User Reviews (72)

Add a Review

  • i just watched it, and it took my breath away. If possible, this might be better than Citizen Kane. Incredible. And the battle scenes are truly amazing. I only hope they'll bring out a new DVD release of it for Australia and America, because this movie deserves as much exposure as Kane. I was surprised and delighted by Welles's performance. He really shines in an atmosphere which permits theatricality (Shakespeare), and i felt this movie combines the best of his two loves: the theatre (the source material), and the cinema (told with Welles' stunning eye for a cinematic visual). Superbly produced for such a low budget (Macbeth was just too rushed in those three weeks). Its visually delicious, and has a brilliant sense of fun (like both Kane and The Trial), and yet it has more heart than the other two.

    This movie has rejuvenated my love of and faith in Welles (i was really wavering after The Stranger, Macbeth and even Lady from Shanghai - all too damaged by money/studio interference for me).

    Let's all take a bow to Mr Orson Welles, who after all those years of struggle, finally produced a thing of beauty and fun worthy of his talents, and reinstated his reputation as one of the greats.
  • This is all more of a fascinating and compelling film because of its difficult-to-find nature, and the feeling of its being neglected, despite much praise from film and Welles scholars. This forms part of the compelling sequence of Welles films that began with 1958's "Touch of Evil", and ran through to his final film, 1973's "F For Fake", a film I really want to see. The version I managed to locate of "Chimes..." revealed a film with, yes, some technical problems (the sound is a little poor, but I'd almost expected worse), and the feeling of being made on-the-hoof. But what a film it is! Certainly hitherto the finest and most moving Shakespeare film adaptation that I have seen; I was happy to be able to write on it for my recent University Tripos exam.

    Welles is possibly not a perfect Falstaff - failing to some degree to capture the character's jovial humour - but he gives a good performance in a limited, but powerfully melancholy vein. Keith Baxter makes Hal very much his own, providing curious contrasts to both of his father figures. Gielgud is as sublime as ever, and his scenes are beautifully directed - one wouldn't know the problems Welles had in terms of actor availability, considering how effective the medium close camera-work is.

    The poetry of the "Sleep" speech is absolutely overpowering in Gielgud's rendition, and his facial expressions, eyes cast in shadow, are perfectly haunting. The strength of his performance is crucial; Henry IV is thus very much a figure with dignity but guilt and a coldness matching the stone of his solitary court - brilliant use of some sort of cathedral. Margaret Rutherford and Tony Beckley certainly add a lot to the mix, as does the bizarrely ill-fitting Jeanne Moreau, that most French of actresses playing an English whore. The tenderness she feels for Falstaff is crucial in softening his character a bit; Moreau's bedraggled siren works as a necessary example of the femininity of the Tavern, as compared to the masculine world of battle and court that Falstaff is so lost in. What a striking actress she is here; piercing, soulful eyes, such lips and flowing dark hair. It is a skittish and perfect performance fitting in with Welles' fantasia of "Merrie England". That most of this was filmed in Spain conveys the sense of this as an artificial, beyond-reality dream of the Paradise Lost. The film can effectively be seen as Welles expressing his interest in Western society's mourning a lost golden age - in this case, "Merrie England", which Falstaff embodies. The rational and dulling technocracy of the future is suggested by the coldness of Gielgud and Baxter towards the end, and the atmosphere of court.

    The actor playing Justice Shallow is supremely odd and bewitching in his shrill little voice; his blustering humour and reminiscence taking on much melancholy as the film moves inexorably towards its tragic, deathly close. The scene where Falstaff finds out Hal is now King, is wonderfully shown in long shot by a still camera; a depression and drift towards disillusion shown. When Falstaff finds out, the lift in spirits is conveyed with his movement towards the camera. It's a return to the general sense of camera mobility around Falstaff - contrasting with the stillness around Bolingbroke. The final rejection of Falstaff that follows is beautifully filmed by Welles, played ambiguously by Baxter and movingly by Welles.

    What must be the most remarkable sequence is the Battle of Shrewsbury; it is this that will haunt the mind long into the ether... Savage, indiscriminate quickness of brutal death emphasised in quick cuts. The fighting is impersonal and grimly realistic; ranks of silhouetted men and horses charging in, arrows - unlike in Olivier's "Henry V" - being shown cascading into and piercing ranks of horses and soldiers. The dry ground dissolves gradually to mud, and a haunting, holy-sounding piece of choral music strikes a chilling note of ironic contrast. Mankind has been reduced by war back to the very mud from which it originally arose. All sense of 'glory' is dissipated and cut away, by this frightening, near-ten minute sequence. It is one of the most gripping, utterly transcendent and powerful sequences I have seen in the whole of my film viewing.

