Making a Living (1914) User Reviews

This middling Keystone comedy marks an auspicious debut

[wmorrow59 · 6/10 · 23 July 2002]

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refuses him a loan, but when he relents and offers cash Chaplin suddenly turns him down -- and then, as the offer is withdrawn, quickly grabs it.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.

First film with Charlie Chaplin, inspired by Max Linder

[a-cinema-history · 7/10 · 24 November 2013]

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/

Making a Living is a very interesting debut for Charlie Chaplin

[tavm · 6/10 · 29 July 2007]

In Making a Living, Charlie Chaplin's film debut, he is not yet dressed as The Little Tramp. Instead, he sports a monocle, top hat, dapper suit, and a more drooping mustache. And he's basically more of a swindler than a gentleman with his penchant for stealing another person's credit (in this one, he sees someone take a picture of a car accident and takes the camera to pass the picture as his own in the newspaper building). Still, the fight scenes are pretty hilarious especially when Chaplin uses his umbrella to hold back his tormentor! And the last scene when they end up on a train car should tell you how actors seemed more willing to perform their own stunts then than now. So, on that note this is still worth a look for any fans of Chaplin and silent comedy history.

Chaplin's debut

[CHARLIE-89 · 1 August 2002]

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.

Historical, yes. Hysterical, not really.

[jtyroler · 4/10 · 2 May 2008]

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.

Silly--but not bad

[luciferjohnson · 7/10 · 18 December 2004]

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.

Not so good.

[KennethEagleSpirit · 4/10 · 8 January 2007]

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.

"Break the news to mother"

[richardchatten · 7/10 · 25 October 2022]

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.

Chaplin's Debut

[CitizenCaine · 4/10 · 9 June 2008]

Charles Chaplin made his film debut in Making A Living, minus the recognizability we would come to know later. Other than his cane, Chaplin is not dressed as the tramp. Chaplin is dressed as an Englishman who appears to first propose to a young lady and then must find work. Chaplin's idea of finding work is to usurp the effort of a fellow reporter who snaps pictures of the aftermath of an auto accident. The film is quickly paced but poorly edited, although it may simply be the age of the print. Many of the scenes just do not flow well in progression as a result. Chaplin holding an opponent at bay with his cane is very funny and foreshadows his use of the tactic in later films. It's clear audiences must have taken to a lot of fighting in films then, but the repeated scrapes come off as pure silliness. The best scene comes at the end with the streetcar, which would have been performed by stunt men today. Most of these films were ad-libbed then, which explains the relative disjointedness on film. However, it is still historical of course to see Chaplin in his first film, even though he is not honed. *1/2 of 4 stars.

Silent No More! It's time to talk about 'Making a Living'. A very interesting little short.

[ironhorse_iv · 6/10 · 22 April 2021]

Also known by many names like 'Doing His Best', 'A Busted Johnny', 'Troubles' or 'Take My Picture', this 1914 one-reel comedy short was the first appearance of comedian Charlie Chaplin on the big screen. Produced and released by Keystone Studios, 'Making a Living' is certainly a unique watch for many things. For starters, while Chaplin did walk around with his cane in this flick. His famous iconic "Little Tramp" screen persona did not appear until his next film, 'Kid Auto Races at Venice', five days after the studio began distributing this short. Because of that, it was surreal to see Chaplin portray another character. The Max Linder-like Edgar English 'Swindler' character with his large moustache and top hat was bizarre looking on Chaplin's short frame. It made his head look hilarious colossal. Another thing worth noticing is how the character's cunning antics is a prototype to what the Tramp would do. Nonetheless one of the faults of the swindler is that the individual lacks the generally good-hearted childlike bumbling that the Little Tramp has. Because of that, most of his mannerism toward making the unnamed news reporter played by actor/director Henry Lehrman seem mean spirited and cruel. It really did seem that the innocent reporter did nothing wrong and the Swindler was just there to ruin his private life. Sadly, I really couldn't laugh at much of the antagonism antics due to that. Especially when it caused innocent people to get stab and strangle. I just wanted to turn the short at times. Thank goodness the other 34 Keystone shorts that Chaplin made in 1914 with the Tramp character was less annoying. Another thing that bugged me was the lack of slapstick from the Keystone Cop. It already sucks that most of the original cast didn't return for this short even actor Hank Mann who would later work with Chaplin on his other films. Don't get me wrong I do know that this is the 6th of the 12 films featuring the cops, most of the actors were working on Fatty Arbuckle productions, plus the casting of the Keystone police force changed from one film to the next with many of the members were per diem actors who remain unidentifiable such as Chaplin appearing in a bit role later after this as one in a lost short, but it really does seem like the members of the squad must had anger producer Mack Sennett, because the fictional humorously incompetent policemen really did take a backseat for this vehicle. None of them were given any screen time including main actor Chester Conklin. The cops don't appear on screen until a couple of minutes during the climax. Then the action unabrupt ends with no punchline. No comeuppance for the Swindler or anything. Lots of things are left unresolved. Not a great way to end the flick. I have to agree with Chaplin here, it really does seem like Lehrman deliberately removed some of the best parts from the short's final cut. There was a lot of missing frames during the opening and closing fighting scenes. It's very noticeable during the main characters both trying to woo a love interest Minta Durfee played by actress Virginia Kirtley and her mother portray by Alice Davenport. Another unabrupt cut was before the car crash scene. Who knows, maybe those sequence was in the original cut and lost over time, but a part of me kinda doubt it. After all, it's true that 5 seconds of the short was indeed cut from the UK release because of the violence. Sadly, if there is such a print version where those deleted scenes were included. It has yet to recovered. Until then, we have this version that can be found on the internet. While the black and white coloring kinda make the Swindler' monocle look like a bloody black eye and the contrast flickering film grainy is creepy in from both sides. The copy most people can see isn't that bad as it hasn't yet reached badly deteriorated conditions. Hopefully there are some film preservation institutions out there trying hard to keep it from dipping closer and closer to a significant loss of quality. Because this short has a lot of historical value. The footage of various areas of downtown Los Angeles streets in 1914 is a time capsule. After all, you would never get to see the original fame Fremont Hotel ever again as it was torn down in 1955. To be truthful, this short did have one of Keystone's more elaborate productions. One particular moment was the staging of a tipped car even if the footage where the Studebaker go over the cliff look like it came from another lost film. That scene was still pretty gutsy. Overall: While not as good as Chaplin's later flicks. This 13-minutes short was truly worth seeing. Nice to see where one of the cinema's most iconic superstars started from. Not a bad way to make a living.

