Twenty Minutes of Love (1914) User Reviews

Chaplin tries directing.

[Anonymous_Maxine · 5/10 · 10 May 2007]

In Chaplin's first film as director, he doesn't come flying out of the gates, instantly showing that he will go on to be a great filmmaker. 20 Minutes of Love is not much different from the films that he made in the months before or after, although it is interesting to see one of the first of his mostly improvised films made in a park with some couples and a police officer and little else. Like so many of his other comedies this one turns into little more than a lot of kicking and punching and throwing the entire cast into a lake, but given the amount of short films almost identical to this one that Chaplin cranked out, it is clear that the audiences at the time were having a blast.

The plot itself is even more difficult to follow than they usually are in Chaplin's early work. It involves Charlie wandering around a park and making ridiculously overt passes at women who are sitting on park benches with their boyfriends or husbands, and then there is a stolen watch thrown into the mix and a subsequent conflict involving who owns it and who stole it. Probably the best moment in the film is when Charlie gives the watch away to a pretty girl and then is so proud that he is just beside himself. Pretty amusing, and a lot of the Tramp's characterization also comes through even in this very early film.

It should be noted that you should not expect to find tiny, forgotten gems of masterpiece comedy by looking at Chaplin's early work, because film was an emerging medium and Chaplin himself was an inexperienced filmmaker from any perspective, but unfortunately 20 Minutes of Love, even though it is Chaplin's first film as director and therefore a film-making landmark, is also clearly the work of someone who had little experience in film-making and was still not sure where his career as a filmmaker would take him.

park your carcass in the park

[lee_eisenberg · 5/10 · 2 October 2015]

Charlie Chaplin's directorial debut casts him as a man who interrupts people's makeout sessions in a park. There were no feature films by this point, so it makes sense that the movie has a simple plot. It was still going to be a few years before Chaplin started incorporating political issues into his movies. Chaplin's early movies were all about physical comedy, and he makes good use of that here. Co-star Edgar Kennedy (the lover) later played the lemonade vendor in "Duck Soup", while Chester Conklin (the pickpocket) played a mechanic in "Modern Times".

It must've been weird for Charlie Chaplin, how he went from being a boy growing up in an orphanage to being an international superstar.

Pretty good even after all these years!

[deason · 7/10 · 4 April 2010]

In his autobiography, Chaplin recorded that "Twenty Minutes of Love" had produced "continuous laughs throughout", even though it had been shot in a single afternoon. It has not weathered as well as many of his later comedies, but while re-watching all his shorts in chronological order, this is the earliest one in which I've found a laugh-out-loud moment of true hilarity (described in some detail below). It may not be coincidence that (in August of 1914, when his memory was fresher) Chaplin stated this was the first film he had directed himself.

It's an early example of a "park" film, no more difficult to follow than others of the genre, once one has attuned one's attention to performance styles and conventions of the times. Luckily the film is short enough that it can easily be viewed multiple times without hardship, to help train one's eyes and mind to follow a story without sound.

DETAILED BUT SMALL-SCALE SPOILER The various conflicts with various couples are pretty standard; the instant of magic for me involves a twice-stolen watch. Charlie has stolen it from the pocket of a man he does not know is a thief. Chased by the thief, and alarmed at the proximity of a policeman, Charlie attempts hurriedly to sell the hot watch to a man asleep on a park bench, who unbeknownst to Charlie, is the watch's original owner.

The transaction (like all of Chaplin's silent conversations) is communicated brilliantly and (if you watch, and think) clearly in pantomime. We see Charlie offer the watch and set a price. We see the owner perceive the watch as familiar and check his pockets, discover his watch is missing and realise that this is indeed his own stolen watch being offered back to him.

We see the owner try to tell Charlie that this is his watch, and Charlie agrees "yes, it's yours once you pay me". After a more forceful repetition from the man, Charlie understands that this man is claiming to be the true owner of the watch! It is Charlie's reaction of quickly pulling the watch back with suspicion, disbelief and resentment at what he considers so transparent an attempt at fraud, that I find still works so well.

