Chimes at Midnight (Orson Welles, 1965)

[muflibird]

Good point. The answer is, virtually never are the background sounds and score an impediment to syncing up the dialogue. Lavagnino wrote a superb score, but it amounts to only about forty minutes of screen time. Subtract credits and battle scene, and thirty minutes of music is spread across an hour and forty-five minutes of film. Bear in mind that well over half of the print Studio Canal used, is just fine the way it is.

To give an example of the sort of changes that are needed, when Henry IV inquires about his "unthrifty son," actor Andrew Faulds as Westmoreland has three lines with the king. While the first two fit precisely, along comes, "Here is Sir Walter Blunt, my Lord, new-lighted from his horse," about six frames late. Sound keeps pouring of Faulds' mouth six frames after his lips stop moving. The effect is jarring. What sound is in the background? Low-frequency room ambience. Mind you, Faulds did his looping session perfectly. Someone simply pasted the final bit of audio in the wrong place. Before the battle of Shrewsbury, a few lines of Gielgud's are off just far enough to be distracting. The sound in the background: wind.

The picture in the Studio Canal release is ravishing. All the misplaced lines can be set right in a few evenings. No Othello-sized restoration, with its attendant problems, is required.

[Roger Ryan]

As alluded to earlier in this thread, an on-going sound restoration has been in the works for over a decade. It could very well be finished (I saw/heard two reels of the film featuring the restoration four years ago). The legal debacle has kept the film from getting a proper release with the restored sound or not. "muflibird" is correct that it wouldn't take much effort to sync up the post-recorded dialogue with the lips. As I recall, a more controversial aspect of the restoration was an attempt to give the soundtrack a more realistic spatial sense by making it sound like characters in the background were further away than characters in the foreground, etc.

By the way, one of the many sad ironies surrounding the work of Welles is that his original edit of OTHELLO required/requires no restoration. Beatrice and her team put a lot of effort into restoring the elements to a subsequent U.S. edit (with very questionable results) which Beatrice owned. Welles' original European edit of the film actually features a better mixed soundtrack with better sync than the restored U.S. release. A more cohesive Venice sequence at the film's beginning and a few better shot choices throughout make Welles' original edit the superior version. Unfortunately, Beatrice has suppressed the availability of this version in favor of her own "restored" edit.

[cinemartin]

Rosenbaum has written quite a bit about the restorations to Welles films, and I tend to follow his logic on it. By making a more realistic spatial sense would be going against what is there. Coming from radio, Welles was always very precise about his audio ideas and spent a lot of time perfecting the recording and mix of the film. The restored Othello was a travesty compared to Welles' original cut(s). What Welles accomplished with that film and to a certain degree with Chimes was an aural and visual assault where you didn't know where the sound was coming from while the visuals reinforced the sense of spatial instability. The problem with the restoration(s) is that it is being done by people who want to make the sound subordinate to the image, where I believe Welles was working from the opposite direction. Just because some lines appear to be off-sync in Chimes doesn't mean it's necessarily flawed. In fact, the disconnect between sound and image offers up a new relation to think about in place of a smooth sync. If there's one thing that Welles' post Hollywood films point to (with Lady From Shanghai fitting in as a nice precursor), it's the abandoning of smooth edits and narrative continuity for something rougher, more urgent, and far more abstract than what he has done before. He pioneered techniques that were adopted by many filmmakers in the future and he never settled down into a so-called "late period" - he was constantly experimenting.

[Roger Ryan]

For the most part, I agree with this. Certainly Welles' original European sound mix on OTHELLO (one could refer to it as the original recording as well since he re-recorded large portions of dialogue for the U.S. release) is much more dynamic and feels more like an ideal marriage between the aural and visual elements - I was most struck by Welles' use of echo in the scene where Othello learns of the discarded handkerchief. At the same time, Welles bemoaned the fact that his resources and budget restricted his ability to get the sound he wanted in many of his post-Hollywood films. In the end, my preference is to have the dialogue synced properly with the lips, but leave the "mix" (especially the score) alone.

I would hesitate in using THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI as an example of Welles deliberately breaking with traditional methods of continuity. While Columbia president Harry Cohn famously decried that the film made no sense, it is obvious from looking at the cutting continuity to Welles' original edit that the director was careful to include the necessary scene transitions and expository moments to guide the viewer through the complicated story. It was only through the extensive recutting done by the studio that the continuity started to become truly incomprehensible. This is not to say that Welles was making a traditional thriller, but he knew when an audience needed to see a seven-second shot of a boat going from one location to the next, shots that the studio must have thought were superfluous even though they would have clarified what was going on.

