MOVIE REVIEW: Chimes at Midnight (1965)

For a man who made what is considered by many critics, film historians and filmmakers around the world to be the greatest movie of all time, Orson Welles had one of the strangest and most unfortunate careers in the annals of film history. He essentially started out on top with his debut feature, 1941's Citizen Kane, which he wrote, directed and starred in at the age of 26. It was the first and only time in his career that he would get complete creative control on his work, and as the decades wore on he eventually found himself cast out of the Hollywood studio system and instead relying on international markets for funding. In the mid-1960s, Welles went to Europe to find funding for a project that he had previously produced on stage. Chimes at Midnight was the name of the project he dreamed of putting on film, a combination of various Shakespearean texts (including "Henry IV Parts I and II", "Henry V", and "The Merry Wives of Windsor") that centered on the character Sir John Falstaff, a comic figure who was the companion to Prince Hal (Keith Baxter) in the years before his eventual reign as King Henry V.

The original title for what would become Chimes at Midnight was "Five Kings" and was developed by Welles over many years, going as far back as when he was a student in the early 1930s. Welles and the Mercury Theatre did several performances of the play on the road, which was largely dismissed by critics at the time. It wasn't until 1960 that Welles would stage the play again, this time with the title changed to "Chimes at Midnight," and would also prove to be the last time he would perform in a theatrical play. It was in Spain that financing was found for Welles' dream project, with Spanish producer Emiliano Piedra eager to work with the director. The main problem was that Piedra didn't see a Shakespearean adaptation to be marketable, and suggested that Welles make a film adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson's novel "Treasure Island" instead. Welles agreed to film that adaptation only if he could make Chimes at Midnight simultaneously while using the same sets. Piedra wasn't aware that Welles was lying to him with no intentions of adapting Stevenson's novel, and ultimately agreed to finance the film with a limited budget of $800,000.

All of which makes the film even more impressive half a century later. Although the limited budgets are apparent when viewing Welles' other Shakespearean adaptations (1948's Macbeth and 1952's Othello), Chimes at Midnight looks remarkably good. The castles, costumes, sets, and locations all look authentic to the 15th century time period that the story takes place in. Instead of using wider shots in scenes with large groups of people, Welles places the camera in the middle of the crowds in order to give the illusion of depth as if there are actually more people in the frame. This effect is also done in the famous Battle of Shrewsbury sequence that takes place in the middle of the film, using smoke and a variety of different camera angles to give the viewer the sense that the armies are vast as they storm toward each other. This sequence has been immensely influential over the decades since the film's release, having been viewed and studied by directors such as Martin Scorsese (the opening fight scene in Gangs of New York), Kenneth Branagh (the Battle of Agincourt in Henry V) and Mel Gibson (the Battle of Stirling in Braveheart) for similarly staged and shot sequences in their own films.

In many ways, Welles' film adaptations of Shakespeare's plays were quite ahead of their time. From an aesthetic viewpoint, they stick out amongst the pack of more traditional adaptations of the Bard's work. This film is a particularly good example of Welles' style giving way to something unique, taking several of Shakespeare's texts to craft something that is wholly cinematic while still retaining some of the more stage-like elements of the plays. He is able to maintain the slapstick comedy and certain heightened performances that would normally be best suited on a stage, while using camera angles and techniques that still make the story understandable purely on a visual level. This kind of balance is something that Welles could probably do with ease, as he was trained in the theater while also having studied the films of many directors from the silent era. The way Welles shot and edited this film is a radical departure from the more traditional aesthetics of filmmakers such as Laurence Olivier, whose Shakespearean adaptations have a very stagey quality and aren't nearly as cinematic, and is a big reason why I think this film holds up better today as a result.

Although Falstaff was a supporting character in the Shakespearean texts for which Welles used as the basis for the film, his relationship with Prince Hal is the central story in Chimes at Midnight. Welles himself described the story as being about the betrayal of friendship, and it is that betrayal that gives the film it's emotional punch at the film's conclusion. Of all the screen adaptations I've seen that have included Falstaff, this is by far the one that gives the best and most nuanced portrait of the character. As in the plays from which he originates, he is depicted as having a boisterous personality, spending most of his time drinking at a tavern with petty criminals and other low lives. Prince Hal's relationship with Falstaff often gets him into trouble with his father, King Henry IV (John Gielgud), and is the source of much tension that is brought into Welles' film. The director himself said that he felt Falstaff was the greatest character that Shakespeare ever conceived, and that he felt a personal connection to him in the plays. When watching Welles' performance in the film, his admiration for the character is evident in every frame and makes it a real joy to watch throughout the 115 minute run time.

The connection between Welles and Falstaff is something that has been brought up by many noted film critics and historians. It's easy to see why this comparison is made, particularly when reading about Welles' larger than life personality and the ways he would try to convince people to give him money for his films, and it bears a number of similarities to the comparisons between the director and Charles Foster Kane. Although he would all but dismiss Citizen Kane as the years went on, largely because that was the one film people would always want to talk about with him, he revealed in an interview with Leslie Megahey in 1982 that Chimes at Midnight was his own personal favorite, describing it as being his most successful effort behind the camera. The film carries many traits expected in the best of Welles' work such as humor, heart, and tragedy, all the while made with the energy of a young director that moves at a brisk pace. It is perhaps the last great film of his career.

Chimes at Midnight has had a long, complicated history with legal rights. The film was a Swiss-Spanish co-production, which resulted in not many people seeing the film in the United States upon initial release. Until recently the film was nearly impossible to view in the United States and was only available to buy from other countries that sold region-free DVDs (my copy was bought on eBay from South Korea). Having just seen a recent digital restoration of the film only a few hours before writing this blog entry, I am optimistic that the legal rights have been sorted out and the film will get a proper North American release sometime soon. There's recently been a Blu-ray release in the United Kingdom, and if it's from the same digital print that I saw in theaters earlier this evening, it looks great. Although this film is not as well known as Citizen Kane, The Magnificent Ambersons or Touch of Evil, it is rightly regarded today as one of Orson Welles' best movies and should be seen by anyone who likes the director's work, great and innovative film adaptations of Shakespeare's plays, or both.

Rating: 4/4