    "Chimes at Midnight" is a marvel of a film; this is a Welles film in its true form and not tampered with - "The Magnificent Ambersons" is the most shameful previous example of this. "Chimes..." stands as a complex masterpiece; partly an elegy for an innocence than may never have truly existed, but which Welles *feels* deeply. Track this down if you can as it is something special; let's hope it is soon restored to the best possible condition. It is wonderfully slanted Shakespeare; history plays fashioned into a tragedy, and painted from the most compelling cinematic palette. And above all, it is wonderful Welles.
  • Up front I think it's fair to admit that I have not read the plays Shakespeare wrote that provide the basis of this film and it's screenplay.

    I've read Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth and Julius Ceaser and I'm blessed that my public education provided me that much. But when it comes to Henry the IV, V, or VI I'm pretty much in the dark.

    Chimes of Midnight did not leave me in the dark however. Orson Welles, I think, did a wonderful job of translating Shakespeaian dialogue into action that could be understood, jokes that could be understood, dramatic tension that could be understood.

    Not only do i realize I am 400 years removed from Shakespeare but I am also 53 years removed from whatever audience Orson Welles intended this for in in 1965.

    But I don't feel removed from the artistry that it took to make this film.

    I could follow the plot, I knew where characters were emotionally, and even better, I understood the jokes. Which, for me, was a huge windfall and a source of amazement.

    Orson Welles was dead before I was even born and I find him totally captivating and engaging in this film. He's lovable, he's a rapscallion, he's larger than life and he breaks your heart when he's denied by the newly crowned king.

    I'm coming to this as an outsider. I loved Citizen Kane and Touch of Evil, I immensely enjoyed F is for Fake, and I've been looking to engage in more films starring or directed by Orson Welles, and I walked away from this film feeling like it filled a gap.

    Here was his passion for gorgeous cinematography, here was his love of the stage, here was his brilliance at translating plays, here was his love for acting here was his passion for entertainment.

    At no point did this film drag for me, and even now, in 2017 did the battle scene not only engage, but surprise me. This IS masterclass film making and this film deserved a wider audience back in 1965 and it deserves it still today.

    Absolutely riveting and amazing work.
  • This is one of the great Shakespearean adaptations and a true 'lost classic'. It's also the last masterpiece that Orson Welles directed in his lifetime, and with 'Citizen Kane,' 'Magnificent Ambersons' and 'Touch of Evil' comprises a quartet of major cinematic works that he accomplished.

    The film is an inventive re-editing and condensation of Shakespeare's plays, spanning from the end of Richard II to the beginning of Henry V. The film focuses on the character of Jack Falstaff, played by Welles himself in a virtuoso performance. Falstaff's relationship with young Prince Hal (later Henry V) is explored, and uncannily parallels Welles' own experience with the young talents of Hollywood.

    Chimes at Midnight can be a jarring experience due to inconsistent film quality, low budget sets and Welles' flair for shock cuts, but it's a truly rewarding experience once you adapt to the style and limitations.

    There are several great performances, by John Gielgud as Henry IV, Keith Baxter as Hal and Norman Rodway as Hotspur, who seems like a predecessor to Kenneth Branagh.

    Chimes at Midnight has a little of everything: low comedy, highly artistic camera angles, exciting battle scenes (the battle of Shrewesbury scene influenced Braveheart) and a deeply moving story that Welles has 'discovered' between the lines of Shakespeare's histories.
  • I won't belabor the point that you can gather from reading 40+ other reviews, so I will offer a few short words on the theme of the movie, as well as caveat, for watching Orson Welles' Chimes at Midnight.

    The film overall deals with that time-honored notion noted by St. Paul "When I was a child, I used to talk like a child, and see things as a child does, and think like a child; but now that I have become an adult, I have finished with all childish ways." Prince Hal is growing up and becoming an adult, and as such must soon leave his childish pranks and habits behind. His friend, Falstaff, is that childhood friend (paradoxically old in age, as if he never grew up himself). Boisterous, drunk, and a glutton, the blowhard gleefully recounts all the good times that he, Prince Hal, and their other misfits used to have, doing the things that children and adolescents do, like being a nuisance, harassing others, and goofing off. It is the type of life Falstaff still leads and he is quite happy with it. Prince Hal is, too, until the weight of responsibility is slowly thrust upon him thanks to his sick father. As the stakes are raised, he slowly loses the time and desire to be a silly young boy and now must be a man.

