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.

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.

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!

Well, a little more. When Orson Welles decided to remove and digest one character, John Falstaff, from several of William Shakespeare's works and build a failed play and then a masterpiece of a film around him, he successfully combined Shakespeare's inner-child and playfulness with some of the most subtle commentary on human nature in its diverse faces, masks, and merriments ever to appear on these creations of light we call cinema. The result: a team effort by Shakespeare and Welles--the bard meets the belly--in which Falstaff comes to life clothed in the girth bestowed upon him by both sides of the team as he frolics his way through dens of pleasure, landscapes of death. and the even more joyful and deadly emotions humans express until Will and Orson weave together the laughter of days and then a touch of despair as the night turns. And so we find these two men, with this film, jostling and combining talents, always just touching, simply with wisdom, what it means to inhabit human.