Chaplin's first!

[classicsoncall · 4/10 · 11 June 2019]

The first thing you'll notice in this very first Chaplin film short is that he doesn't look very much like Chaplin at all! At least not the famous character he invented later on by way of The Tramp. His appearance here is almost villainous, offset if at all possible by his main rival (Henry Lehrman, who also directed), a stranger that he good naturedly panhandles, before reverting to a more nefarious side by stealing the man's camera after landing a job as a newspaper reporter. Much of this thirteen minute short is taken up by the heated sort of fisticuffs that seem to be a hallmark of Chaplin's early film forays. If this is all you'd know Chaplin by, you'd have to wonder how he ever managed to become a sympathetic character in his later works. The rivalry between Chaplin and Lehrman never really ends here, as both men are whisked off screen by the front end of a trolley car. As a stand alone effort, there's not much to recommend here other than Chaplin's very first film short appearance, but of course, that's the main point. Every actor has to get his start somewhere, and for this novice, it was a determined start to making a living.

Chaplin bursts onto the scene!

[Anonymous_Maxine · 9/10 · 7 April 2007]

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.

Debuting Chaplin

[TheLittleSongbird · 6/10 · 16 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 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

no plot, no humor

[planktonrules · 1/10 · 21 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.

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.

Worth Watching, Of Course, Though the Actual Comedy is Nothing Special

[Snow Leopard · 4 March 2004]

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.

A Man's Gotta Make a Living

[nukisepp · 5/10 · 31 January 2021]

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.

Chaplin's first contains little promise but it's fun if convoluted

[OldAle1 · 6/10 · 16 January 2009]

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

Interesting changes

[Horst_In_Translation · 6/10 · 11 September 2015]

I have to say I am probably not the greatest Charlie Chaplin fan on the planet, but I somewhat enjoyed this 12-minute film here. It is silent, black-and-white and had its 100th anniversary last year. And it offers some nice changes compared to Chaplin's other very famous works. First of all, the director here is not Chaplin himself, but the very prolific Henry Lehrman. Also, there is no Tramp in this film and Chaplin actually plays the bad guy, a man trying to use others to make money. And last but not least, Chaplin is not the undisputed star in here. It is a bit of a co-lead example, even if Chaplin probably has the most screen time. His character makes life tough for a hard-working photographer and another thing you learn from this movie is that it's not a problem at all if you get hit by a train in the early 20th century. All in all, a solid watch, better than most other Chaplin short films and I recommend it.

Chaplin's First Movie Not A Roaring Success

[springfieldrental · 6/10 · 13 May 2021]

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.

Fascinating and Funny

[jayraskin1 · 9/10 · 8 December 2012]

We have to note a couple of things about film that are important. First, the most complete print on the "Chaplin at Keystone"DVD collection runs over 12 minutes. Many of the videos on you-tube of this film are 8 minute versions. Try to see the fuller version.

