ckeller-6 Reviews

Henry V (1944)

Great opening, but a bit too light

[7/10 · 5 January 2006]

Laurence Olivier made this movie during World War II. He wanted it to be a propaganda movie, and unfortunately this is still visible. His Henry is a king and war hero shining in perfect light. All the rough edges and darker points of Shakespeare's original play are left out: We don't see how Bardolph is hanged, Henry doesn't kill his French prisoners in retribution for the attack on his camp, and Pistol is actually looking forward to becoming a pimp and cut-purse in England again. All this makes the movie a bit too simple-minded and one-dimensional.

But apart from that, both Olivier's acting and directing are good. Especially the opening is very innovative: It takes place in a theater, the story is presented as a real play. This gives room for comments on Elisabethean theater and interaction with the audience - look for instance how they react whenever Falstaff is mentioned. Unfortunately this angle is lost later on and the movie continues in a more conventional fashion.

All in all a classic certainly worth watching, but it won't hurt to check out Kenneth Branagh's version as well for a more balanced view on the original play.

Richard III (1955)

Not my favorite version

[6/10 · 4 January 2006]

Although I liked this movie, I still prefer the McKellen/Loncraine version of 'Richard III'.

First of all, Olivier is more of a stage actor and director than a filmmaker. This movie seems a lot like the recording of a stage performance and contains few elements that make up a 'real' movie. There are almost no powerful images: The only one that comes to mind is Richard's shadow that is featured in some scenes.

Secondly, Olivier's acting feels strangely detached and emotionless. This works very well when Richard is talking to the audience, coolly commenting and reflecting on the situation, but it fails to capture both his charisma and his self-destructive ambitions. It remains a mystery how this Richard could successfully woo a widow over her husband's dead body and how he could be haunted by the specters of those he killed.

Nevertheless, the performances of Ralph Richardson and John Gielgud are good, and Olivier's monologue on 'the winter of our Discontent' is great. This alone makes the movie worth watching.

Chimes at Midnight (1965)

Orson Welles' Masterpiece

[10/10 · 10 July 2005]

'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.