Search

» » Ich & Orson Welles (2008)

Short summary

In 1937, a teenager is cast in the Mercury Theatre production of "Julius Caesar", directed by a young Orson Welles.
In November 1937, high school student and aspiring thespian Richard Samuels takes a day trip into New York City. There, he meets and begins a casual friendship with Gretta Adler, their friendship based on a shared love and goal of a profession in the creative arts. But also on this trip, Richard stumbles across the Mercury Theatre and meets Orson Welles, who, based on an impromptu audition, offers Richard an acting job as Lucius in his modern retelling of Julius Caesar, which includes such stalwart Mercury Theatre players as Joseph Cotten and George Coulouris. Despite others with official roles as producer John Houseman, this production belongs to Welles, the unofficial/official dictator. In other words, whatever Welles wants, the cast and crew better deliver. These requests include everything, even those of a sexual nature. Welles does not believe in conventions and will do whatever he wants, which includes not having a fixed opening date, although the unofficial opening date is in ...

Trailers "Ich & Orson Welles (2008)"

Lindsay Lohan was the top choice to play Muriel Brassler. She screen tested for the role and was close to signing a deal shortly before filming began. However, the producers found her impossible to insure due to her ongoing legal troubles at the time of production.

The production of "Julius Caesar" that the film depicts ran for 157 performances during its run at the Mercury Theatre and later at the larger National Theatre (where it was transferred), by far the longest run of the play in Broadway history.

The real Norman Lloyd denounced the film, and pointed out that contrary to his portrayal as a lecher, he was a recently married man at the time. He did however concede that Christian McKay's performance as Welles was excellent.

The part of Lucius in "Julius Caesar" that was played by the character Richard Samuels in the film was actually played on the production's opening night by an actor named Arthur Anderson, who was making his Broadway debut. Anderson is best known as the voice of Lucky the Leprechaun, the mascot of General Mills' Lucky Charms cereal, a part he played for 29 years.

The Orson Welles character's prediction that he would be on the cover of 'Time' magazine within a year was actually fulfilled in real life on its cover of 9th May 1938.

Film debut of Christian McKay.

The author of the source material did not know anything about Arthur Anderson (the original actor who played Julius Cesar). He based it on the premise of a still photo of the teenage Anderson playing alongside Welles opening night. In reality, Anderson did not get fired and not only made it through the entire run of the show but was cast in two more of Welles' plays.

While the way in which the film shows a sprinkler system being triggered may not be accurate, the incident shown really did occur, and was indeed set off by the Zac Efron character of the Mercury actor who was playing Lucius at the time, Arthur Anderson. Orson Welles himself described the sprinkler incident during the closing credits of the Mercury Theatre radio broadcast of "Treasure Island" the following year, on July 18, 1938:

"First of all, I'd like you to meet [the actor who played] Jim Hawkins, Junior, our leading man at 14 years old. Last season he made a really startling contribution to the stage history of Shakespeare's plays. This was during the course of some experiments with the Mercury Theatre sprinkler system. As a consequence of what must certainly have been extensive research in that field, he caused it to rain, actually to rain, and copiously to rain where in more than 300 years it has never rained in 'Julius Caesar' before. It rained on Brutus, it rained all over Brutus in the forum. I was Brutus, and I ought to know."

"Now, as dramatic criticism, I found this telling, and even final. But as a surprise item in the funeral scene, I can assure you that the unexpected appearance on the stage of so many gallons of real water created in us all, an impression that was almost overwhelming. Our popular leading man says that he did it all with a match. I don't dare think what he'll do when he's old enough to run for president, but meanwhile, no matter what happens to the plumbing, he can always work for the Mercury. As you've probably discovered, he's something more than a very gifted performer, and as I told you, he's something less than 15."

"His name shall not be withheld: I refer to that fine old actor Arthur Anderson." (Actor George Coulouris was credited as "having escaped 'Rainmaker' Anderson" during that incident.)

At the very end of the broadcast credits, a faint crash is heard in the background, and Welles ad libs, "There is at this moment a disturbance in the control room, and if it isn't a tumbrel, it's Arthur Anderson. It's a good thing the program's over."

The screenplay by Holly Gent Palmo and Vince Palmo is based on the novel by Robert Kaplow, a thoroughly researched piece of historical fiction, set in the heady world of New York theatre.

