Customer Reviews

Chimes At Midnight - Falstaff [Import, All Regions]

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The search for Orson Welles' late masterpiece "Chimes at Midnight" just got a little easier. A Brazilian DVD import takes the Welles classic into the digital age and offers an alternative to the out-of-print Arthur Cantor VHS release.

"Chimes at Midnight" 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 by Welles. Though rarely seen, "Chimes at Midnight" has influenced modern filmmakers. Mel Gibson, for example, admitted the famous "Battle of Shrewesbury" scene influenced his own "Braveheart."

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 shifts the focus from the titular English kings to 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.

There are several great performances, by John Gielgud as Henry IV, Keith Baxter as Hal, Kenneth Branagh look-alike Norman Rodway as Hotspur, Welles regular Jeanne Moreau as Doll Tearsheet, and the great Dame Margaret Rutherford (of "Miss Marple" fame) as Mistress Quickly.

"Chimes at Midnight" can be a jarring experience due to inconsistent film quality, low budget sets and Welles' flair for shock cuts. Once you adapt to the style and limitations, it's a truly rewarding experience. Welles has found a deeply moving story between the lines of Shakespeare's histories.

"Chimes at Midnight" was Welles' final attempt to popularize Shakespeare for the masses. With any luck, this film will eventually reach the wider audiences that Welles failed to achieve in his lifetime.

I first saw this film in 1967, and I remember it as if I just stepped out of the theater. Great films affect us this way and this is a great film. The camera work and the pacing will remind you of Kurosawa and Kubrick, and that in turn will remind you how much these great film makers owe to Welles. Each scene is perfect. The actors don't act, they breathe the life that is in their characters. When Welles swaggers as Falstaff, you believe Falstaff and love him and trust him and distrust him. When he is rejected by Hal at the end of the film, you feel that all the world's sorrow is embedded in Falstaff, this dying old man.

Really, this film finally is as great as Citizen Kane, and perhaps even a little greater because what Welles does here more successfully than he did in Kane is that he is not afraid to show us what happens when a human heart reaches beyond itself and fails to touch another human heart. In Kane, Welles could imagine that tragedy but here in Chimes at Midnight he lives it.

Simply stated: His best movie, without diminishing any of his other great ones that everybody may think about. It is amazing how this has not been released in dvd yet in America.

It has the best scenes of medieval war (or for that matter, anytime war) in film history. Pay special attention to it: it's mesmerizing.

It is Shakespeare's best adaptation to a screen, whether it is more faithful or not I don't know.

It has the added value (in my opinion) of watching the wonderful Jean Moreau and Welles together.

It's just a perfect movie, regardless of being an adaptation of Shakespeare's or not, beautiful, deep, tragic and comic. A work of art.

(Also among my favorites of Welles are: The Stranger & The Lady from Shanghai)

I obtained at VHS copy of this film back in the early 90s when I was just out of university, and I've seen it maybe two or three times. It's a remarkably outstanding piece of cinematic achievement -- much like his Othello, Welles melds the artform of the 20th century with the immortal bard's words, characters and situations to marvelous effect.

The audio quality of the VHS was difficult at times, and the same is true for this DVD (ironic that Welles' audio on so many films is subpar considering he was a radio star first, where all he had was audio), but it shouldn't get in the way of your enjoyment of the film.

The entire cast turn in fantastic performances and the stark B&W images underscores the emotional nature of this story -- the disposing of one's mentors.

One can't compare the script to anything Shakespearan, because it's an amalgam of several pieces of Shakespeare from his "Histories" yet Welles stitches the appearances of Sir John Falstaff together with magical aplomb and gives the story a narrative drive that is more modern, yet still classical in its design and execution.

If any film warrants at Criterion restoration it's this film, however I have to believe the original elements are in the worst condition; still sinking some money in by the UCLA Film Archive for restoration wouldn't be a bad thing...

Orson Welles' filmmaking genius did not vanish after "Citizen Kane." Released in 1966 and barely shown in America, "Chimes at Midnight" was his best Shakespearean adaptation - featuring some of the finest battle scenes captured on celluloid. Surrounded by an excellent cast, Welles delivered the performance of his career as Falstaff. In a 1982 BBC interview, the actor-director considered "Chimes at Midnight" his greatest cinematic achievement. "If I wanted to get into heaven on the basis of one movie, that's the one I'd offer up."

With the aide of a middleman, and a tip from the great Roger Ebert, I recently acquired a Brazilian DVD of Orson Welles' "The Chimes at Midnight". One can't help but applaud the foreign distributor for making this film available, even marginally, for otherwise I would have had no opportunity at all to see it.

