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.
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.