    Falstaff is oblivious to this development all the way until the end, thinking that these are just momentary phases before the parties can begin anew. He is ever hopeful that the Prince and the world will see things his way. He fails to see how the world moves past a fat, blundering fool. His love for the prince, for the girls of the bawdy bar, for his compatriots is, while sometimes humorous and self-serving, he nonetheless wishes no real ill on anyone and merely lives for fun and pleasure. In his old age, he has decided that being an adult (if he ever was one) is not something worth putting time and energy in to. He is unimportant and carefree enough to have that luxury; however, his closest friends cannot shirk away from their duties as men, and thus Falstaff fails to realize how he is left behind.

    All of this is turned into a moving portrait. We realize that Falstaff is wrong, and that sometimes the world calls for more than just joking around, goofing off and indulging one's self. But we sympathize with him, because we can see a gentle and loving person underneath the bluster and idiocy - and perhaps we ourselves wish the world were more "childish" and carefree. At the climactic battle scene (were Welles' camera work makes a hundred men or less look like a thousand), men grind and pulverize each other into hamburger meat - but Falstaff never manages to hurt a single soul. Perhaps there is some good in being childish!

    For those wishing to watch the movie, the Criterion package is an excellent one. The customary supplemental materials are fascinating, and the picture brings out Welles' cinematography. Criterion and co. did there best with the sound, and the sound is the biggest single issue with which you will struggle with (or at least I did) with Chimes. Even with work done on it, the sound levels are inconsistent, especially with actors' lines. Sometimes whole scenes will go by with what sounds like dubbers mumbling their lines, straining your ears and making you crank the volume up on your TV. Then all of the sudden someone will speak loudly and clearly, blowing you back with the force of it and making you quickly turn the volume back down... only for the process to repeat again. I have not done this yet, but I would probably recommend watching with subtitles on to help alleviate the issue of figuring out what some of the whispers and mumbles are supposed to be. Not an elegant solution, but with Welles' later work, you will have to deal with some technical issue or another.

    Don't let the above turn you off from seeing this beautiful, and moving film. It is a worthy adaptation and remix of Shakespeare and one of Welles' greatest movies.
  • 'Chimes at Midnight' has become one of my favorite movies. It is one of those rare gems that I can watch over and over again, never getting bored.

    First of all, Welles' interpretation of Shakespeare is just brilliant. Using material from different plays, he manages to turn the story of Falstaff into something entirely new. He cleverly puts the main storyline of the original plays on its head, commenting on the relation between friendship and power. This view on the development of Harry, Prince of Wales, is a strong antithesis to his usual portrayal.

    Welles' directing is very much to the point. Every single scene seems necessary and emphasizes the film's statement. Using few but all the more powerful symbols, he lets many of the images speak for themselves.

    Last but not least, the cast is really extraordinary. John Gielgud's acting is in best Shakespearean tradition, Keith Baxter is very convincing as the milk-faced heir with a mischievous streak, and Welles plays ... just Welles, which in my opinion works very well in this context.

    Although it might be very hard to find a copy of this masterpiece, you should most definitely try to, as it is really worth the effort.
  • What can be said about Chimes at Midnight that hasn't already been said? Orson Welles' ode to Fallstaff, a part that Shakespeare obviously created with Welles' himself in mind, seems to be the perfect culmination of his enormous (no pun intended) career. The meager budget of the film is only reflected in the bad dubbing & sound quality, which is still glaring despite restoration efforts. Welles makes up for this in film noir lit faces, intense battle scenes, and of course, his impeccable acting & connection with the character. With the minute movement of his eye, he can garner laughter or sympathy. While we may be used to chuckling at Falstaff's bumbling, brazen arrogance, Welles also brings us, in the end, to profoundly feel the anguish that lies at the depths of Falstaff's soul. His performance seems to be a psychological study on fatherly influences, quite probably pulling from his experiences with his own Fallstaffian father, among others. Having recently watched My Own Private Idaho, it is hard not to make comparisons & observe the obvious inspiration Gus Van Sant drew from Chimes for his quintessential film. It was also interesting to watch the dramatic battle scenes, which on a shoestring budget are very cleverly shot & edited to feel big budget. This film has probably inspired many larger budget Shakespearean, war & movies in other genres, and yet stands in a league of its own.
  • By far the best of Welle's three Shakespearean adaptations this is also arguably THE best Shakespeare on screen. Most filmmakers go for the tragedies - vide Welles himself - or settle for Romeo and Juliet but the History plays are seldom tackled. Here the maestro dips into several texts - most heavily into the two parts of Henry 1V but also Merry Wives, Henry V, Richard 11 - and then welds them together seamlessly to give an in-depth portrait of Falstaff. With a nice touch of irony the narration is spoken by Ralph Richardson who, prior to Welles here, was the definitive Falstaff - and remains so as far as theatre is concerned. It's hard to fault so I won't try, merely revel in a touch of greatness. 10/10
  • Among the thousands of artists who have adapted Shakespeare, Welle's movies still are the least appreciated and estimated of them. Welles repeated Verdi's task in turning Macbeth, Othello and Falstaff, but in films rather than operas.

