Chimes at Midnight1 Corinthians 13:11 says, "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things." This is the same kind of lesson which young Prince Hal (Keith Baxter), son of King Henry IV (John Gielgud), must learn as he is forced to choose between his loyalties to the crown and his licentious youth, manifested in his bawdy rogue of a companion, the rotund and eloquent Sir John "Jack" Falstaff (Orson Welles). Adapted from select works of William Shakespeare's histories--principally "Henry IV, Part 1" and "Henry IV, Part 2"--Chimes at Midnight turns the spotlight of these plays more onto Falstaff, and his role in these tales of the royal and the ribald.
|
|
Shakespeare's histories are consistently filled with political scheming and the underhandedness of the court, as well as the varied battles which followed. But in Chimes at Midnight, the true conflict rests in Hal's difficulty in reconciling his feelings of familial duty and his desire to have a good time with rakish fellows like Falstaff. The young prince and the jovial knight spend their days hanging around a house of ill repute, sleeping late, drinking, cursing, and so on. Falstaff jokes with Hal about his royal connections, and Hal disregards his ties in favor of playing, like dressing up as priests to perform some highwaymen antics or other shenanigans with his warm, older buddy. Falstaff represents a kind of "father figure", or at least Jack would like Hal to feel that way about him. It isn't even that tough for Jack, because Hal's own father, the king, is a stern man, who vents about how his son is so irresponsible, he even claims that he wishes his destined opponent in the field of battle, Henry Percy (Norman Rodway)--also called Hotspur for his quickness to rise to anger--were his son instead of Hal. But there is a great irony in Henry IV and his own claim to the throne, which is represented subtly in Falstaff. From the start, the narrator elucidates that Henry IV essentially stole the throne, a fact which is clear to Hotspur and provoked by the manipulative Earl of Worcester (Fernando Rey) to give rise to a rebellion. Compare this to when Falstaff at the Battle of Shrewsbury, after Hal slays Hotspur in single combat, tries to lay claim to slaying Hotspur himself. As Falstaff opines, "honor is like the wind"...a thought shared not by either the common or nobility, but by individual men. When the time comes for Hal to adopt the title of Henry V, he puts aside his past, and makes it clear to Falstaff in no uncertain terms that he does not know the old man, for his past was like a dream to him.
No doubt that Orson Welles recognized the unique grandeur that is the character of Falstaff in the works of the immortal William Shakespeare. The eloquent and amoral knight boasts (as is his wont) the most lines of any character in the works of the Bard, if one considers that he has dialogue not only in "Henry IV, Part 1" and "Henry IV, Part 2", but also in "Henry V" and "The Merry Wives of Windsor", from which additional material for Chimes at Midnight was appropriated. One suspects that Falstaff represented a superstar of low comedy in the Globe Theater, so much so that he made cameos in these other works. And why wouldn't he be a popular and enticing character? He is witty, silly, raucous, and more; he is described as jovial and obese, like a lascivious Santa Claus. The inspiration for the kind of comedy Falstaff embodies--and the corresponding pathos which comes when he is cast down by the ascendant Hal--can be felt in a multitude of charismatic rogues in medieval fiction and fantasy, from Friar Tuck in "Robin Hood" to Tyrion Lannister in "A Song of Ice and Fire". Though a shameless liar and cheat, Jack is also an endearing, warm soul, and fills the role of the "heart" of this medieval England which seems too hard-bitten by power plays and war. At one point, Falstaff comments that to "banish plump Jack [is to] banish all the world", a line foreshadowing his own banishment by Henry V. Although the narrator comments at the conclusion how Henry V went on to become a "good king"--at least in as much as he avoided the kind of irresponsible behaviors of his youth--his reign would actually be one filled with war. Henry V launches a war against France--in part motivated by his father's dying words. It is an act of conquest, likely provoked both by his need to leave behind his old legacy of debauchery and instead appear as a strong ruler to the world, but also himself. But these moments do not follow the story of Chimes at Midnight, because this film is really about Falstaff. He passes away shortly after Henry V is crowned, presumably of a broken heart, although the intimation of his "cold legs" suggests suicide by poison hemlock (as it was with Socrates). Welles plays Falstaff in such a way that it is ambiguous whether Jack is genuinely exploiting Hal or merely dotes on him in his own way as a surrogate son...or whether these are even mutually exclusive. There is also the sense that Hal is merely slumming it with men like Falstaff, and that Falstaff's interactions with the common folk, rogues and rapscallions alike, make him more genuine as a citizen of England than Hal ever was...a real "man of the people". Falstaff's dialogue is always rich even if his pockets aren't, and it is filled with sly turns of phrase, metaphor, and even an earthy poetry. Chimes at Midnight has recently been regarded as a rediscovered masterpiece of Orson Welles, a hidden cinematic gem; how apt then that it is like Falstaff, like an unsung king.