[cinemartin]

I agree with you about Shanghai. But I believe that necessity (especially for Welles) is the mother of invention. If any filmmaker had more money (or less) on any particular project, it would almost certainly come out differently. That seems to be the fundamental point behind George Lucas' revamp of Star Wars and pretty much all of his films. That's fine by me I suppose. It's sad to me that I can't readily see the original THX, but that's another point altogether. My point is, Welles is not around to put something right. That doesn't condemn all efforts to "revamp" (for lack of a better word) his films a priori; the problem lies with a particular reconstruction done by someone else repressing Welles' original film. Where he's lost control of a film at a certain stage (too many films) and someone goes back to tinker with it, I just hope I can compare the versions as opposed to supplanting one version for another. To me there's a difference in the original theatrical cut of Touch of Evil and the one that Murch et al did, but it's not a fundamental difference; it's just 2 different teams' interpretation of footage filmed by Welles. I'm sure you'll agree that a studio version of Ambersons is worth a million Jess Franco's Quixotes.

However with films like Othello and Chimes, Welles followed those films (even compromised by funds) to their conclusions. I know this will sound extreme, but I liken the soundtrack restorations to someone doing a version of F For Fake with less cuts to make it easier to follow. I always have the feeling that people say "I love Welles! Great filmmaker! But I think he should've done it like this! I think I'll fix it myself! Surely it's what he would have done himself? I mean, if he had the money (or modern tools, or today's sensibility, or my tastes....)". I know it's personal preference but I want to be able to view the film as Welles finished it and judge it by what is there, not what could be there.

A side note: when you're talking about Welles's European Othello, are you talking about the one that premiered at Cannes with the spoken credits? I actually have never seen that version, but would love to. Unfortunately, I've only seen the American cut (which I loved), but I at least got to see the unrestored Criterion laserdisc of it.

[Roger Ryan]

A side note: when you're talking about Welles's European Othello, are you talking about the one that premiered at Cannes with the spoken credits? I actually have never seen that version, but would love to. Unfortunately, I've only seen the American cut (which I loved), but I at least got to see the unrestored Criterion laserdisc of it.

Yes, the one with the spoken credits. I was able to see it five years ago at the Locarno Film Festival's Welles retrospective and I was taken aback at how good the synchronization and sound mix were. My immediate reaction (having only seen the '92 restoration version previously) was that this version of the film needed little to no sound restoration at all - it played beautifully. The soundtrack just sounded more Wellesian to my ears, more substantial and not nearly as compromised as the '92 resto would suggest. The European cut also incorporates more footage for the Venice scenes, which strengthened those scenes in my opinion, as well as the occasional alternate shot (a close-up of the dead Desdemona's face is quite chilling and more effective than that strange, compromised "blown-up still" from the earlier medium wide shot used in the U.S. release - did Welles think the close-up would be too gruesome for U.S. audiences?).

I believe there is a difference between changing the editing scheme of a Welles film (one which we know he had final cut of) and attempting to correct audio glitches. We know Welles was not happy with the sync issue on CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT, so I wouldn't argue with some corrections in this regard. However, re-recording a music score to present it in stereo (as in the '92 OTHELLO) is a huge mistake. Sometimes the choices are not as cut-and-dry: MR. ARKADIN, for example, was taken away from Welles before he finished editing. Examining the extant rough cuts of Welles' later films, it was discovered that Welles would often keep duplicate action shots (from different camera angles) on the same reel; eventually, he would choose one over the other for the final cut. When ARKADIN was taken away, a couple of these duplicate shots ended up in the released version(s) due to the fact that Welles had not decided which take/angle he preferred (and, apparently, the subsequent editors didn't care to decide either!). Is this being true to Welles? Not really. When Criterion's "Comprehensive Version" of ARKADIN was put together, the duplicated shots were eliminated resulting in cleaner, better-looking sequences in my opinion. Fortunately, Criterion issued two additional versions of the film, so the viewer would have a choice. The same goes for the most recent issue of TOUCH OF EVIL. I too think it's important to have the original theatrical cut available (as well as the preview version) even though I prefer the '98 reconstructed version as it corrects some of the issues that Welles himself made note of.

Oh yeah, you'll get no argument from me regarding Jess Franco's DON QUIXOTE - it's a complete abomination.

