This review is from someone who struggles with Shakespeare. I have enjoyed productions of Shakespeare well enough, and usually can understand the dialogue enough to follow it, but I just can't adapt to the language. At times it's like watching a foreign movie without subtitles.
For someone like me, a fan of Welles but someone who likes but doesn't love Shakespeare, Chimes at Midnight is a problematic.
The movie is beautifully directed, full of Welle's unique approach to composition and movement. Only Welles would put cross talk into Shakespeare, and much of the film is as visually glorious as Citizen Kane. The battle scene is electrifying and brutal, making most battle scenes feel like bowdlerized lies.
I could generally follow the story. Falstaff is a scoundrel who is friends with the disapproving King's sons. There are various escapades and a war.
But while I got the shape of many of the conversations, much of the time I had no idea what people were talking about. I have rarely struggled this much to understand Shakespeare, and I'm not sure why. It may be that the film is built out of the later plays, which are a lot tougher than something like Romeo and Juliet. It may be in part an effect of sound issues critics complained about at the time (although when I tried a second time with subtitles I still found the story disjointed and chaotic).
I do wonder if it has to do with Welles approach to the material. Shakespeare's plays have a rhythm to them, and I wonder if Welles own rhythm is simply harder to follow. Would I follow the Henry IV plays better than this revision of them? I just don't know.
I suspect this movie works best for those intimately familiar with the plays Welles used as source material. For the rest of us, it's an imperfect approach.
For someone like me, a fan of Welles but someone who likes but doesn't love Shakespeare, Chimes at Midnight is a problematic.
The movie is beautifully directed, full of Welle's unique approach to composition and movement. Only Welles would put cross talk into Shakespeare, and much of the film is as visually glorious as Citizen Kane. The battle scene is electrifying and brutal, making most battle scenes feel like bowdlerized lies.
I could generally follow the story. Falstaff is a scoundrel who is friends with the disapproving King's sons. There are various escapades and a war.
But while I got the shape of many of the conversations, much of the time I had no idea what people were talking about. I have rarely struggled this much to understand Shakespeare, and I'm not sure why. It may be that the film is built out of the later plays, which are a lot tougher than something like Romeo and Juliet. It may be in part an effect of sound issues critics complained about at the time (although when I tried a second time with subtitles I still found the story disjointed and chaotic).
I do wonder if it has to do with Welles approach to the material. Shakespeare's plays have a rhythm to them, and I wonder if Welles own rhythm is simply harder to follow. Would I follow the Henry IV plays better than this revision of them? I just don't know.
I suspect this movie works best for those intimately familiar with the plays Welles used as source material. For the rest of us, it's an imperfect approach.