"So we had a script and were really excited about it," said director Richard Linklater on finding an actor to play Orson Welles, "but I said, before we start doing budgets and schedules and trying to go further, let's get an Orson, because we are not going to do this thing at all unless we can get the right guy to play him. To me, that was the biggest piece of the puzzle that had to fit, before it even had the possibility of moving forward. We thought of all the usual Americans, but we weren't really getting anywhere. And I remember theorising, 'you know who our Orson Welles is?. He's in London right now, probably doing Shakespeare. I bet that's where he is, or there'll be some great unknown British actor who kind of looks like him'. A few months later, [source author] Robert Kaplow sends me an email saying that there's a guy performing in New York at this fifty seat theatre I had never heard of, performing a play called 'Rosebud: The Lives Of Orson Welles' for just a couple of weeks. And so I flew to New York and went straight to the play. I'd just had shoulder surgery and I had this brace on, I could barely move, it was really uncomfortable. My only test was, do I believe this guy is Orson Welles?. Christian McKay just had that kind of Wellesian manner and he had clearly studied him closely. So I talked to him after the show and I got back to Austin just thinking about him and felt 'let's take this to another level'. So I flew Christian to Austin and we did a sort of old fashioned screen test. We did three scenes from the movie: I cast some people, did period wardrobe, we had an old car and we did a scene in the back; Christian came in and we worked together and hung out for a couple of days. After that, I didn't even need to look at the footage. I just knew the kind of guy he was and thought the film gods were making a very special offering, as they sometimes do. And I remember telling him we don't have money, we don't have anything - it may never happen, but we'd try. We started sending the script out and the good news was many seemed intrigued by it, but one of the stumbling blocks we had was a Welles who was unknown. Can you get a bigger name to play Welles?. Ours was always the same argument: no, this is Welles!".

Filming began in the historic and beautifully restored Gaiety Theatre in Douglas, capital of the Isle of Man, which hosted the stage performances and backstage scenes at the Mercury Theatre, to which it bears an extraordinary resemblance.

The production filmed on a New York street set constructed on the backlot of Pinewood Studios with interiors being filmed on Pinewood's sound stages. .

Key scenes were shot in a variety of period locations around London in England, including Bloomsbury Square, Crystal Palace Park, and the British Museum, which represented the interior of New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art.

According to producer Marc Samuelson, "one of the issues that you face is that it's very hard to shoot 1937 New York in New York, so you're not shooting it in the actual place. New York has changed so completely that everything in the background is wrong, everything in the foreground is wrong, the people all look wrong, every building's been changed. It's enormously difficult. So you then end up shooting New York in some other North American city which looks vaguely like it did in 1937. By the time you've done all of that, you may as well have shot it anywhere."

As an independent feature, the production needed to make creative use of every penny of its limited budget and found a solution in basing the production in London, where a combination of Pinewood Studios and some imaginatively chosen locations brought New York to life. And thanks to some visual trickery, the imposing scale and distinctive architecture of the bustling city was vibrantly recreated on a comparative shoestring.

"This movie doesn't really exist any longer in New York," said director Richard Linklater. "If you go to where the Mercury Theatre was, you would never know. It's an office building - there's not even a plaque. That street looks so different, it didn't really matter to me where we shot the film. As a filmmaker, wherever I could make this film I would, (and I did)".

Of the exterior to the Mercury Theatre, production designer Laurence Dorman said: "For the exterior of the Mercury Theatre we found a single photograph taken in the early 1900s when the building, then the Comedy Theatre, was putting on its first production. We took a little bit of licence here and there, but it's great to see that original picture and then to be able to look at our street - it's quite thrilling to do something like that."

The Gaiety Theatre, which portrays the interior of the Mercury Theatre in this film, opened originally as a large pavilion in 1893, and following a redesign by Frank Matcham, it reopened as a theatre and opera house in 1900. After early success, years of neglect began to take their toll, and the building was acquired by the Isle of Man Government in 1971. A comprehensive programme of restoration was launched in 1990 and completed in 2000. One of the last elements to be restored was the famous Corsican Trap, the only known original version of this classic stage effect.

"I really fell in love with the place," admitted director Richard Linklater of the Gaiety Theatre which portrays the Mercury Theatre. "It was almost too nice, too ornate, but I thought if we brought it down a little bit and didn't look up at the beautiful domed cathedral like ceiling, it had similar proportions to the Mercury Theatre in seats and size. The stage was about the same size and the below stage area and its trap door arrangement with locks and pulleys was far more complex and interesting than you would ever be able to realise if you were building your own stage. So all of that felt great, and to shoot on the Isle of Man for those weeks was just kind of perfect. Some films are just meant to be. It just feels like it lines up and it's meant to happen."