[cinemartin]

Re Cannes Othello: I've heard a few different people say almost exactly the same thing as you regarding the Venice sequence and specifically the close-up. I frustrates me that I can only think about what kind of power this shot would have - I know my imagination could never account for it! Perhaps Welles did think it was too much for an American audience. It's discussions like this that get me all fired up, hoping Criterion would release a nice Othello box in the vein of Arkadin. As comprehensive as possible, perhaps even highlighting what happened between 52 at Cannes and 55 when it was released in the modified American version. As for the American version, the re-recorded music truly is a mistake. You really must see the unrestored American cut; I think you would find that the sound was in no more need of restoration as the 52 cut that you saw.

There's no way I could disagree with you on the Arkadin and Touch Of Evil sets (I'm definitely going to sidestep any discussion of aspect ratio for the latter - I don't have a fully formed opinion of it anyway). Both presentations are great and about as comprehensive as you can get. I will have to say, though, that I think I prefer Confidential Report to the "Comprehensive Version", but I'm very glad that I can (and do!) watch both. If Chimes gets its audio tweaked, I can only hope it's released with the original so I can have the pleasure of watching 2 versions of a great film. And I will also second the assessment of the Studio Canal disc of Chimes. It looks and sounds really good. So yeah, for all my minor quibbles it would be a great day for film lovers if any version of Chimes is officially released on DVD or (hopefully) Blu.

[Titus]

There's been an Italian DVD of this that's supposed to be pretty good that was just released within the last few months, but Amazon doesn't seem to have it available and I'm worried it's been taken out of print, much like the Studio Canal one a few years back. Does anyone know of any alternatives for Italian DVDs that might still have it in stock?

[tojoed]

There's been an Italian DVD of this that's supposed to be pretty good that was just released within the last few months, but Amazon doesn't seem to have it available and I'm worried it's been taken out of print, much like the Studio Canal one a few years back. Does anyone know of any alternatives for Italian DVDs that might still have it in stock?

I think this might be it.

[ellipsis7]

However dubbed it seems...

[DanV]

Falstaff - Special Edition (I Classici Ritrovati)

[Titus]

Thanks for the suggestions. For anyone else whose interested, there are also a couple of Italy-based sellers on Amazon marketplace that are selling what looks to be the right edition. Pretty reasonable prices.

[NABOB OF NOWHERE]

A quick check of the Italian disc just received reveals a definite step up from the Brazilian/Spanish grey area version and a giant leap from the Cornerstone misery. Sync problems still prevail and the contrast seems to have been over-boosted in places (or maybe the elements are from different sources). It is anamorphic but at the expense of being cropped to 1.85 :1 instead of 1.66.1.
there is also an isolated soundtrack bonus. Definitely the best we are going to see for a while.

[Titus]

For anyone who hasn't picked up the Italian DVD, I recommend the Vecosell seller at Amazon Marketplace. My copy arrived within two weeks and it cost less than $28. The case was pretty dinged up (shipped in a bubble mailer), but otherwise I've got no complaints. And the quality of this disc is far better than the old Spanish release. Get it while it's still available.

[perkizitore]

How does it compare to the French DVD that was pulled off from the market due to rights issues?

[andyli]

What french DVD? There is one coming out next month though.

[Titus]

Apart from some screen grabs that were posted in this thread years ago, I haven't seen the old Studio Canal disc. Given that they're both(?) 1.78:1 anamorphic, I wonder if they could be the same transfer?

[J Wilson]

The French disc had forced subs. Does the Italian have them as well?

[Finch]

No, they can be switched off.

[connor]

Has there been a side-by-side comparison between the Studio Canal edition and the new Italian release?

[Joe Buck]

I'm confused by all these editions! Is this Amazon "burn-on-demand" worth a damn?

[Calvin]

In the UK, Picturehouse cinemas are screening Chimes at Midnight as part of the Screen Arts Festival (all branches I've checked seem to be showing it on August 1st). The synopsis says "[...]Orson Welles’ little-seen masterpiece will screen in a newly restored version before its DVD release later in the year."

[hearthesilence]

In the UK, Picturehouse cinemas are screening Chimes at Midnight as part of the Screen Arts Festival (all branches I've checked seem to be showing it on August 1st). The synopsis says "[...]Orson Welles’ little-seen masterpiece will screen in a newly restored version before its DVD release later in the year."

Nice. Wonder if there's any relation to Michael Dawson's previous restoration? I've only read about it once, in the Chicago Tribune.

