Pour gagner sa vie

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/

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.

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.

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

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.