Robert Kaplow, on whose novel the film is based, was eager to see Orson Welles' production of "Caesar" for the first time on the screen. He remembered the origins of the story: "I was sitting in the basement of the Rutgers University Library, looking through a copy of 'Theatre Arts Monthly' from 1937, and there was a photograph from Welles' production of 'Julius Caesar' which featured Welles in a dark coat and black gloves, sitting at the edge of the stage. Next to him was a young man playing a ukulele tricked up to look like a lute. My first thought was: the real story here is the kid. What does this moment feel like from the kid's point of view, to bear witness to a celebrity creating himself right in front of your eyes?. Investigating the history of this theatrical moment, I discovered the young actor from 1937, Arthur Anderson, was alive and living in New York . He was an invaluable source, and he still has the ukulele, which he played for me at his kitchen table in a remarkable moment that felt as if I were melting through time. [Director Richard] Linklater's film astonishingly recreates this photograph with heart-stopping accuracy."

A key element in the recreation of the period was the skill and experience of cinematographer Dick Pope. "I had a great meeting with Dick," remembered director Richard Linklater, "and I just saw him as a kindred spirit. He had that wild attitude - he seemed like a kind of mad scientist. And what you want in that position is enthusiasm - and skill, obviously, that goes without saying. Other than that, it's a personality match. He seems in the spirit of the film and he said he fell in love with it when he read the passage in the script where one of the actresses, Muriel Brassler, played by Kelly Reilly, is talking about lighting and gels and about getting a little butterfly shadow under her nose. He just thought that was so amusing."

Of cinematographer Dick Pope, director Richard Linklater said: "I think people maybe know him for his Mike Leigh films, but it's some of his other films that are, I think, just as impressive. It's been really fun within this film for both of us. You rarely get the opportunity to recreate theatrical lighting. With most films, even a stylised period piece, you bend a little towards naturalism. But when you are recreating the exact lighting of this highly dramatic, very theatrical stage show, it's just fun. It was like shooting an old studio film with high contrast lighting and it's probably the only time I will ever get to do that. The story goes that the great cinematographer Gregg Toland saw this production of 'Julius Caesar', and when he heard that Orson Welles was going to Hollywood to make 'Citizen Kane', he told him he wanted to work with him because of the lighting he had done for the play."

To establish the look of the Mercury Theatre, costume designer Nic Ede researched the Fascist imagery of the original 'Caesar' production. He said: "Thank goodness, there is a lot of visual reference, a lot of photographs, and a lot of people wrote about it. When we were on the Isle of Man filming in the Gaiety Theatre, I looked at the way [cinematographer] Dick Pope had lit it and the way Laurence had done the set - identical to the original - and it sent a shiver down my spine."

In addition to reproducing the uniforms on stage, there was the small matter of costuming the audience for costume designer Nic Ede and his team. This required clothing some 570 extras, who also needed to be fully made up and coiffed by hair and make-up designer Fae Hammond and her assistants, for the scenes involving a full theatre. "I love huge crowd scenes," said Ede. "I don't know what it is, something rather perverse. It's playing at make-believe and that's always a great, great thing to do. The joy of filming, from my point of view, is to create something that the audience will look at that they absolutely believe. Every extra that comes into the fitting room is a bit of a challenge. You want to make them into a character, it's not just a body to put clothes on, it's somebody to represent... a fishwife... or a sweetcorn seller....".

The 1930s music for the film was selected by director Richard Linklater himself, a big fan of the music of the period, and of the arrangements of maestro Jools Holland, described by the director as "an English national treasure". Another key element in recreating the sound of the era was the speaking voices of the Mercury Theatre players, which benefited from the specialist attention of distinguished Shakespearean dramaturge Giles Block and veteran dialect coach Judith Windsor. Block, a Master of Verse and Play at London's celebrated Globe Theatre, worked with the actors on the Shakespeare scenes during the rehearsal period, coaching and advising them on the authenticity of their verse speaking. Windsor worked on the actors' delivery throughout the production, paying close attention to the fine details of their accents.

Actor Christian McKay, who plays Orson Welles in this film, is a graduate of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, an accomplished concert pianist, and an established theatrical all rounder, and had been aware of his resemblance to Welles since his student days. McKay said: "People said that I resembled him a little bit. I only remember Orson as this big, gargantuan iceberg of a man and at drama school, whenever they said 'you look a bit like Harry Lime', I really thought they were having a go at my weight!. So I'd be very anti Orson. I used to think 'I'm not that big....'. Mind you, I must be the only actor who had to lose weight to play Orson Welles!".