It's a complex set-up for the time, and modern audiences who through inexperience with the Keystone-era silent comedy find the fast-paced action confusing enough to lose track of the characters and their histories will miss it entirely. It's a very well-constructed gag, though - the audience alone knows the full truth, while each character has a partial view that seems to contradict the other's. The audience understands perfectly the confusion of the characters. (Alas that the dissection of gags is never as funny as the gags themselves.)

There are other laughs in the movie, but for me this was the best by far.

importance of 20 minutes of love

[macestelle · 10 April 2006]

hello. 20 minutes of love is very important as it was chaplins first time directing. for that reason alone is enough to make it historic. true, it is not classic chaplin. true, it is not a great comedy. not even for that era. but if you think that chaplin could, as he said something to the effect of give me a park, a pretty girl, and a cop and i can make a movie. well that is what he did. i feel it is so interesting to be able to watch is film acting and directing in it's infancy, and see how he progressed through the years. not many artists work can be seen in such an early stage as chaplins. i think i'll go watch it now. mac estelle

Chaplin at Keystone.

[mkilmer · 7/10 · 16 April 2006]

If you want your vision of Chaplin limited to a lovable tramp and you get your belly laughs from pathos, watch something else. If, however, you love slapstick comedy as performed by one of the best, do watch this one.

The image is of the tramp who really cannot get the girl. He spots another couple kissing on a park bench, and he has a blast ruining their fun.

This is one of Chaplin's "park comedies," filmed in Mack Sennett's park, with pickpockets and cops and couples. These shorts work, as the format allows Chaplin to shine as he weaves through predicaments.

I checked the box, as this could be considered a spoiler, though it's not if you've seen these films. Everyone ends up in the pond except Chaplin. He gets the girl, who in this case was played by Minta Durfee, a.k.a. Mrs. Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle.

Twenty minutes of fairly mixed views

[TheLittleSongbird · 6/10 · 25 May 2018]

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 much better than his directing debut 'Twenty Minutes of Love', still made very early on in his career where he was still finding his feet and not fully formed what he became famous for. 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. 'Twenty Minutes of Love' is a long way from a career high, but has some nice things about it.

'Twenty Minutes of Love' is not as hilarious, charming or touching as his later work and some other shorts in the same period. The story is flimsy and the production values not as audacious. Things feel a little scrappy and confused at times and Chaplin's directing debut does betray inexperience.

For someone who was still relatively new to the film industry and had literally just moved on from their stage background, 'Twenty Minutes of Love' 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 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 even better and became more refined later, 'Twenty Minutes of Love' is mildly amusing, sweet and easy to like, though the emotion is not quite there. It moves reasonably quickly, though not without its dull spots, and doesn't feel too long or short.

Overall, far from one of Chaplin's best and patchy but not bad. 6/10 Bethany Cox

A not very successful attempt at an early comedy. It was hard to follow, but had a few funny scenes.

[eadut · 3/10 · 22 July 2002]

Although Twenty Minutes of Love is a harmless attempt at an early comedy, it was difficult to follow and the film quality was not very good. It does have a couple of moments that are funny, but I have seen better by Charlie Chaplin.

Twenty Minutes of Love marks the directorial debut of star Charlie Chaplin

[tavm · 7/10 · 14 June 2011]

Just watched the entire thing with original Keystone titles on YouTube. As the first film directed by star Charlie Chaplin, Twenty Minutes of Love hardly seems all that much different from his earlier shorts in that there are plenty of slapstick that seems to be mainly for the opportunity to fill the required time alloted. Still, I laughed plenty at seeing Charlie making fun of one loving couple on a bench before he sees another and makes a play for his girl. This girl wants a gift from this man so this man steals a watch from a sleeping occupant from a nearby bench. That's where the funny stuff really happens. Loved many of Chaplin's facial mannerisms and the whole chaotic free-for-all at the end. So on that note, Twenty Minutes of Love is recommended.

