economist).
