Me and Orson Welles

Orson Welles was, if nothing else, 'something. Even his detractors, like Ingmar Bergman, said that he had an 'immense personality', and this is what is a great appeal for an actor who can embody the full emotions of the man, and look like him second. Richard Linklater, the director, has an ace up his sleeve with the casting of Christian McKay- an actor who is a relative newcomer in film- that is just about right. It's actually a case where the actor, perhaps due to the personality/character of the man he's portraying, upstages others around him.

This is good (as is McKay, being in his 30's, making 22-at-the-time Orson appear or act older/wiser), since Welles is a man who could take over a room, and in fact was looked upon to do so with his Mercury theater players, who couldn't even do much rehearing or anything until he showed up. McKay goes into every little gesture or facial expression with gusto and, equally, some sublty when called for like when talking about his pet project of the Magnificent Ambersons.

It's almost so good a performance as Welles that you should see the movie just for him: fans of the director/actor/legend will want to see him brought to life and made in respectful homage, and non-fans will be marveled by a thespian bringing another thespian to life. There is a downside, however, in Linklater's casting (not so much with the supporting roles as they vary between being very good like the guy playing Joseph Cotten aka 'Joe the lady's man' to decent like Ben Chaplain as Coulouris) with Zak Efron. It's admirable that he's trying to get past his days of High School Musical and build up an actual career, but he doesn't breathe enough life into his coming-of-age character Richard to make him more than just passable. He's a cute kid, yet he's not really able to meet up to the dimensions of the character (which, to be fair, are kind of thin).

Linklater's film is inherently interesting dramatization just on the main subject matter: Welles and the Mercury theater putting on the daring production of Julius Caesar that would propel him and his troupe into the first real spotlight. However the film is most interesting and gets its main dramatic fire when it focuses on the rehearsals and some of the backstage antics (i.e. an accidental setting-off of the sprinklers by Richard fooling with matches), not so much the quasi-love story between Clare Danes' character with Efron. It's not got anything we haven't seen before, even in the sort of whimsical fable that Linklater lays out. The conclusion of their relationship is wise- as is how Welles 'deals' with Richard late in the film- but ultimately one kind of sighs and sits through a lot of so-so acting/pouting by Efron in order to get to the juicier scenes with Welles. But, as I mentioned before, it's worth a full-price pretty much on the basis of Welles and McKay. As Welles himself could be: exceptional and/or decent at once. 7.5/10

I have seen a couple of good reviews of Me and Orson Welles, so decided to go and see whether they were merited. I'm pleased to report that the film certainly impressed me.

The film focuses on the rehearsals and opening of the play Caesar starring Orson Welles in 1937. Nominally Zac Efron plays the lead as Richard Samuels who is almost 18 and yearning to become an actor. A chance encounter with Orson Welles outside the Mercury theatre leads to Richard being cast as Lucius. Welles was one of those larger than life characters who had so much talent that they could get away with having a rather inflated ego.

This is the first time I have seen Zac Efron on screen and I have got to say he played the role of the star struck teenager very nicely. The character is full of dreams and it certainly resonates long after the film has finished.

If Christian McKay does not get a supporting actor Oscar nomination for his Orson Welles portrayal it will be a travesty. He is quite simply superb. I've always found Claire Danes very engaging and she is also very good in this as are a number of the supporting cast including Ben Chaplin and Zoe Kazan.

If you are after traditional blockbuster fare from your movies then you are probably well advised to skip Me and Orson, but if you like an intelligent film that is well scripted, well directed (by Richard Linklater) and well acted then it's a must see.

The "me" in "Me and Orson Welles" is Richard (Zac Efron) a high school student who gets himself a part in Orson Welles' production of Julius Caesar at the Mercury Theatre. He's the kind of kid that loves everything creative in the world, is romantic, and is confident and sure of himself. Well, that is until he's alongside Orson Welles. Christian McKay plays Welles as the cocky and out-spoken man that I'm sure he was.

Directed by Richard Linklater, he has managed to turn this coming-of-age film into a Shakespearean theatrical production. My living room was transported into a theatre house, and I was watching a play. The lighting and score mirrored the production and its time; the actors were all right on cue; and backstage became the forefront.

This film is not a biopic, it's just the story of a young man discovering the acting world and the real world -- all alongside one of the most dramatic artists of the time. Romance was added to the storyline, along with a touch of self-discovery and world wonderment -- but that was done beautifully and softly. "Me and Orson Welles" is the perfect blend of coming-of-age and theatre.

I wanted to hate this movie because it gave me a bitter aftertaste that I couldn't put my finger on. I admit, the praise that others have heaped upon this film is true: acting is superb, the entire production is authentic, and Christian McKay's rendition of Orson is very convincing, particularly that voice. So why did it leave me with a feeling like I had just ingested a triple salami sandwich with extra onions and pimentos?

The key is staring us all in the face; it's in the title. "Me & Orson Welles" (notice the audacity of putting "Me" before "Orson Welles") is a scathing portrayal of the unapologetic one-upmanship and venomous diva mentality which apparently dominates the entertainment industry and always has. Orson Welles is shown to be arrogance personified, and understandably so, but far more unsettling is the way every member of the stage community, from the leading lady all the way down to the lowly set designer, is equally self-centered and demanding "me me me". What's very clever about this movie is that it's very subtle. This is not a thick satire like "Catch-22" or a society-deprecating fable like "Edward Scissorhands" which immediately shows us the fault in the human condition. No, this is so subtle that most people may not even catch the sarcasm at work.