Sadly I don't really feel the love for this one here

[Horst_In_Translation · 4/10 · 9 February 2018]

"Twenty Minutes of Love" is an American black-and-white silent short film from 1914, so this one is already over a century old, actually 105 years next year, and this one was made by the still pretty young Charlie Chaplin, who not only plays the main character, but also co-directed this one. The cast includes several names that film fans of this era and fans of Chaplin's other works may recognize to some extent. The action is taking place at a park this time where Chaplin causes quite a great deal of havoc to the other visitors, most of it unintentionally or from the heat of the moment though and not really intentionally. Malice is absent you could say, but chaos sure is present as a consequence of Chaplin's actions. Still all in all, he may not be at his best yet at that point as story and acting all in all are far from memorable. Still if you like Chaplin more than I do, then perhaps you will enjoy the watch nonetheless I guess. But I still cannot give it a positive recommendation as the only moment I found hilarious in a positive way was when he accidentally hits that lady near the end and that just isn't enough for this runtime, which by the way was way under 20 minutes in every version I found. I think it has rather to do with more fps than lost scenes. A thumbs-down for this one here as I did not feel the love and felt that premise and location offered the possibility of a far better outcome. Watch something else instead.

Twenty with Ten

[nukisepp · 6/10 · 6 February 2021]

They only got ten minutes for that twenty minutes of love. 'Twenty Minutes of Love' is widely considered as Charles Chaplin's directorial debut, although many sources claim the director being Joseph Maddern. I don't know how big was Chaplin's creative input, but some sources claim that he took the responsibility to cover the financial losses if the film didn't make any profit. Well, the movie was a success, and all we know for sure that Chaplin went on with a highly successful and prolific director career.

This movie still doesn't show any signs of the true genius of its main star, writer, and (supposed) director. The story is simple and amusing but ends up with the usual Keystone-style slapstick violence where everyone gets their share. Chaplin's Tramp interrupts with two lovers courting on the park bench. He is chased-off by the angry boyfriend. The Tramp soon becomes entangled with the difficult relationship between another couple. Of course, he manages to disturb the third couple as well.

Entertaining, for sure, but only for those ten minutes. The movie is not very memorable and offers nothing inventive yet. The Tramp is still just a scoundrel who goes around just causing trouble. But I liked how the plot elements all came together at the end giving the viewer a satisfying and complete story.

Confused Film In Many Ways

[jayraskin1 · 5/10 · 16 January 2013]

Because of their improvisational style there are often confusions in Keystone films, but this one has far more than average, both on screen and off.

First there is confusion over who is the director. Maddern gets listed on the camera reports, but Maddern was only with Keystone for a month. At least 3 of his 4 other movies were documentaries, and the fourth is unknown. Chaplin, in a letter, a few months later to his brother Sidney, has the words "my own" next to this one in a list of his films. This might mean that he came up with the idea for the film rather than that he directed it. If he really directed it, One would expect him to list it as his first film in his autobiography, but he lists "Caught in the Rain" filmed a few weeks later. Maddern may have just set up the camera and let the actors direct themselves. This may have caused Chaplin to later take credit for it. Since nothing else remains of Maddern's oeuvre, it is impossible to know for sure who deserves credit or blame for this.

In the very first shot, Chaplin walks towards the camera, but turns around to shout something at somebody he has just left behind. Who is he talking to? What is he talking about? The film leaves it a dead issue, but one has to suspect that elements of plot, and perhaps important ones were cut out before this first shot.

Chaplin sees Edgar Kennedy and Minta Durfee making out on a park bench. Does Chaplin know Durfee? He turns and hugs the tree next to him. Is it because he has known Durfee and lost her or is he just love sick in general? It is impossible to know. If he did know Durfee before, his next action would make more sense. He goes to the park bench and observes Durfee and Kennedy kissing from inches away. He starts to hold Durfee's hand. If Chaplin doesn't know her, this is quite perverse. If he does know her, shouldn't she have more of a reaction. One should probably blame this on bad direction, whoever the director was.