    We can only imagine what it is to adapt the pinnacle of the English comic literature, the huge hill of flesh Falstaff into a film knowing that you're at risk of being an heretic to loosel'd one of the masterpieces of the greatest author that ever left their mark on literature. But here we can say that welles really turned Shakespeare and inevitably into an loss of complexity. First of all like many artists (Verdi one them) that have the mistake of thinking that Falstaff is the main figure of Henry IV's plays, Welles adapts the historic tragicomedy in a melancholy comedy, political issues are ignored or comixed, Hotspur is transformed into bad comic scream-ever character. Shakespeare play is not really about Falstaff, despite that he dominate the stage, nor is a comedy in the basic term sense. Falstaff's quartet friends (Pistol, Bardolph, etc) lose all power. The play is all about politics, Hal and Hotspur, honor and kingdoms. That's the thing and to adapt such a corpus of literary complexity Welles wrong itself connecting the two plays parts when the first part works excellently alone.

    To escape the literary aspect of the review. Chimes at Midnight It's an excellent entertainment, a must view for those who want to see one of the three greatest comics characters (the others being Don Quixote and Pantrugel) in the cinema. Highpoints are Shrewsbury Battle, Falstaff's welles performance and direction as always. But not exaggerating in the purism, Chimes at midnight does not have the psychological depth of Macbeth (1948) or the beauty of performances of Othello (1952) and in my opinion he's the minor of the three Shake-welles films.
  • IT SHOULD BE RESTORED, preserved and cared for. It is a masterpiece of direction, action, camera work, casting, story. From Orson Welles to Miss Rutherford, it is a delight to be an audience in any theatre that will show this magnificent film.

    No one can out do Orson Welles, no one can touch the characterisation of all these magnificent actors. There is not one weak point. It is a huge film. Too bad there are no decent prints of the film available.

    Hopefully somewhere, through FIAF and the international film archives and the great work they are doing, a negative of the film will be found, restored and then the film will be available for screenings on television, DVD, movie theatres, cinematheques around the world.

    Thank You Orson Welles and everyone involved in this great great film!
  • This review is from someone who struggles with Shakespeare. I have enjoyed productions of Shakespeare well enough, and usually can understand the dialogue enough to follow it, but I just can't adapt to the language. At times it's like watching a foreign movie without subtitles.

    For someone like me, a fan of Welles but someone who likes but doesn't love Shakespeare, Chimes at Midnight is a problematic.

    The movie is beautifully directed, full of Welle's unique approach to composition and movement. Only Welles would put cross talk into Shakespeare, and much of the film is as visually glorious as Citizen Kane. The battle scene is electrifying and brutal, making most battle scenes feel like bowdlerized lies.

    I could generally follow the story. Falstaff is a scoundrel who is friends with the disapproving King's sons. There are various escapades and a war.

    But while I got the shape of many of the conversations, much of the time I had no idea what people were talking about. I have rarely struggled this much to understand Shakespeare, and I'm not sure why. It may be that the film is built out of the later plays, which are a lot tougher than something like Romeo and Juliet. It may be in part an effect of sound issues critics complained about at the time (although when I tried a second time with subtitles I still found the story disjointed and chaotic).

    I do wonder if it has to do with Welles approach to the material. Shakespeare's plays have a rhythm to them, and I wonder if Welles own rhythm is simply harder to follow. Would I follow the Henry IV plays better than this revision of them? I just don't know.