Aside from good looks, not a single character is likable. Claire Danes with her breezy smile and undeniably cute face plays a theater gold-digger so adept with her ladder climbing you'd think she was a firefighter. Always on her way to rendezvous with the latest producer/celebrity du jour, you start to wonder if she has a soul behind those dark eyes. Hats off to Claire for being able to play such a destestable character with grace, elegance and charm that makes us overlook her selfish agenda and instead become captivated by her. Other characters are more obvious with their self-serving natures, demanding more lines, special lighting, and everything short of a bowl of m&m's with all the brown ones removed. (Any 80s hair band fans out there? That's a reference to Van Halen's bizarre demand/prank at every concert.)

Ironically, and brilliantly, the one character whom I found to be thoroughly likable despite his selfishness was Orson Welles himself. This is simply because he openly and unapologetically makes himself the despotic king (much like Julius Caesar, the play they are performing), while all the other characters are toadies and yes-men who hypocritically assume their subservient roles in the pecking order. But Orson is shown to be probably how he was in real life: a master manipulator and Machiavellian stage tyrant whom you gotta love because he lets everyone know exactly what they're in for, should they choose to join his bizarre circus known as the Mercury Theater.

Now enter Zac Ephron's wide-eyed, idealistic and naïve character "Junior" who is thrown into this bizarre food chain, full of ridiculous notions like giving credit where credit is due, respect for others, and of course the most doomed concept to enter a theater since Abraham Lincoln, "love". Zac Ephron's monologue near the end when he recites a verse in class is chilling, and the sinister stare he gives as he delivers the last line is indicative that he has learned a thing or two about theater. Pay attention to that monologue because it sums up everything I'm saying here.

I think if you're intrigued by dark (yet subtle) themes like this, then you'll have a great time. I have to strongly disagree with a few other reviewers' descriptions using words like "charming", "nostalgic" and "wonderful". That's like saying Beethoven's 5th symphony was a real toe tapper in "Clockwork Orange". Knowing director Richard Linklater's body of work including muckraking films like "Fast Food Nation" and even the insidiously disturbing teen flick "Dazed and Confused", I have no doubt that "Me & Orson Welles" was a deliberate anti-romance. And I don't mean romance between two people; I mean the romance of a young lad and his first "kiss" with the theater. Definitely check out this flick if you're up for a challenge and not afraid to get a little dirty.

Considering the fanatic cult following that Richard Linklater has developed with films like Waking Life, Before Sunrise/Sunset, and A Scanner Darkly, let me preface this review by saying that I'm not a Linklater devotee. If Linklater is endowed with a species of genius, I must confess complete ignorance to it. Indeed, my favorite Linklater film was School of Rock, and he has always impressed me more by the breadth of his work and his willingness to challenge the conventions of film than by any individual film. It's perhaps this maverick spirit that drew him to do a film about Orson Welles.

Me and Orson Welles, based on a novel by Robert Kaplow, tells the story of a teenager, Richard Samuels (Zac Efron), who is swept from learning about Shakespeare in the classroom to the fast paced world of the Mercury Theater on Broadway when he lands a role in Orson Welles famous 1937 production of Caesar. As Orson Welles struggles to get the production ready for the premier, Richard falls for the theater's resident hottie, a charming and ambitious aspiring actress played by Claire Daines, and finds himself growing up quickly to the realities of show business and the real world.

The movie is entirely carried by it's acting, and the actor generating the most buzz is the British born Christian McKay who plays Welles. I'm very uneasy about praising portrayals of real life figures, because it seems any time an actor plays any historical figure (from Gandhi to Capote and Idi Amin) they receive excessive attention. I think it has less to do with the "acting" involved than it has to do with the fact that most audiences feel much more comfortable passing judgment (and bestowing praise) on mimicry than actual acting. That said, McKay does a masterful job in capturing that mythical image of a young Orson Welles that all of us film geeks have in our head, from the striking resemblance in appearance to the pitch perfect intonations in his voice. Welles is charming and maddening, endearing and brutal, and always larger than life... and McKay captures it all perfectly. It's clearly a role that McKay has been mastering for a long time, as he was doing a one-man-show about Welles on Broadway before being snatched for the role in Me and Orson Welles. From the Q&A session (at the Toronto international film festival), McKay seemed intelligent and passionate about his work, and I truly hope he doesn't get pigeon-holed into spoofing Welles for his entire career.

Unfortunately the other acting foot that the movie stands on, isn't nearly as good. Zac Efron is just so pretty (and I say this as a heterosexual male) that it becomes distracting. Watching Efron act, it feels like he's trying to make women orgasm in every scene he's in, which works well in enough in the many scenes he's trying to court Claire Daines's character, but doesn't work in any other scene. Efron's acting makes it hard for the audience to emotionally connect and prevents the movie from achieving the emotional punch it might otherwise. The audience is never drawn in and they remain spectators, which, fortunately, isn't such a bad thing since the movie is so fun and nostalgically charming. Perhaps even the flighty and ethereal feeling the film gets because of it's lack of punch can be forgiven, since it's a movie about youth and growing up and so much of that involves tempestuous passions that end up being quite meaningless in retrospect.

8/10