From 22 January 2004:

Welles' restored `Chimes' gets rare showing at Prop: [North Final Edition]
Michael Wilmington, Tribune movie critic. Chicago Tribune [Chicago, Ill] 22 Jan 2004: 5.7.

"Chimes at Midnight," the magnificent 1966 Orson Welles film (also known as "Falstaff"), which Prop Thtr will show in a special restored "work print" for a four-day run starting Thursday, ranks as one of the cinema's most sadly neglected major classics.

Hopefully, that will change this weekend. Prop's Thursday-Sunday showings of Welles' "Chimes" -- his own personal favorite, above "Citizen Kane," among all his works -- represents not only a rare 35 mm theatrical screening of a true film masterpiece, but also the first paid screening of a restored "work print" version from producer Michael Dawson which is a radical improvement on previous releases. (The screenings are part of a fund-raising event at the theater's new space at 3502-04 N. Elston Ave.)

"Chimes" -- Welles' last major fiction feature in his tragically truncated career -- is one of the greatest films ever made, a magnificent Shakespearean adaptation by one of the cinema's most brilliant filmmaker/actors. Excitingly filmed and beautifully acted by an all-star European cast (including John Gielgud, Jeanne Moreau and Margaret Rutherford), it's a vibrantly creative picture, with its robust Elizabethan world whirling around the great, earthy star performance Welles himself considered his finest: as boisterous, pleasure-loving, cowardly, hilarious and finally melancholy court hanger-on Sir John Falstaff.

In the four plays from which Welles drew "Chimes" -- "Henry IV, Parts 1 and 2," "Henry V" and "The Merry Wives of Windsor" -- Falstaff steals the show from his younger, more heroic or more regal castmates, including war rivals Prince Hal (Baxter) and Hotspur (Norman Rodway). As the crony of young Hal, "Fat Jack" Falstaff is the "bad influence" from whom leonine old Henry IV (Gielgud) wishes to save his son, a plump sower of wild oats and stager of grand revels later to be cast aside.

"Chimes" is lyrical and thrilling, funny and tragic. It has one of the cinema's great battle scenes and one of its most heartbreaking farewells, some of its grandest poetry and most spectacular images. But it is less the tale of a king's coming of age than of the loss of his wild, sensuous heart -- the "bad influence" whose humanity, Welles feels, far outshines the crown.
Welles adapted Shakespeare on stage and screen all his life, from boyhood on. This was his grand, culminating work. But, when "Chimes" was released in 1966, it was (predictably for that time) hailed in Europe but savaged by some powerful American critics for its technical shortcomings -- mostly caused by Welles' lean budget and uncertain schedule.
Among the most obvious of those shortcomings: the film's soundtrack, which, from its first release, was slightly out of sync. That's one of the things partly corrected by Dawson, who also restored Welles' great Shakespearean film, "Othello." The dialogue correction alone gives the film an immediacy and impact denied it before.

The screening has been described as a "work-in-progress." But when I saw an earlier version of Dawson's restoration six years ago it was a revelation. The scenery and images, shot in striking black and white by the French cinematographer Edmond Richard ("The Red Balloon"), have that same old matchless Wellesian dark visual splendor. The sound and speeches were vivid, powerful.

At that time, Dawson was restoring the film for Miramax, but the studio unwisely pulled the plug on the project, only recently rekindled by Dawson and his "Othello" executive producers Edward Stone and Donald Liebsker. Now, Dawson estimates about 8-16 weeks of work left needed to finally complete the restoration. ("Right now, compared to where we'll be, it's 2 on a scale of ten.")

That's inspiring to contemplate. "Chimes at Midnight," a bit like Falstaff himself, was an example of greatness undervalued and cast aside. As we watch it now, we can see once again how the screen could blaze with excitement and grandeur in the hands of those two geniuses and kindred spirits, William Shakespeare and Orson Welles.

[Calvin]

The Independent have now provided more information.

When a major Welles' retrospective was held at the Locarno Festival in 2005, the organisers had to secure permission from Saltzman's widow Adriana for a one-off screening of a very ropey print. Now, it appears that the 1965 film has finally been liberated. David Buttle of British distributor Mr Bongo, working with Dolores Piedra (the Spanish producer's daughter), is the person behind the British screenings of the restored version.

"I've been in touch with her (Dolores) since 2006," he explained. "It has taken her that long to sort out the legal aspect of it."

I can't say I have complete confidence in Mr Bongo, let's hope they've done it the justice it deserves...

[MichaelB]

Mr Bongo's discs are fine when they have decent materials to work from.