    I suspect this movie works best for those intimately familiar with the plays Welles used as source material. For the rest of us, it's an imperfect approach.
  • returning9 October 2004
    It's interesting that this film was based off of a script written by Welles before he got involved in film. And it suggests that we can trace this film's development through his earlier masterpieces. But it's not a simple conglomeration of specific filming techniques and the like, but a development of his genius. It makes sense to use a pseudo-shakespearean tale as the foundation, but this isn't about the acting. Here we have the depth of "Kane," the intrigue of "Shanghai," the elucidating factor of "Othello," the exertion of "Arkadin," the sweeping motion of Touch of Evil," and the oppression of "Trial." Needless to say, every effort to should be made to track down this film, and the masterpiece by which all other masterpieces will be judged.

    5 out of 5 - Essential
  • (Flash Review)

    Very rarely has a voice been so perfectly matched to the poetic genre of Shakespeare. His deep and rich voice bellows out lines with great authority and emotion. I have a strong dislike for Shakespeare as I've never been able to fully comprehend the dialog. But this was an Orson film so I gave it my time and was rewarded by well-composed shot framing and interesting camera angles as well as his distinctive voice. The plot was about the betrayal of friendship and revolves around kings and people ascending to power while some get left behind. Great acting, a meaty story and if you like both Shakespeare and Orson Welles, don't miss it.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Locarno 2005 ran a complete Orson Welles retrospective including all of his masterpieces and some lesser known works that are less than masterpieces. The Orson Welles highlight of day seven was his very rarely shown "Falstaff --Chimes at Midnight", 1965, which Welles always claimed as his personal favorite. Loosely adapted from several Shakespeare plays in which the boisterous character of John Falstaff appears. Welles himself plays the ribald central character at a very portly age of fifty and is ably supported by a mainly English cast, notably John Gielgud as the king. French nouvelle Vague actresses Marina Vlady and Jeanne Moreau have cameos. Moreau, it is said, worked for almost nothing just to be directed by a living legend like Welles. The film was shot in Spain and was an international co-production with such complicated distribution rights that they remain unsettled to this day making the film well nigh unseeable under normal conditions. I found it almost unwatchable because Welles is so hammy in it, and it looks like it was just slapped together from whim to whim -- very self indulgent and just plain boring from where I sat. It was an effort to sit it out, which I did as a kind of "critique oblige" type duty. Nevertheless one must offer Kudos to the Munich film archive for getting the unadulterated "Chimes" to Locarno. One of Orson Welles daughters, Chris Welles, is also here to take in the retrospective and said that she is learning things about her own father she never knew before. One thing I never knew is that, in addition to his numerous undeniable masterpieces he made some hammy throwaway junk which, like this film, is nevertheless highly acclaimed by many critics because it would be heresy to find any fault in the works of a certified genius like Welles. Can't complain because it filled in a gap in the filmography of a director whose work I basically venerate just like everyone else, but this one didn't ring any resounding chimes in my personal belfry. Alex, Locarno, August 12. 2005
  • The career of Shakespeare's Sir John Falstaff (Orson Welles) as roistering companion to young Prince Hal (Keith Baxter), circa 1400-1413.

    Who can say bad things about Orson Welles? His work was often neglected in his lifetime, both by audiences and critics. Looking back now, I wonder how they could have missed the genius of "Citizen Kane". But yet, they did for many years.

    This film is considered to be Welles' favorite of his own (I am unsure of the source for this claim) and has been influential. Yet, it is hard to get a decent copy (the one I have was a Portuguese import). There was no actor with such a presence as Welles, so Shakespeare is natural for him. He has successfully brought the stage to screen.
  • Shakespeare Scholars are always complaining how this film used and abused Shakespeare's plays but I think what was done in this film was pretty clever: Take the character of Falstaff from several plays and piece them together to get a complete picture of the man.

    Of the two Orson Welles Shakespeare films I've seen, this one and "Othello" (1954), both had the ability to make me want to read Shakespeare's plays and any film that makes you want to read what the author wrote is a very positive thing to say about a film. So there Shakespeare Scholars!

    I did go out and buy the books with the plays used in this film, much like trying to solve a puzzle to see how the pieces really fit. And Orson did twist and bend things a little to make it come out his way.

    I also read in Videohound's "World Cinema" (1999) by Elliot Wilhelm that this film may be getting a restoration. If it's as good a restoration as "Othello", I'm looking forward to it!

    Welles as Falstaff really shines in this film and Falstaff's later rejection by Henry V is one of the most sobering in cinema. And Welles still has some very creative power left in him by 1965, look at the Battle of Shrewsbury scenes. When it comes to battle scenes they've been done probably only 10 different ways by 1000 directors in a 1000 movies over the years, but this one is probably the most memorable. It's also strange to have in the heat of battle Falstaff looking like a big metal beach ball running around back and forth trying to avoid any conflict.