Recommended for: Fans of a reimagining of Shakespeare's histories about Henry IV and Henry V, focusing on the acclaimed antihero of those plays. Watching Chimes at Midnight, one can imagine that Falstaff was written with Orson Welles in mind...or perhaps vice versa.
No doubt that Orson Welles recognized the unique grandeur that is the character of Falstaff in the works of the immortal William Shakespeare. The eloquent and amoral knight boasts (as is his wont) the most lines of any character in the works of the Bard, if one considers that he has dialogue not only in "Henry IV, Part 1" and "Henry IV, Part 2", but also in "Henry V" and "The Merry Wives of Windsor", from which additional material for Chimes at Midnight was appropriated. One suspects that Falstaff represented a superstar of low comedy in the Globe Theater, so much so that he made cameos in these other works. And why wouldn't he be a popular and enticing character? He is witty, silly, raucous, and more; he is described as jovial and obese, like a lascivious Santa Claus. The inspiration for the kind of comedy Falstaff embodies--and the corresponding pathos which comes when he is cast down by the ascendant Hal--can be felt in a multitude of charismatic rogues in medieval fiction and fantasy, from Friar Tuck in "Robin Hood" to Tyrion Lannister in "A Song of Ice and Fire". Though a shameless liar and cheat, Jack is also an endearing, warm soul, and fills the role of the "heart" of this medieval England which seems too hard-bitten by power plays and war. At one point, Falstaff comments that to "banish plump Jack [is to] banish all the world", a line foreshadowing his own banishment by Henry V. Although the narrator comments at the conclusion how Henry V went on to become a "good king"--at least in as much as he avoided the kind of irresponsible behaviors of his youth--his reign would actually be one filled with war. Henry V launches a war against France--in part motivated by his father's dying words. It is an act of conquest, likely provoked both by his need to leave behind his old legacy of debauchery and instead appear as a strong ruler to the world, but also himself. But these moments do not follow the story of Chimes at Midnight, because this film is really about Falstaff. He passes away shortly after Henry V is crowned, presumably of a broken heart, although the intimation of his "cold legs" suggests suicide by poison hemlock (as it was with Socrates). Welles plays Falstaff in such a way that it is ambiguous whether Jack is genuinely exploiting Hal or merely dotes on him in his own way as a surrogate son...or whether these are even mutually exclusive. There is also the sense that Hal is merely slumming it with men like Falstaff, and that Falstaff's interactions with the common folk, rogues and rapscallions alike, make him more genuine as a citizen of England than Hal ever was...a real "man of the people". Falstaff's dialogue is always rich even if his pockets aren't, and it is filled with sly turns of phrase, metaphor, and even an earthy poetry. Chimes at Midnight has recently been regarded as a rediscovered masterpiece of Orson Welles, a hidden cinematic gem; how apt then that it is like Falstaff, like an unsung king.
Recommended for: Fans of a reimagining of Shakespeare's histories about Henry IV and Henry V, focusing on the acclaimed antihero of those plays. Watching Chimes at Midnight, one can imagine that Falstaff was written with Orson Welles in mind...or perhaps vice versa.