User reviews

Silent comedy buffs seek out Making a Living for one reason only: to witness the film debut of 24 year-old Charlie Chaplin, fresh from stage success in England and America with the Karno comedy troupe. Neither Chaplin nor producer Mack Sennett recalled this first attempt with any fondness in later years, but it seems neither much worse nor much better than the average Keystone one-reeler of the period. We watch with heightened interest, but Making a Living remains difficult to assess objectively. We're so conscious of it as a special milestone, as Chaplin's First Movie, that it isn't easy to sit back and enjoy the show on its own, admittedly modest merits.

The first thing we notice is that the familiar costume hasn't been developed yet. In the very first shot, when Chaplin approaches his co-star (and director) Henry Lehrman to ask for a hand-out, it takes us a moment to adjust to his exotic appearance: he wears a top hat, tan frock coat, and droopy mustache. He looks a bit seedy but he's not exactly a tramp, more like an eccentric gent who is down on his luck. It's interesting to observe Chaplin in this extended opening sequence as he puts the touch on a man who is, apparently, a total stranger. He engages Lehrman in light conversation, examines the man's ring, briefly pretends to steal it, chuckles winningly, and then gets down to the business of genteel pan-handling. At first Lehrman refuses him a loan, but when he relents and offers cash Chaplin suddenly turns him down -- and then, as the offer is withdrawn, quickly grabs it. It's a nice little scene, more relaxed and nuanced than what we might expect.

All that follows is more conventional, as it details the escalating (and increasingly violent) rivalry between Chaplin and Lehrman, first over the same girl and then over the same job, at a newspaper office. Along the way we recognize some Chaplin expressions and mannerisms familiar from later performances, but we also note that Charlie's character is decidedly unsympathetic: he's a con man who repeatedly double-crosses his reluctant benefactor, Lehrman. At one point during a battle Chaplin holds Lehrman at bay with his walking stick, as he later would with Eric Campbell in The Rink (1916), but The Little Tramp seems worlds away. Eventually, when Lehrman manages to take some photos at the scene of a car accident, Charlie steals his camera and attempts to pass off the photos as his own. What a scoundrel!

For a newcomer to movie-making Chaplin appears perfectly relaxed before the camera. Despite all the scuffling and running around that takes place here, both Chaplin and Lehrman (who doesn't display much screen presence) give performances that are noticeably more restrained than the Keystone norm of the time. Towards the end, when Chester Conklin appears as a cop, his grotesque makeup and out-sized reactions look quite exaggerated in contrast to the two leads. It's also interesting to observe that Chaplin and Lehrman, who quickly developed an intense mutual antipathy off-camera, spend most of their on-screen time together as adversaries, both in this film and in Kids' Auto Race, made soon afterward. It seems that Chaplin was signaling, from the very outset, that he would not passively submit to direction from others -- or at least not from Henry Lehrman. And it wouldn't be long after this, just a few months, before Chaplin would be directing his own work, and his brilliant career would be launched in earnest.

For his first film, Charlie Chaplin does not yet wear his tramp costume but is dressed as a dandy, a character clearly inspired by Max Linder.

This is a good example of the one- or two-reel slapstick comedies which constituted a large part of American film production at the time. While there is a story which keeps the viewer's interest, it is mainly an opportunity to accumulate as many visual gags as possible. Only four inter-titles are used in the film and they are not even really necessary. Although the filming consists mostly of wide shots and three quarter shots, always with a static camera, the editing gives a very dynamic progression of the action, with a systematic use of cross- cutting. The fact that it is mostly filmed on location in the streets of Los Angeles and in the office of the L.A. Times gives it authenticity and adds now a historical interest with views of the city and of different parts of a newspaper office in 1914, notably shots of a Linotype used for the composition of the newspaper.

http://a-cinema-history.blogspot.be/2013/09/

It was in this, his first film, that Chaplin was called "a comedian of the first water" by an early, unidentified film critic. Actually, this film was considered bad at the time of its release, but Chaplin stood out in this unimaginative short as a first-class performer. Here, he appears in a silk hat and frock-coat, wearing a monocle. It is interesting to note that while American audiences would interpret this characterization as a traditional stage villain, but in England music-hall this characterization represents a man down-on-his-luck, a sort of forerunner of the Little Tramp (which Chaplin would develop in his following film). The plot, such as it is, involves Chaplin and Lehrman as rival reporters, and when Lehrman gets a photo of a car wreck, Chaplin steals it and tries to sell it to the paper as his own.

