100th Anniversary of Charlie Chaplin's Screen Debut, 02.02.1914.

David G. Smith

David G. Smith

Steak Knife Member
Today is the 100th anniversary of Charlie Chaplin's screen debut. His first film appearance was in the Mack Sennett produced one reeler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_a_Living, released February 2, 1914.


Charlie had not created his "Little Tramp" character at this time.

The first film with the "Little Tramp" that was exhibited before the public was "Kid Auto Races at Venice".


However, the actual first film produced with the "Little Tramp" was "Mabel's Strange Predicament" which was shot two days before "Kid Auto Races at Venice" but exhibited two days after.


Thanks for the movies Charlie!
 
David Jimerson said:
"Shot two days before."

Simpler times, indeed!
Click to expand...

I miss quoted that actually, it says, on Wikipedia, "...A few days before...", but still!

So, "Making a Living" premiered on 02.02.1914, "Kid Auto Races at Venice" premiered on 02.07.1914 and "Mabel's Strange Predicament" premiered on 02.09.1914.... very much simpler times!
 
Mack Sennett from the Chaplin movie, touting the quality of his films -- we don't make more than two pictures a week, and we'll spend up to a thousand dollars if we have to!

Granted, a thousand bucks in 1914 meant quite a bit more than today, but still . . .

EDIT:

Well, thinking about it . . .

Mabel's Strange Predicament is 17 minutes long, and doesn't have many locations. A thousand bucks and a couple of days, in 2014? Certainly possible for a good student film, and that's with sound.
 
Well, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Inflation Calculator, $1000.00 in 1914 is the equivalent $23,295.70 today. It would be kind of hard, but not impossible, to make a 17 minute film, shot on 35mm film and with a proper sound mix and a film out for $24k. I think that film costs have inflated at a higher rate than using the Consumer Price Index like the BLS Inflation Calculator does, but still, I think they were throwing around some pretty good money for the times.

According to Chaplin's biography on Wikipedia, in 1916 he negotiated a contract with the Mutual Film Corporation that amounted to $670, 000.00 a year. ..."This made Chaplin – at 26 years old – one of the highest paid people in the world" According to the BLS, that is the equivalent of $15,608,119.00 a year today. Of course there are quit a few celebrities who make much more than that today, but you have to remember that was at a time when movie tickets cost about a dime or so.

EDIT: BLS URL

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
 
Well, there's inflation in film costs, and then there's the lightyears worth of difference between standards of quality in 1914 and today.

You would have to WANT to try NOT to remake Mabel's better than it was originally, and you could do it for practically nothing. It would be of interest only to a small niche of film buffs and YouTube viewers, though.
 
There is no way to compare the costs of making a film now and what it cost Chaplin to make his films. I just wanted to make some comparisons to costs today. Films today have a vastly more complex aesthetic and narrative structure than the films that Chaplin made. To try and remake a Chaplin film today using modern technology but Chaplin's aesthetic and narrative structure would be, IMHO at best, of interest only to a small niche of film buffs and YouTube viewers.

I think that Chaplin films need to be taken as they are, 100 year old films, and then enjoyed. Chaplin is a big influence on me. My bestest Christmas present ever was a cheap Sears and Roebuck dual 8mm film projector my parents bought me when I was about 8 or 9. My local library had a bunch of Super 8mm films you could check out; like DVDs today. Included in that were a bunch of Chaplin's Mutual one reelers. I can still feel the excitement of watching Charlie projected 6 feet across on my bedroom wall. I have to admit that it has been a while since I watched any Chaplin. Today, a cold and grey Detroit day, I am going back and watching as much Chaplin I can that is on the Internet. The Internet Archive has a good selection of Chaplin titles. I just watched Chaplin's 1916 film "The Rink". It plays well at H.264. I have to say that, even though it is an antiquated film, there are parts of the film that make me laugh out loud. I haven't gotten that from any movie comedy in a while. Chaplin was a genius, there is no disputing that!
 
David Jimerson said:
Well, there's inflation in film costs, and then there's the lightyears worth of difference between standards of quality in 1914 and today.

You would have to WANT to try NOT to remake Mabel's better than it was originally, and you could do it for practically nothing. It would be of interest only to a small niche of film buffs and YouTube viewers, though.
Click to expand...

Standards of quality...all these old films we see today are the result of many many optical print reproductions of reproductions...it's amazing anything is left.
 
I'm not worried about print quality. I'm referring to shot composition, blocking, camera technique, editing, lighting, sets, makeup, color, sound, FX, and other matters of production.
 
David Jimerson said:
I'm not worried about print quality. I'm referring to shot composition, blocking, camera technique, editing, lighting, sets, makeup, color, sound, FX, and other matters of production.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, the language, aesthetic and technique of filmmaking has greatly advanced since Chaplin's time. The more I study about his work I do realize that what he is doing, a hundred years ago or so, was so popular and profitable that the films he made did represent the state of the art of the commercial mainstream movie industry at the time. We have come a long way since that time, but his genius is very much part of the fabric of modern cinema. I wish there were better quality versions of his film readily available, but even the poor quality ones we have are worth watching. Some of his schtick makes me laugh out loud. Not a whole lot of comedy these days does that for me.
 
David Jimerson said:
I'm not worried about print quality. I'm referring to shot composition, blocking, camera technique, editing, lighting, sets, makeup, color, sound, FX, and other matters of production.
Click to expand...

Watch "Cave of Dreams" and imagine how far we have come from those cave drawings...or have we? The essence of creativity with little previous work to build on shows through. Would Jesse Owens get beat today? Sure. All things should be judged in context.
 
Al MacLeod said:
Watch "Cave of Dreams" and imagine how far we have come from those cave drawings...or have we? The essence of creativity with little previous work to build on shows through. Would Jesse Owens get beat today? Sure. All things should be judged in context.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point entirely, but that's fine.
 
David G. Smith said:
Oh yeah, the language, aesthetic and technique of filmmaking has greatly advanced since Chaplin's time. The more I study about his work I do realize that what he is doing, a hundred years ago or so, was so popular and profitable that the films he made did represent the state of the art of the commercial mainstream movie industry at the time. We have come a long way since that time, but his genius is very much part of the fabric of modern cinema. I wish there were better quality versions of his film readily available, but even the poor quality ones we have are worth watching. Some of his schtick makes me laugh out loud. Not a whole lot of comedy these days does that for me.
Click to expand...

Sure, it's partly because of Chaplin (among many others) that the state of the art is where it is today. It just wouldn't cost very much, nor take that much time, to do exactly what he did back then. You couldn't do something today with long, locked-down, head-on shots, simple back-and-forth editing, high-key lighting on everything, etc., etc. Films cost a lot more partly because people expect more now.
 
David Jimerson said:
Sure, it's partly because of Chaplin (among many others) that the state of the art is where it is today. It just wouldn't cost very much, nor take that much time, to do exactly what he did back then. You couldn't do something today with long, locked-down, head-on shots, simple back-and-forth editing, high-key lighting on everything, etc., etc. Films cost a lot more partly because people expect more now.
Click to expand...

David, I absolutely agree with you. Look at plenty of YouTube videos and the stuff on Funny or Die. It is a lot cheaper now. The one thing missing, IMHO, is the genius of Chaplin. I have been watching a lot of his flicks today, mostly the earlier Mutual stuff and I am convince he was a genius, without a doubt. Even with the limited resources they used, the films are immensely entertaining and funny. Like I said, there is schtick that he pulls off that makes me laugh out loud. That is great. Like I said, "Thanks for the movies Charlie".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top