    This film is also a good example of good music and how to use it in a film and it's another one of my favorite movies about Merrie ol' England.
  • It has been at least 35 years since I first saw Chimes at Midnight at one of the art film theaters located near Carnegie Hall, but the memory lingers still of yet another remarkable and visually stunning film by Orson Welles. I remember the soundtrack being inadequate at times, but since I was a theatre student at the time, my knowledge of the text helped fill in any of the garbled lines. What an amazing Falstaff by Welles; he creates a truly human and tragic figure! Moreover, what an enviable cast, especially by today's standards.
  • It has grown mythic in my mind since several Europeans that I talk

    to on the internet began to tell me many months ago that Chimes

    at Midnight was an Orson Welles film that they preferred even to

    Citizen Kane. Yet it was unavailable in the US, and I thought that I

    would never see it. But finally I found a copy at a local alternative

    video store.

    I must say, to suggest that it beats Kane is giving it more credit

    than it deserves. That film is today generally considered the very

    best ever made (on my own list, the latest version, it lands at #12),

    though that status was hard fought over those who overrate the

    castrated version of The Magnificent Ambersons, though that film

    is indeed, too, a masterpiece in its own right. But Chimes at

    Midnight is itself also a small masterpiece. Considering how

    cheaply it seems to have been made, the results are jaw- dropping. It is among Welles best, though saying that is as

    redundant as saying a play is ranked highly in Shakespeare's

    canon.

    I have to confess to not knowing much about which Shakespeare

    plays Welles was using; I don't have the necessary research tools

    as I write this. I believe that he used a mixture of several plays, but

    nothing in the film seemed familiar to me, who have read only a

    quarter of them. Whatever Welles did, though, the results are

    amazing. His direction and editing give the film an enormous

    kinetic energy. The famous battle scene, the centerpiece of the

    film, ranks among the best ever created on film (I would say

    captured, but Welles, presumably on account of the low cost of

    production, creates the tension and fury of it by editing mostly, not

    cinematography or complex direction). Welles the actor is at the

    peak of his form, though that is redundant, too. Did Welles ever

    give a bad performance? I haven't seen too many outside of his

    own directorial efforts, but the few I have seen I must concede

    were beyond excellent. One other mention of acting: what the hell

    happened to Jeanne Moreau? Was Orson Welles stealing her

    meals? For Christ's sake, she looks like she's dying.

    I've seen six of the, what, ten or eleven films that Welles directed.

    Five of those I've given a 10/10, including Falstaff. Only Macbeth,

    which I felt paid too much attention to the technical aspects and

    not enough to the actual play (although it was only the second

    Welles film I saw and that was a while back), I have given less

    than that, a 7/10. Falstaff I rank fifth out of the remaining five (in

    order: Citizen Kane, Touch of Evil, The Trial, The Magnificent

    Ambersons). Perhaps I would rank it as highly as my European

    friends do, but there is one issue that may be destroying its

    brilliance: the tape that I rented was in the most awful condition.

    Generally, my credo is that I won't watch a direct cinematic

    adaptation of a Shakespeare play unless I have read the original,

    but lately I have noticed that I can understand his dialogue quite

    sufficiently. However, as Shakespeare is difficult to comprehend by

    ear alone, imagine hearing Shakespearean dialogue spoken by

    Charlie Brown's teacher! As the print I saw was terrible, voices are

    sometimes impossible to understand. I think I only caught around

    2/3 of the dialogue, which made the plot somewhat difficult to

    follow. The picture's contrast was quite bad, too, but not

    unbearable. The sound was definitely the biggest wound the film

    has received. But as films are being restored every day, and

    Welles's importance has never been denied, we must pray that

    this one is on someone's agenda. I pray for a Criterion edition with

    a great commentary track on the side that can decipher everything

    I'll miss.
  • I have Welles as one of the three filmmakers who invented the grammar of film. Of the three, he is the most elusive in characterizing because he was determined to try so many fundamentally different approaches. I think the differences elude people partly because many superficial elements are constant: the roiling voice, the upward looking camera, the timing of the edits tied to phrase fragments distributed throughout the orchestra.

    But this film is entirely different from the others. "Citizen Kane" is an experiment in multiple narratives, "Othello" in architectural characters, "Shanghai" in architectural cosmologies. Each of these or course exploits multiple skills, but they have their own souls.