This is Chaplin's film debut. If it wasn't for that, there's a pretty good chance that this would be totally forgotten by today. Chaplin, in a pre-Tramp role, shows some of the things that would eventually make him one of the most recognizable figures in the world, such as keeping an opponent away from him by using his cane during a fight). There's very little (ok, no) plot development.

This is a Keystone short, so there is quite a bit of slapstick humor. Perhaps it's due to this movie being over 90 years old when I saw this, but I could not tell what exactly happened between Chaplin and the reporter (played by director Henry Lehrman). There are a few interesting parts.

If you are a fan of Chaplin and can't get enough of his work or a fan of silent slapstick comedies, this might be worth a look. Then again, it's only about 8 or 9 minutes long, so if you don't like it, you haven't wasted much of your time.

Am a big fan of Charlie Chaplin, have been for over a decade now. Many films and shorts of his are very good to masterpiece, and like many others consider him a comedy genius and one of film's most important and influential directors.

He did do better than 'Making a Living', his debut. Can understand why the Keystone period suffered from not being as best remembered or highly remembered than his later efforts, but they are mainly decent and important in their own right. 'Making a Living' is a long way from a career high, but does have historical significance for obvious reasons.

'Making a Living' is not as hilarious, charming or touching as his later work and a good deal of other shorts in the same period. The story is flimsy and the production values not as audacious. The comedy is mildly amusing really at best.

For someone who was new to the film industry and had literally just moved on from their stage background, 'Making a Living' is not bad at all.

While not audacious, the film hardly looks ugly, is more than competently directed and is appealingly played. Chaplin looks comfortable for so early on, though his style was still evolving and not properly found or settled yet, and shows his stage expertise while opening it up that it doesn't become stagy or repetitive shtick.

Although the humour, charm and emotion was done better and became more refined later, 'Making a Living' does have moments where it is humorous, sweet and easy to like, though the emotion is not quite there. It moves quickly and doesn't feel too long or short.

In conclusion, interesting and worthwhile but not one that makes one leap out of their chair. 6/10 Bethany Cox

This is poorly done, not funny really, and just not that well put together. But, when viewing this sort of thing, I think its important to keep two things in mind ... #1: The film industry was new and inexperienced. It was a treat for most folks just to see images thrown up on a screen. #2: Chaplin was also new and inexperienced. He had not yet grown into that lovable Little Tramp. This was a period of learning via experimentation. Given all of that, this is worth watching once if you're a Chaplin fan just because it is such an early example of his work. If, on the other hand, you're not really into Chaplin so much but just a fan of flicks before the "talkies" fad came along, well, you can safely pass on this one and not miss much.

Not one of Chaplin's best, but not deserving of the bad reviews it has generally received.

Chaplin here, in his very first movie, plays a swindler masquerading as a reporter--or at least I think so. The movie moves along at such a hectic pace that it is a little confusing. Like all Keystone movies of that era, it was a silly bit of fluff. But still, it had its moments and is generally is pretty funny.

One memorable scene--memorable for its silliness--is the scene where a car gets into an accident and a reporter (Charlie? I am not sure) interviews a survivor while pinned in the wreck! That one bit of business was funny as hell. Any former present or former journalist, in particular, would appreciate it.

Charlie Chaplin's colossal ego meant that he almost never performed for directors other than himself. Even as early as his debut he was chafing at being told what to do by the man officially in charge, with whom he fought both behind the camera and well as in front of it.

Wearing a top hat and sporting a Zapata moustache the new boy looks very different to his later creation but the aggression of his other early roles is already well in evidence (note the swift clip around the ear he administers to a newsboy who just happens to be watching), while the scene where he prods his adversary in the stomach with his walking stick soon reappeared in 'The Rink'.

Glendale Avenue in brilliant sunlight provides a highly attractive backdrop and the film acquires added visual interest when the action moves further afield to take in a panoramic view of downtown Los Angeles as it looked at the end of 1913 (one of the perks of films of this vintage is the folk in the background going nonchalantly about their business).

The spectacular shot of the car tumbling down a cliff was doubtless shot for an earlier production; after all this time it's presumably far too late to establish precisely what that was.

I have read a lot of negative reviews of Chaplin's first screen appearance, written by people who can't seem to get past the fact that the Tramp has not been discovered yet and Chaplin plays a character wildly different from the one that we know and love and with whom he is most associated with. It is a curious look at his early career, since Chaplin was acting on stage barely six months before this film was shot, and although his character, dubiously named Edgar English, is something of a swindling jerk, it is hard to imagine any actor putting on a charming performance with such a hideous mustache!

