Talk:Chimes at Midnight

Film title

The title of this film, Chimes at Midnight, derives from a quote in William Shakespeare's text. This should be included in the article. If it is already there, I missed it. Specifically, the quote is from Henry IV, Part 2, Act 3, Scene 2, lines 228–229. There, the character Falstaff states: "We have heard the chimes at midnight, Master Shallow." Would someone please include this information into the article, if it is not already there? As I said, I myself could not find this information in the article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chimes at Midnight/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Daniel Case (talk · contribs) 05:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the oldest unreviewed nom; I'm doing this because I just nominated Independence Pass (Colorado). Fortunately I have actually seen this film; unfortunately that was only once, and years ago.

I am printing it out to go through it with a red pen first. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, Its on youtube in decent quality if you wanted to watch it as well.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, before I go into detail, I'm going to start a copy edit (not right now; my time is short). For comments about that, read the edit summaries. Daniel Case (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Great, thank you very much and no rush at all. The only thing is that "the betrayal of friendship" was the way that Welles put it and it has a slightly different meaning than "friendship and betrayal". Obviously its just the lead and not the body of the text, but just a clarification. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

If that's how Welles put it, it should be in quotes. Otherwise it's very tempting to edit because it's such unusual phrasing. Daniel Case (talk) 07:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, now that I'm done with the copy edit ...

I'm putting the article on hold because of some things I think are fixable within a reasonable length of time. I am astounded that no one looked at it during peer review ... it's not your fault, but if you were thoughtful enough to have submitted it for PR you should have found a way to keep it listed until someone actually did review it. Many of the issues that led to this hold could have been addressed that way. I note it's still considered C-Class; if nothing else PR should have gotten it up to B to give it a better chance here.

It is perhaps too ironic that the main issue I had with an article about a film about Falstaff is that it's, well, bloated. On the plus side that reflects what seems to have been a very thorough research effort, which is good in that the necessary improvements to the article are subtractive rather than additive, which is technically easier (although, as William Faulkner once more or less admitted, emotionally difficult sometimes).

So ... what needs to be cut?

Well, for starters look at the prose. I took care of a lot of redundant phrasing during the copy edit (for instance, when the reader has already been informed that the movie is being filmed in Spain, it is unnecessary to have ", Spain" after every filming location. However, there may be things I missed. There are certainly a lot of missing apostrophes, for one thing. The paragraphs are still rather long, enough so as to be a daunting prospect for a reader. I would commend your attention, especially, to the page on summary style and re-evaluate whether you need

But at a structural level I'd really take a long look at whether the sections on Five Kings and Welles' views on Falstaff need to be as long as they are. What you have on the stage performances could be the seed of a separate article. What we should see here is a discussion of them to the extent that they're relevant to the film. We don't need a whole list of the stage cast if only one of them wound up being in the movie. We don't need a blow-by-blow on its poor box office in two cities. We can just say it didn't do well (and, okay, I'd keep that detail about it turning into more or less An Evening With Orson Welles because it's amusing and does bring home the point about the production's desperation.

As for Welles' views on Falstaff, that's fascinating, but after the first graf and a half where it's discussed within the context of the film it becomes irrelevant to this article. An interesting tidbit you might want to add, though, would be Danny Peary's speculation, in at least one of his Cult Movies books, or at the very least Guide for the Film Fanatic, that Welles might be allegorizing his relationship with some unspecified younger director he mentored before that person was famous, only to have that person totally disown him when he did (that was certainly plausible in the Hollywood of that time, where Welles was regarded as a washed-up has-been).

In lesser structural issues:

• I'd also want to put that bit about Welles' chicanery regarding the never-made Treasure Island film in the intro, as it's relevant to the legal entanglements.

• The graf about how critics received the battle scenes that's currently in "Cinematography" should really go to Reception, where it can be combined with some existing discussion of that same subject. Along with Pauline Kael's sentence on that sequence.

Alright. I think I will give you a couple of weeks to address this. Once you have, let me know on my talk page (and I'll respond here). Daniel Case (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll start working on this this weekend. Not so sure about the allegory of a younger director, since that sounds like Peter Bogdanovich who Welles did not know until after making this film. I don't agree about it being bloated in the sense that the previous stage versions were directly related and Welles himself said that it was one of his most personal films. But yes a lot of detail could be cut down. Also, if it is still C status could you be more specific as so other aspects of the five requirements. Would you pass it in terms of Accuracy, being Broad, Neutrality, Stability and Images? --Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it doesn't have to be accurate, just speculation by someone notable that we could cite. As far as the other aspects, if there were problems there I would have said so. So they're good. Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I have so far been unable to to find any Danny Peary quotes related to the article, and most of what I've found has been in blog form. One thing about the Cinematography section is that the quotes are from essays and articles that are not traditional film reviews, and two of them are Shakespearean scholars and not film critics. Currently the plot summary is 789 words. I've cut a lot out put just wanted your input before taking off the tag. Overall just wanted your two cents on the current version. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

OK ... looks good now. The Peary thing was just a suggestion, not a requirement, although it would be good to continue looking for. I'm passing this. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Great, thank you so much for all your help and for passing it. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

1965 vs.1966

Editors keep changing the date of this article to 1965, so I just wanted to clarify why this is a mistake and that 1966 is correct. Welles did preview the film in December 1965, and then continued editing it before its official premiere at Cannes in May 1966. For whatever reason 1965 has stuck in history since people believe that the film was 100% complete at the 1965 screening. It was not. Even recently people are calling this year (2015) the 50th anniversary of the film, but that is not accurate. Some people ever call it a 1967 film simply because that is the year that it was released in the US. I have no intention of edit warring since its a small matter, but please keep it at 1966 or refer to this talk page subject if you revert it.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing that part of the problem is that IMDB gives December 1965 as its release date in Spain, whereas the American Film Institute gives May 1966 as its release date in Spain. I'd be much more inclined to defer to the authority of the AFI on such matters. --RexxS (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for additional contributions.

If there are any Spanish speaking editors that are interested in this article, it would be fantastic for them to add material from Esteve Riambau's new book about the film.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistency: early critical reception

From the article:

Welles shot Chimes at Midnight throughout Spain between 1964 and 1965, and premiered it at the 1966 Cannes Film Festival, where it won two awards.

Initially dismissed by most film critics, Chimes at Midnight is now regarded as one of Welles' greatest achievements …

So the film won two awards when it premiered in Cannes although the critics did not like it at the time? How does this make sense? --Thüringer ☼ (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure where you are seeing inconsistency. Have you read the entire article?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

UK title

The UK title of the film is Falstaff (Chimes at Midnight).<http://tinypic.com/r/2gsjoug/8> That's how it's always appeared on-screen. The restoration didn't alter that. You might also note the DVD/Blu-ray covers have the complete two-part title.<http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddvd&field-keywords=falstaff> So that lede sentence should be corrected (like I tried to yesterday) to reflect facts. Film Fan 05:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyone home? Film Fan 03:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chimes at Midnight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://filmforum.org/film/chimes-at-midnight-film

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chimes at Midnight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151205114301/http://filmforum.org/film/chimes-at-midnight-film to http://filmforum.org/film/chimes-at-midnight-film

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)