By the Moon and the Seven Stars

It was my birthday a couple weeks ago (April 11) and I celebrated by drinking whiskey and watching Chimes at Midnight, or, more accurately, falling asleep during it, around two thirds through. Now that I'm apparently someone who dozes off easily, there are some movies I think particularly suited for it. Chimes at Midnight is one, Blade Runner is another, I watched that on Sunday. It's just the hour, between 9pm and 10pm, somehow this seems to be prime doze off time. Often I then find myself perfectly able to stay up as long as I like once I've gotten past 10pm. So, yes, Master Shallow, I have heard the chimes at midnight.

Orson Welles constructed a pretty good digest of Falstaff's story from Henry IV, parts 1 and 2. There's nothing you miss, nothing that feels extraneous. Falstaff's story is intrinsically tied to Hal and the King and they both have plenty of their dialogue from the plays. Henry IV's death scene, in which Hal takes the crown prematurely, is all there so you understand the depths of Hal's feeling of debt to his father. This is necessary to show the tension in Hal's choice between the two father figures, which is also the choice between whether he's going to be a responsible, moral leader, like Henry IV, or a man given to sloth and debauchery, like Falstaff.

I often think Shakespeare didn't intend Falstaff to be such a great character. I think he was really just meant to be the devil on Hal's shoulder. But in giving him depth and genuine charm, Shakespeare ended up making one of his most believably human characters. I saw an interview with Orson Welles in the 1960s (Chimes at Midnight came out in '66) in which he likened Falstaff to a "Flower Child". He really isn't, and this is clear enough in Welles' own film. He's a robber and he takes bribes. His great speech about how honour can't mend wounds is both genuinely thoughtful and genuinely cowardly. I mean, what's Henry IV supposed to do, just let Hotspur take over the country? It's possible Henry IV shares some blame for being too harsh with Hotspur but it's a deliberately ambiguous point.

But no-one wants grievous injury. Everyone "would it were bed time and all well" instead of being forced to take part in deadly battle. We'd all like to take our ease in our inn. So Falstaff is naturally easier to identify with, even if it might be hard for some of us to admit. Which is of course what makes the central moral conflict of the two plays so perfect.