A few moments later, Chaplin follows Eva Nelson behind some bushes. He finds a couple sitting near the river. Again Chaplin goes up and looks at them as if he knows them, but the man only responds by knocking Chaplin down. This is another moment where the actor and audience don't seem to know what is going on. It suggests to me that something was cut out.

At this point, we get a new beginning with Eva Nelson asking her boyfriend Chester Conklin (without his trademark Walrus mustache) to get her a present. He goes off and pickpockets a watch. Before he can give it to her, Chaplin, doing a Ford Sterling impression from the movie "Between Showers" steals the watch.

Some good slapstick between Conklin, Durfee and Chaplin make up a bit for the plot inconsistencies. At least this middle section of the film has a clear plot and actions. Still, one would like to know why Chaplin steals the watch a second time after giving it to Durfee to show his love. Does this prove that he really is a pickpocket after all and the love show for Durfee was just an act? Again we get confused or unclear motivations that the audience can only guess at.

The ending is the usual keystone chaos breaks loose type, with Chaplin kicking cops into people and lots of bodies flying into the river.

While not without some moments of fun, Chaplin's eleventh film does not resonate and I would put it near the bottom of his Keystone work. The films he did just before and after this one, "Mabel Takes the Wheel" and "Caught in a Cabaret," in contrast go to the top. These Mabel Normand directed films are terrific.

worthless except for historical value

[planktonrules · 1/10 · 23 May 2006]

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.

It's interesting that this film is called TWENTY MINUTES OF LOVE since the film only lasts about 10 minutes! Oh well. The plot, what little there is, involves the Little Tramp in the park. A couple wants to neck but inexplicably, Charlie insists on practically sitting on the couple's lap and really annoying them. I can't understand why and the short consists of Charlie wandering about the park annoying these people and some others later in the film. Perhaps he was looking for a threesome, I don't know. But the film lacks coherence and just isn't particularly funny--even when people start slapping each other and pushing each other in the lake. A typical poor effort before Chaplin began to give his character a plot and personality.

Chaplin's Directorial Debut

[CitizenCaine · 5/10 · 22 June 2008]

Historically noted as Chaplin's directing debut, the film does move more evenly and quicker than most of his earlier efforts. The film involves Chaplin as a troublemaker in a park. He seems to keep running across secluded lovers on park benches. Throw in a pickpocket and a keystone cop and the makings of a terrific slapstick ending is predictable. Highlights are Chaplin's mannerisms, his scene with the tree (mocking the lovers) early in the film, and of course the obligatory slapstick fighting that occurs at the end involving everyone in the cast. The film itself is still nothing much more than Chaplin finding his way as a filmmaker; however, when compared to other films of the year, it does stand out as being better paced and edited. ** of 4 stars.

3 Early Chaplin

[Michael_Elliott · 8 March 2008]

Twenty Minutes of Love (1914)

*** (out of 4)

A man (Charles Chaplin) walks through the park and notices all sorts of couples making out so he decides to spoof them with a tree. This is a faster paced short with Chaplin doing all sorts of goodies but the highlights are the tree scene and the ending where everyone starts falling in a lake.

The Landlady's Pet (1914)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Charles Chaplin plays the favorite of the landlady, which doesn't sit well with the other occupants. This short really doesn't feature anything special and is quite bland with the exception of one scene where Chaplin learns to play tennis.

Cruel, Cruel Love (1914)

*** (out of 4)

A man (Charles Chaplin) is dumped by his fiancé so he decides to kill himself. After drinking the poison he receives a letter from the fiancé saying she wants him back. It's interesting to see Chaplin playing a role outside The Tramp and this short allows him to go all out. The best scenes include one where he destroys a room and another one where he fantasizes about hell before taking the poison.

20 MINUTES OF LAUGHS

[CHARLIE-89 · 6 February 1999]

As with any of Chaplin's films, this must be seen. Its title could've been "20 MINUTES OF LAUGHS," as that's just what this film supplies!