    The soul of this project is the words themselves. Sure, the story, the events, the characters, the staging all have power, but that power is envisioned first in the words. The words, their very shapes, are the storyboards. Welles is not a great Shakespearean, but he is a great radio actor and he understood that these words have the power to drive vision... and of course he did have one or two very fine Shakespeareans on board.

    As a non-Wellesian aside: Gielgud worked with two masters of cinema doing Shakespeare's words, Welles here and Greenaway in "Prospero's Books." Who else can claim the same?

    So watch as certain phrases turn into animated space, and that space turns into the specific view we are allowed. It is not us that looks into that world to see a bit of it. it is that world creating itself from the flavors of sounds and leaping into our eye.

    That's why these two men are important.

    Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I know that Orson Welles has done Macbeth and Othello from William Shakespeare as films, but this one he directed is different because it mixes small bits and pieces from a few of them, particularly Henry IV Parts 1 and 2, Richard II, Henry V and The Merry Wives of Windsor. Basically Henry IV (John Gielgud) is the ageing king watching with discontent over his son Prince Hal (Keith Baxter) as he lives a rude and irresponsible life with overweight and constantly drinking Sir John Falstaff (BAFTA nominated Welles). I will be honest and say that I did not understand everything going on, admittedly mostly because of the usual Shakespeare higgledy-piggledy dialogue that I can usually get to grips with, but I know that Hal becomes Henry V, there is a big battle, and in the end Falstaff supposedly gets what's coming to him. Also starring Margaret Rutherford as Mistress Quickly, Jeanne Moreau as Doll Tearsheet, Norman Rodway as Henry 'Hotspur' Percy, Marina Vlady as Kate Percy, Fernando Rey as Worcester and Alan Webb as Justice Shallow, with narration by Ralph Richardson. Despite not knowing what was going on most of the time, Welles gives a good performance as the overindulgent git, and his size do provide many of the good bits of humour, of course the most memorable scene is of course the big battle scene in the middle, also because of Welles in that fat metal suit, it may not be to everyone's taste, the critics rate it well, it is Shakespeare and Welles combined, so it is certainly a watchable historical comedy drama. Orson Welles was number 16 on 100 Years, 100 Stars - Men, and he was number 45 on The World's Greatest Actor. Good!
  • I have to admit right here and now that except for "Romeo and Juliet" and "Macbeth", I am not too familiar with the plays of William Shakespeare. As a result, hearing the Old English of the Bard in the beginning of this latter-day Orson Welles movie almost alienated me to the point of almost not watching the rest of it on YouTube. But since I just got a jones for seeing many of Welles' films that aren't Citizen Kane or Touch of Evil, I felt I had to watch the rest of this so I could say I have done so. I'm very glad I did as I got used to the dialogue as being something from the 16th century and would eventually understand what is going on. Kudos for Welles for giving compelling battle scenes in the middle part and for performances of not only himself as John Falstaff but also Jeanne Moreau as his mistress and especially John Gielgud as the King especially his final scene. And I did get some of the humorous scenes near the end. So on that note, I highly recommend Falstaff (or Chimes at Midnight).
  • Welles's monochrome, organic, academic and evocative cinematic Holinshed/Shakespeare adaptation filmed in Spain in the mid-'60s. He plays Sir John Falstaff - a character representing 'Merrie Englande'. In his interview on the B. B. C.'s Arena programme Welles explained that Falstaff represented -'a better world, a Saxon world versus the Norman or beady-eyed Tudor world'. The gaunt, darkhaired, medieval-looking Newport-born actor, Keith Baxter is very good as Prince Hal. Some of the dubbing is atrocious although the beauty of Shakespeare's phrases is telling. The Battle of Shrewsbury is evocative - Welles hired soldiers from the Spanish army. Some of the violent imagery reminds me of New York new wave band Television's martial track 'Torn Curtain' from their landmark album Marquee Moon (1977). For me, this is Welles's most resonant film alongside his Dinesen adaptation for French television, 'The Immortal Story' (1968) and 'F for Fake' (1973).
  • Bargain basement sets, poorly synchronized sound, battle scenes with casts of dozens-and Genius..pure, unadulterated genius. Welles, not Olivier, not Branagh, was the supreme transcriber of Shakespeare to the screen, and he did it with a fraction of their resources. Welles takes Shakespeare's great "history plays' about Henry the Fourth and Henry the fifth, and weaves them into a cinematic vision with Falstaff-drunken, cowardly, bawdy, greedy, thieving, yet ever loyal and ever lovable Falstaff_ as the hero.The title, Chimes at Midnight, is a stroke of genius. He interprets the plays as Shakespeare's half-Catholic, half-Pagan elegy for "merry england', embodied by Falstaff. The very skills that Henry the fifth MUST learn in order to become a "modern', Machiavellian Prince, led him to discard Falstaff and the whole way of life he represents. Welles captures Falstaff in an unforgettable characterization. This is a beautiful film, for all the cheapness with which it was filmed. In fact, like Macbeth and Othello it is beautiful because it is a "poverty row' film, an exquisite primitive, relying, not on richly colored set or magnificent music, but simply on the grammar of cinema. It is Welles last full vision( I have not seen "F for Fake', so I will not comment on it), and it shows Welles to be a humanistic, compassionate, and deeply spiritual film-maker. SUBLIME
  • Orson Welles adapted a couple of plays of William Shakespeare. "MacBeth" (1948), "Othello" (1951) and (the best of all) "Falstaff" (1965). "Falstaff" is not named after a play but after a character of Shakespeare. This character occurs in plays such as "Henry IV", "Henry V" and "The wives of Windsor".