"Christian's performance is a revelation," enthused producer Marc Samuelson. "He's a sensational actor, enormously talented in many different ways and it's a fantastic, delicious secret that nobody knows about this, but they're all going to. He's not only a fantastically good, properly trained, really serious actor, who could do anything, but he is an absolutely extraordinary musician and he's also an unbelievably intelligent person. He's a great writer - it's nauseating - but he's a terrible dancer, which is good to know. Seriously, I think he's going to be one of the great discoveries."

Producer Ann Carli said: "We did a reading in London, just so we could hear the script with actors. And it was also a way to have Christian interact with some of the other actors who have a lot of film experience. So we're all sitting around the table and here's this guy, an unknown British actor - how did he get this plum role? You can just feel the other actors thinking that. And then he gets into character and the room is mesmerised. It's like... 'holy cow, that's Orson Welles'!".

Dialect coach Judith Windsor was full of praise for newcomer Christian McKay. She said: "Christian is an extraordinary man and an extraordinary actor and it's been a great, great pleasure to meet him and to work with him and to envisage what his future may be. He may develop into, or may very well now be, what Welles said of himself - that he was a 'king' actor. A great deal of Christian's performance comes from his musicianship. The fact that he is such a glorious pianist is a great help to him vocally in shaping the line and in getting the way Welles uses phrases and, of course, in terms of Welles' very specific accent."

Mercury Theatre actor Norman Lloyd, who is played by actor Leo Bill in the film, in 2015 said of this film: "It bears no relation to truth, or to what happened when you worked with Orson and so forth. I thought McKay was very good, but the rest of the characters are just ridiculous. They're all made up!. I didn't even recognize myself...and then I thought, 'Well, thank goodness I can't!'...And about George Coulouris, that they had him as neurotic and afraid to do his scene. George Coulouris you couldn't stop from acting, for Christ's sake!".

Orson Welles was very much the leader of the Mercury Theatre Company, despite his relative youth. Born in 1915 in Kenosha, Wisconsin, USA to an inventor and manufacturer father and a concert pianist mother, both of whom had died before he reached fifteen, Welles was blessed with a commanding physique and a deep and resounding voice. During a visit to Europe at the age of sixteen, he managed to persuade Dublin's Gate Theatre that he was a Broadway star and made his stage debut there in "Jew Süss". He became, in fact, a Broadway legend and a ubiquitous and groundbreaking radio star, following the stage success of "Caesar" with more than a year as the voice of The Shadow in the popular radio serial. All this by the age of twenty-four, when he began work on his enduring cinema classic "Citizen Kane". Although many felt that his controversial fifty year career was one of unfulfilled promise, his legacy included such classic films as "The Magnificent Ambersons", "Othello", "Chimes at Midnight" and "Touch of Evil", his iconic performance as Harry Lime in Carol Reed's "The Third Man" and the memory of his notorious 1938 broadcast version of H.G. Wells' "The War of the Worlds".

Zac Efron and Imogen Poots would later star together in "That Awkward Moment" (2014).

"It's been wonderful working with production designer Laurence Dorman", said director Richard Linklater. "We went over to New York together - he wasn't that familiar with the city, so we went to a lot of the actual addresses in the movie and I showed him around."

Production designer Laurence Dorman's visit to New York City inspired his design of the street set on Pinewood's Orchard Lot: "It was worth every second actually, because we were able to visit the site of the theatre and I was able to get the geography of 41st Street into my mind, with Bryant Park and all the things that are mentioned in the script. And even though 41st Street was completely different to how it would have been in those days, I was able to just wander around the neighbourhood and take pictures all over midtown and all the way down to 22nd Street. I was picking out all of the old stuff, the architecture that I imagined would have been there at the time and turning it into our little composite street. I've taken a selection of buildings based on my photographs and put them together to suit my purposes."

Crucial to the success of this film enterprise was finding a theatre that could play the interior of the Mercury Theatre itself. By a stroke of good fortune CinemaNX, the production company, is based in the Isle of Man, and there in the capital, Douglas, was the magnificently restored Gaiety Theatre, an almost exact contemporary of the Mercury Theatre. "I don't think we would have been able to make the film if we hadn't been able to shoot it there," said producer Marc Samuelson. "It was just the most fantastic set for us. It worked really well, looked great in the film, was just the right size - in every way it fitted the bill."