Second, it is unfair to expect general modern audiences to find anything one hundred years old funny. They have been brought up in a different world and tastes and styles of humor are naturally different It is only fair to compare this movie with other movies of its time period. Cinematic techniques and styles change rapidly and even the audiences of 1919 would consider films from 1914 too primitive to be taken seriously.

Chaplin, in his autobiography, noted how disappointed he was with the film. He felt that his best comic bits had been edited out. He faulted his director and costar Pathé Lehrman. This is a biased assessment of the film. Lehrman had left in a great deal of funny material by Chaplin. Lehrman assignment was not to make of movie of Chaplin during his stage routines. It was to make a Keystone comedy in the style of Keystone/Sennett using the talents of Chaplin. Looking at it from this prospective, he has succeeded. It is certainly in the manic Keystone style and it shows off Chaplin's great talent.Chaplin is at the center of the film and he provides as many laughs as Fred Mace, Ford Sterling, or Mack Sennett did when they were Keystone leads.

Get over the shock of seeing Chaplin out of costume. Remember this was pre-little tramp, so look at it fresh, without that iconoclastic image in mind. Nobody had ever seen the tramp when Chaplin made this movie. Chaplin's Edgar English is a very funny character in his own right.

Usually, Keystone comedies were based on two practical jokes. This one is based on three. The first is Edgar English, called a bum by newspaper reporter Lehrman stealing Lehrman's girlfriend. The second is Lehrman ruining English's attempt to get a job at his newspaper. The third is English stealing Lehrman's once in a lifetime car crash photo and getting it published under his own name. In a sense while the character steals the picture from Lehrman, in real life Chaplin is stealing the picture from Lehrman.

The movie's structure is a little odd in that one expects that the movie will be about Chaplin stealing Lehrman's girlfriend, Minta Durfee. Yet, this whole subject gets dropped immediately after being introduced. Instead the movie is changes into a story of a new upstart trying to be a reporter who outdoes a seasoned reporter. One of the nice things about Keystone was that the plot was usually largely improvised anyway, so the gags were what counted. Here there are lots of gags and little bits. Probably Chaplin was telling the truth about some of his business being cut. When English steals the photo from the reporter, there is all kinds of things that happens at English's rooming house that is totally strange and doesn't make any sense. It is clear that several characters at the rooming house including the jealous husband with a knife and the two women upstairs had a whole separate story that was edited out. The two minutes of slapstick has been left in, but it certainly does not match the fairly clear scenes that went before it. Possibly Sennett ordered the cuts to make sure the ending had the same frantic pace that all Keystone comedies had. One can understand why Sennett did not want to change his successful formula. It was Keystone's trademark.

Before signing with Keystone, Chaplin said that he did not like Keystone's pictures, except for Mabel Normand. It is probable that Chaplin had already decided to make films his way when he arrived at Keystone. No wonder few people at Keystone liked him in the beginning.

What also struck me were the extraordinary shots of Chaplin running through the city streets. Suddenly, we have tracking shots worthy of Keaton's "Seven Chances" (1925). The ending shot of a trolley car running up to and scooping up the fighting Lehrman and Chaplin is as unexpected and exciting today as it was in 1914. Modern audiences may be disappointed because nothing gets resolved and the movie just ends. However, that is part of the Keystone style. It may not be a good plot resolution, but it is a good gag and perhaps a brilliant metaphor with the trolley representing the movie industry which is transported the fighting Chaplin and Lehrman into the future.

In sum, we should recognize two things: Chaplin was hilarious the moment he got before the camera and Pathé Lehrman accomplished his assignment to make a Keystone style comedy staring Chaplin. This may not have satisfied Chaplin, but it must satisfy us.

It would be nice to see the raw footage from "Making a Living," I suspect Chaplin is right and their are a lot of laughs there, albeit not in the Keystone style.

Charlot(?) Reporter

[exe_malaga93 · 7/10 · 21 October 2017]

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.

A false start for Chaplin

[23skidoo-4 · 11 June 2004]

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 acting role

[stomach17 · 7/10 · 16 December 2019]

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.

Swindling a Living

[view_and_review · 7/10 · 27 September 2022]

"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.

Loved it! The real start of the comedian?

[mhsaleh · 9/10 · 27 November 2016]

considering that it's older than 100 years, it's superb!

Out of Chaplin's firsts I'll always pick this one. Making a living shows what a talent Chaplin really was, It's the very first time that shows what he's capable of doing in front of the camera, stills kinda not that unique to be out of his bests. Those fighting and running scenes can easily draw a big big laugh for you :-)

Also, there's a scene with a car accident, it's going over a cliff, and that reporter with the camera whose only thing was to take a photo of the injured, write down the story and not doing any help at all, think it needs another shot!

One last point, the quality of the picture and the filming is so bad, bad to the point that you can't track the movements at some point, still acceptable for a hundred yo picture.