    In "Falstaff" Welles confronts the "warm" world of the inn with the "cold" world of the court. There are more films in which buildings are representing a way of life. I think about "Fanny and Alexander" in which the "warm" house of the Ekdahl family is confronted with the "cold" palace of the bishop.

    "Falstaff" is from Welles (second) European period, when financing his projects was a constant worry. Sometimes the shooting had to be postponed because the project had run out of budget. It is noteworthy that even in this period Welles could recruit such famous actors as Jeanne Moreau, John Gielgud and Fernando Rey. Acting in a Welles film apparently paid out more in status then in money.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Plenty of praise is heaped on this film so I'm not going to go over what's good about it. We know Welles can point a camera, everyone loves the big battle scene. But I have several major gripes with this film. First and I believe foremost, the characters are incredibly unlikable. Our hero is an obese, alcoholic criminal who lives in a brothel. He finances his hideous disease-ridden lifestyle as a lying flim-flam man and cheap highway robber. He is a sociopath manipulator who uses his ways to facilitate his constant quest to garner respect which he does not deserve and obtain money he did not earn. He manipulates young men including the prince of Wales himself. The prince gleefully partakes in criminal shenanigans as he shirks the duty of getting ready to be one of the most powerful and important men in Europe, only to act like a victim when daddy dies and the grown up world forces him to grow the heck up. Our main characters everyone, give them a hand.

    I have to admit, the language is pretty. You've got to be a poet to write this kind of thing but I wouldn't judge a person's intellect for not enjoying it. It's Shakespearean after all. But listen folks, no one speaks this language. No one ever spoke this language. "I'll be a potters tuffet if not my spoils do taint the barleycorn that in the morning, ah thou! Be if that not though thy this then... But what then verily?" God, shut up. Shakespearean English is bad and this is bad.

    While others may describe the direction as exciting and energetic, in my opinion the sheer amount of prancing about and pawing at each other surpasses all reason. Everyone everywhere, prancing prancing prancing. Twirling and jumping, randomly French kissing prostitutes, sweating like pigs all over each other... I know this is theater but I can't suspend disbelief well enough to accept the sheer level of frantic absurd motion portrayed in this film.

    Then the battle scene happens. We have an epic battle, gorgeous and brutal and fairly realistic. It also has Sir John in giant armor looking like a cross between the Black Knight and the Kool-Aid man being a total coward, ruining the battle with comic nonsense in the same way Gimli ruins the battles in Lord of the Rings. Showing the depth of his character he helps Prince Hal into battle with a demoralizing speech to about the uselessness of honor. I could not have hated him more when he tries to take credit for slaying Hotspur. Hal might have won some favor with his dad that day but instead he instilled more disgust as the disgusting company he keeps rears its head.

    Other notably dislike-able characters, and thus failings of the film, include Justice Shallow, a whinnying rambler with a voice like a caricature who keeps in his company a stutterer who can only ever speak the first consonant of a word. Shallow will call upon him for information, the stutterer would say "Buh" and Shallow would complete the thought. That gag didn't get freaking old the 20th time it happened. Then there's Pistol, so dopey and hammy that he seems to only be there in order to give us someone to hate more than Falstaff.

    This movie is a dopey, pretentious, melodramatic goofball comedy done in the style of the world's most overrated playwright. I feel like people claim to like Chimes at Midnight for the same reason they claim to like conventional Shakespeare; they don't want people to think they're stupid. In my case, that strategy backfired.
An error has occured. Please try again.