In real life, Orson Welles directed four William Shakespeare adaptations for the big screen. They were the films 'Macbeth' (1948), 'Othello' (1951), 'Twelfth Night' (1933), and 'Falstaff' (aka 'Chimes at Midnight') (1965).

The film was awarded as being of the Top Ten independent films of the year by the USA's National Board of Review.

Costume designer Nic Ede said: "The thing that was exciting for me in this film was the fact that in the thirties, leisurewear was much more accepted in America than elsewhere. I don't think it existed in Europe in the same way and certainly didn't unless you were rich and were wearing beach pyjamas!. It made a change from the usual 1930s stuff I have done which is pretty upper class and extravagant, whereas this was a chance to do real people leading real lives. It's interesting, trying to achieve totally believable people through their clothes and their make up and hair."

As an American, married to an Englishman and resident in England, veteran dialect coach Judith Windsor was particularly attuned to the challenges inherent in the script. She said: "You have to remember that, at that time, American standard stage English was very English. Although, were we to hear Shakespeare as spoken in Shakespeare's time, it would sound more American than English!. "Of course, we have worked on the speaking of Shakespearean verse and the mode followed goes back to the Central School of Speech and Drama in London - it's mentioned in the text by George Coulouris that he learned to speak Shakespeare there with Elsie Fogerty. This tradition can be traced down to the Royal Shakespeare Company - it's a sort of energising of the last of the line, so that the imaginative experience for the actor comes, not between the lines or the words, but on the words and as a result of the scansion. It's a wonderful thing - it frees the actor to experience through the text and through the pentameter, things he would never have thought of. They speak with rapidity and clarity - I'm always delighted and constantly surprised at how skillful the British actors are. Orson Welles himself was in terms of accent a kind of hybrid. He sounded English to Americans and American to English people - we listened to a great many tapes of Welles speaking, some of which were of the original Mercury [Theatre] production and in those you can hear that he is sometimes very English in how he pronounces things."

When director Richard Linklater's long-time associate and first assistant director Vince Palmo recommended Robert Kaplow's book, he thought it sounded an interesting title, and took it with him on vacation. He admitted to liking the genre of historical fiction, because, as he said, all histories are fiction, anyway, and in this case the author had based it on every memoir and fact he could get hold of.

Director Richard Linklater said of the adaptation from the film's source book: "It was just wonderful. The author was actually inserting himself as the young character, seeing Welles through his eyes and at that moment in time. It's history, theatrical history - Welles' career and a young man's coming of age. So I found it utterly charming and really interesting. If you know Welles, you know he mastered theatre and radio before he went on to his more famous film career. It's such a fascinating portrait of a moment in time in his life. I was just about to start another movie, but I could see that [screenwriters] Vince and Holly Palmo were really passionate about it - their passion kept fuelling me, which was needed, because it seemed like such an ambitious movie." Screenwriter Vincent Palmo Jr. said: "Rick asked if we'd mind if he optioned it and we said no," confirms Vince. "Holly and I had written a couple of scripts which he'd liked to varying degrees and we said we'd really like to take a shot at the screenplay. Having read the book and done our own research, it became an even richer milieu and time and place. We were interested in everything about that era and the fact that it was about young people - Welles was only 22 - was a big lure."

CinemaNX chairman Steve Christian said of this film in a article published in show-business trade paper 'Variety' on 18th May 2008 : "We went in at the deep end by taking Richard Linklater's 'Me and Orson Welles' out of New York to shoot on the Isle of Man and at Pinewood. With the dollar rate fairly consistent at 2 to 1 against us, we really did show that we could put together a competitive financing and producing package."

Upon graduation from RADA (The Royal College of Dramatic Art), actor Christian McKay was recommended by Lord Richard Attenborough to the Royal Shakespeare Company, performing in "Anthony and Cleopatra" at Stratford-Upon-Avon and in London's West End. McKay's other successful stage appearances include his award-winning performance as Orson Welles in "Rosebud: The Lives of Orson Welles" at the Edinburgh Festival and in London, Toronto and New York.

This film's press kit states in a section called 'Orson Welles in Brief': "Orson Welles was the 20th century's most celebrated artistic genius, mastering film, radio and theatre, all before he turned twenty-five. His debut film, 'Citizen Kane' [1941] is considered by critics the greatest film ever made; he caused widespread panic with his 1938 radio broadcast of 'War of the Worlds'; and he staged ground-breaking theatrical works including Shakespeare's 'Julius Caesar'."