Many of Charlie's mannerisms are already very recognizable, and it is interesting to consider how similar his stage acting was to his film acting, since his style is already so clear. Consider his behavior upon noticing the Help Wanted sign, as well as the extensive fight scenes, which are even more breathless here than usual, since the pace of the film is so much faster than many of his short comedies of the time, given the primitive filming equipment.

Making A Living is a very unique film in Chaplin's filmography, not only because it is his first screen appearance, but also because it represents a real testing period in which he was truly unsure of himself as a screen actor. One cannot deny that it is interesting to consider how Chaplin looked back on this film in forming his persona, and what he thought worked here and what he should change. Also of note is the film's final shot, which features a stunt gag, something that would be very common in his later short comedies of this period.

Some have said that this is a film only for Chaplin fans and that casual fans of silent film should skip it, but I disagree. Chaplin is considered by many to be the greatest screen comedian of all time, but if you keep in mind that this is his first screen appearance and therefore not one of the greatest silent comedies of all time, I should think that any viewer with even a mild interest in silent film should find it interesting and entertaining.

In 1914, Charlie Chaplin began making pictures. These were made for Mack Sennett (also known as "Keystone Studios") and were literally churned out in very rapid succession. The short comedies had very little structure and were completely ad libbed. As a result, the films, though popular in their day, were just awful by today's standards. Many of them bear a strong similarity to home movies featuring obnoxious relatives mugging for the camera. Many others show the characters wander in front of the camera and do pretty much nothing. And, regardless of the outcome, Keystone sent them straight to theaters. My assumption is that all movies at this time must have been pretty bad, as the Keystone films with Chaplin were very successful.

The Charlie Chaplin we know and love today only began to evolve later in Chaplin's career with Keystone. By 1915, he signed a new lucrative contract with Essenay Studios and the films improved dramatically with Chaplin as director. However, at times these films were still very rough and not especially memorable. No, Chaplin as the cute Little Tramp was still evolving. In 1916, when he switched to Mutual Studios, his films once again improved and he became the more recognizable nice guy--in many of the previous films he was just a jerk (either getting drunk a lot, beating up women, provoking fights with innocent people, etc.). The final evolution of his Little Tramp to classic status occurred in the 1920s as a result of his full-length films.

This review, then, is based on Chaplin's earliest films. They were, by and large, terrible. However, as I have seen a major portion of the available output for Chaplin, I found myself still wanting to see all his films--even the bad ones! This movie is a stand out because it's about as early a Chaplin film as you'll find. Plus, unlike most other films, even of this era, there is no semblance of any plot. Instead, the film looks like the splicing together of unrelated outtakes. Chaplin is difficult to notice, as he looks nothing like the Little Tramp--instead sporting a monocle and fancy duds. Unless you are a nut like me, don't waste your time with this short.

This is well worth watching, of course, just to see Charlie Chaplin's first screen appearance. In itself, the comedy is not that bad for its time, but it's fairly standard slapstick, without anything particularly imaginative.

It looks very much as if the film has deteriorated quite a bit physically, which makes it somewhat difficult to tell how good it may have been originally. Not that it would have been anything exceptional anyway, but some of the frantic action would probably be easier to follow if the print were in better shape, without anything missing.

Here, Charlie plays a character who is continually looking for ways to outwit a rival as he tries to make good. He gives the role plenty of energy, as you would expect, and he does as much as anyone could have within the limitations of the story line. In itself, it's nothing special, but to anyone who enjoys silent films, it's well worth watching just to see what the start of Chaplin's career was like.

Well, who would have thought that Charles Chaplin's debut was a villainous role? Well, sort of. He is a swindler - Edgar English - who doesn't use the most legitimate and honest ways to make a living. The film is not something special itself - it has a quite coherent plotline, and the fact that Chaplin is a bad guy also doesn't bother me but that good guy, the man Chaplin tries to swindle is not very concrete. He was an honest man but he followed the provocations too easily. A strong hero is always needed.

Charles Chaplin's performance is of course good - he already was an experienced stage performer. Although the film is quite amusing the main reason to watch it is purely historical - to see the first onscreen appearance of one of the greatest icons of the cinema: Charles Chaplin.

Like all of the very early Chaplin works on this VHS, the quality is rather poor and there are dropouts -- not from the tape, but from the film elements -- sometimes enough so that the action is hard to follow. Not that it matters a whole lot, as these are for the most part very simple films with lots of knockabout action, broad humor, and very little else.

In this his first film appearance, Charlie wears a different (droopy) mustache than usual and isn't dressed as the Tramp. But he does seem to be a down-and-out fellow, a swindler who somehow (it's pretty hard to follow) becomes a reporter on the scene at a car crash by stealing a real reporter's camera and pretending the pictures taken are his own.