One of the most obscure products of Welles post-Hollywood films made on lunch money and pocketfuls of change, "Chimes" has spent the last forty years as a critically adored, but largely unseen masterpiece. Welles compresses most of the first half of the 'War of the Roses' cycle, largely consisting of "Henry IV, Parts 1 & 2", and a handful of scenes and lines from "Henry V" (many descriptions of the film also include "The Merry Wives of Windsor", but I can't identify any part of the film from that play). The political aspects of the Henry IV plays are largely eliminated, and the remainder exist mostly to give some justification to the larger plot (and the war); the focus is, as the alternate title of "Falstaff" suggests, primarily on valiant Sir John, played by Welles himself.

Aside from Welles, the notable parts are filled by the late Sir John Gielgud (as King Henry IV), Keith Baxter (as Prince Hal/Henry V), Margaret Rutherford (Mistress Quickly), and Jeanne Moreau (Doll Tearsheet). It's surprising to see big Bard actors like Gielgud participating in a production like this, but doubtless they did it as favours to Welles, who, from the late 40s until his death was sort of like Ed Wood, if Ed Wood made good movies. Given the incredibly choppy production history, it's amazing that the film isn't totally unwatchable; instead, it's great. In fact, aside from the sometimes glaring sound synchronization problems, I'd venture to say that the minuscule budget isn't really noticeable: the Battle of the Shrewsbury is excellent, and you can clearly see its influence on Branagh's Agincourt and Gibson's Stirling.

Harold Bloom once called Falstaff the equal to Hamlet, although Falstaff arguably suffers because he, more than Hamlet, needs to be seen performed to be truly understood, while Hamlet can be more thoroughly comprehended just by reading his dialogue. I've always been fascinated by the disconnect that exists between the "Henry IV" plays and "Henry V" in regards to the character of Hal. Whatever his good qualities, the Prince's role in the first two is that of a conniving Machiavel who uses a band of jovial rogues to advance his own reputation, while in "Henry V" he has taken on the role of crusading hero (although Shakespeare's writing choices sometimes subvert his heroism). In many ways, it's surprising that audiences, in any age, wanted to see anything more of the man that destroyed poor Jack Falstaff.

Made in 1966, this is the first and only film featuring Shakespeare's character, Falstaff. It is a joyful comedy with selected scenes from the History plays (Richard II, Henry IV Books 1 and 2, and Henry V). In a trio of Shakespeare films including Macbeth and Othello, it was directed by, and starring Orson Welles, and remains a masterpiece of its day.
The film is fun throughout. Most of the comedy is low life, with vagabonds, thieves and cutpurses living in `dens of iniquity'. Falstaff enjoys `sac' and lives life to the full, every day. However, there are also moments of drama and pathos, such as Henry Vs rejection of Falstaff during his coronation, and the lamentations after the old man's death.
Whilst Welles is the best Falstaff I have seen in a large screen film, there have been some great portrayals since then in Shakespeare's original play formats. The rest of the cast is also good, including Margaret Rutherford, a classical actress who never failed to please, as a superb Mistress Quickly. Keith Baxter also stands out as Young Hal, then as Henry V, and is convincing in both lifestyles. In particular I like John Gielgud in the very difficult role of Henry IV who speaks with such excellence and eloquence. Unfortunately we only see little of him which is a shame as he would have brought more class to the film.
As with other black and white films over 45 years old, we must make allowances for sub standard picture and sound quality, as well as poor props and scenery, caused by low budget difficulties. If and when the viewer forgives these limitations, it is a great film and a true Orson Welles classic. I yearn for a remake, but is there another Welles or Gielgud anywhere?

About 15 years ago, when I first discovered the Orson Welles-Shakespeare film connection, I heard about this film, and lusted after it. It was impossible to get a hold of. Well, I just got it for myself as a Christmas present, and it has absolutely lived up to all the reviews, and all my expectations. If you love Orson Welles, you absolutely must see it. Sure, it's not $12, but it's worth every penny, especially if you love Shakespeare too. Oh, alright, I've convinced myself. I'll watch it again tonight. . . .

Orson Welles has done a superb job of crating a complete picture of Shakespeare's Falstaff. The is the jolly scoundrel of "Merry Wives of Windsor," the conniving social racounteur of Henry IV, and the sad failure of Henry V. All are equally well portrayed by Orson Welles who rivals Olivier for his range of acting skills.

CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT: simply marvellous, great in every specific detail. A compendium of late Shakespearian Welles! Without leaving the most comical coté, this is a never undone before, an exclusive essay about the human power acted into a game of three, Henry IVth, Henry Vth and Falstaff as well... andrea borgia