Lots of fighting and falling down, hardly memorable as anything other than Chaplin's debut, but good for a couple of laughs and it certainly doesn't wear out its welcome

England's Karno Comedy Company undertook its second tour of America in late 1913 with its 24-year-old vaudeville actor Charles Chaplin highlighting his pantomime skits. A rep from Keystone Studios was assigned to review Chaplin's act and hire him if impressed. He was and got Chaplin to sign a one-year contract for $150 per week.

Chaplin traveled to Los Angeles in December 1913 to learn the ropes of film acting. He filmed his first movie, "Making A Living," in the middle of January 1914, under the direction of Keystone director/actor Henry Lehrman. Chaplin, for his first screen effort premiering on February 2, 1914, plays a sleazy swindler with a droopy mustache and a top hat.

Keystone Studio head Mack Sennett wasn't impressed by Chaplin's rookie effort--nor was Chaplin. The actor complained Lehrman was resentful of Chaplin's suggestion on the skits and treated him rudely. The new actor also claimed all his best performances in front of the camera ended up being cut. Lehrman later confessed the new actor was "a vain man" who acted like he "knew too much" and edited the film to not shine too much of a light on the performer.

Sennett didn't buy Chaplin's assertions on Lehrman's behavior and warned him to change his screen persona or he would void the contract. Chaplin likewise was discouraged and ready to quit. One story has Sennett's sweetheart, actress Mabel Normand, seeing potential in Chaplin's style and convinced Sennett to keep the actor.

"Making A Living" was filmed before Chaplin assumed his "Tramp" character. There are certain elements in his movements seen here that would remain with Chaplin throughout his comedic movie career: his walking/running style, his use of a cane, and his facial twitching. But this initial movie did not create a splash in Chaplin's cinematic launch--that would come very soon.

Film debut of legend of the seventh art Charles Chaplin, which is also his first leading role. These are more than enough reasons to take a look at this entertaining picture.

Something curious about the film is that undoubtedly, one can see how talented Chaplin was in regard of the execution of gesticular and slapstick comedy. For a debut, he really has great moments, especially in the fight scenes with the rival reporter, played by director Henry Lehrman. There are also some funny screwball and hilarious chase scenes.

Despite several sites listing the film with the "Charlot" name in the alternate title (which is how many other languages call his famous "Tramp"), here the lead character has little connection with the adorable "vagabond" we would later meet, know and love. Even his appearance is hardly the same. In this case, Chaplin plays a sleazy con artist who does not hesitate to use his charm, wits and seduction for his own benefit, even at the expense of more honest and innocent people, which I found to be an interesting touch.

It is not among his best (because that would come later), and not all the comedy is solid here, but at least it is a great chance to see a bit of the early talent of this celebrated artist.

It's clear from the disjointed and awkward "Making a Living" that Keystone studios and Mack Sennett didn't know what to do with their newly discovered comic import from Britain. Playing a leering, evil-looking character, Chaplin flounders in front of the camera, overacting terribly.

As a comedy, it fails to elicit a single chuckle. And the only interesting bit of filmmaking comes at the very end when we see Chaplin and another actor jumping onto the front of a moving streetcar. The plot thickens no further!

Cinema buffs and Chaplin fans will find this film of interest as the debut of one of cinema's finest talents, but casual fans, and particularly fans of the Little Tramp, are better served skipping this one and watching Chaplin's second effort, Kid Races at Venice (1914), which is a far more successful comedy and features the Tramp's debut.

Chaplin's first role on screen. This in itself makes this film highly noteworthy if you ask me. Personally I enjoyed his considerable screen presence throughout this short film. The Tramp character was still in its naissance, but Chaplin's talent and physical acting ability seem well developed already. I love just how nearly 19th century everything appears in this film. Really great. The Tramp has yet to arrive, but the street hustler seems to be in full force. Very enjoyable. 7 starts out of 10.

"Making a Living" is a Charlie Chaplin short from 1914 in which we have a mustachioed Chaplin with a mustache we're used to.

He plays a swindler who does whatever he can to get by. He swindled a reporter (Henry Lehrman) out of a ring to use to propose to his sweetheart (Minta Durfee). He even went so far as to swindle the reporter out of a juicy story. The entire film he is in a perpetual game of cat and mouse with the reporter that takes him all over the place.

Even though Chaplin's facial aesthetics are different than what he became famous for, his behavior, movements, and mannerisms are the same.

Free on YouTube.