The film's closing credits state that this picture was: "Filmed on location in London, the Isle of Man and New York City and at Pinewood Studios , London".

Early select teaser footage from the film was screened at the Cannes Film Festival in May 2008.

The Australian DVD sleeve notes for this picture state that this movie is "based on real events" and "based on a true story" whilst the film's press kit states that this film is "based in real theatrical history".

Claire Danes is known for having played Juliet in Romeo + Juliet (1996), a modern adaptation of a Shakespeare play, in the same manner as that of Welles.

Welles's character mentions Hüljatud (1998) when is talking to Richard. Claire Danes played Cosette in the 1998 adaptation.

Zoe Kazan plays Gretta Adler in this film, and the year after she played a character named Gabby Adler in See on keeruline (2009).

User reviews


  • comment
    • Author: Mpapa
    The career of Richard Linklater has proved one of the most delightfully eclectic in the film industry, veering between works as diverse as teenage subculture films (Dazed and Confused) to philosophical romances (Before Sunrise) to drug-addled paranoid thrillers (A Scanner Darkly) to mainstream comedies (School of Rock). But even with such a varied body of work, it is difficult to deny Linklater's latest still seeming somewhat of an anomaly: a lighthearted period piece examining the timeless figure of Orson Welles, making his name through a 1930s theater production of Julius Ceasar still seems an odd about face even for such a versatile director. And yet it is somewhat fitting that such a whimsically talented modern director should examine one of cinema's most legendary mavericks as Linklater's latest, Me and Orson Welles is a charming addition to his body of work, a breezy, self- reflexive yet nostalgic celebration of the mediums of performance as experienced alongside one of the most dynamic and influential figures ever to impact them.

    The agile script ably captures the conflicting clashes of the behemoth of a personality that was Orson Welles, from the explosive temper tantrums to the slyly manipulative charm to the casual womanizing, painting a vivid (but likely not larger than life) portrait of the man without either romanticizing or demonising him. It is ultimately the presence of the titular character which rescues the film from becoming yet another "cast rehearsing a play" film, as the dynamo of Welles tearing through the film at all the least expected moments creates a sporadic force of havok keeping the film continually off kilter, preventing it from descending into cliché and keeping it consistently interesting as consequence. While the story's lightness of touch does make some of the plot points either overly obvious or unbelievable, a film so unassumingly enjoyable fails to evoke much complaint - whether dabbling in the dramatic or the comedic, Me and Orson Welles remains refreshingly cheerful and earnest, and all the better for it. Completing the package, Linklater's rare tackling of a period piece demonstrates his typically astute ability to capture the feel and flavour of the times, with the earnest ambition of the 1930s well complimented by subtly stylish sets and costumes while simultaneously avoiding beating the audience over the head with more overt details of the time (instead of the potential hackneyed Nazi allusions, Linklater includes merely a brief radio snippet which is quickly cut off, a classy and subtle inclusion).

    Undergoing a difficult transition from teenage heartthrob to dramatic lead, Zac Efron gives a surprisingly solid performance as the idealistic young actor swept into the wild world of Welles, convincingly contributing charm, comedy and genuine sympathy to the emotional centerpoint of the film. However, given the title, it isn't difficult to imagine the inevitable highlight of the show, and true enough, as the infamous Welles, British stage actor Christian McKay doesn't so much steal scenes as seize and throttle them, exploding on screen with the same engrossing bluster that only the real Welles himself could conjure up. Blending the conflicting elements of an indisputably difficult character as easily as he nails the trademark voice and appearance, McKay's Welles alternates between devilish charmer and explosive force to be feared, shaking up the film with similar vigour and nuanced genius - one of the most impressive cinematic debuts in recent memory. Claire Danes is also on top form as a good hearted but endlessly ambitious member of Welles' company, and Ben Chaplin and James Tupper are endearing presences as eccentric members of Welles' calamitous company.

    As unconventional a project as it may be, Me and Orson Welles remains one of the most unashamedly lighthearted and enjoyable forays into nostalgia in many a year, breezily blending the serious with the silly while never skimping on historical fact. The addition of McKay's brilliantly combustive Welles make the theatrical rehearsal sequences a joy to behold instead of drearily formulaic, making Linklater's latest film a charm to behold for even the most cynical of audiences.

    -8/10
  • comment
    • Author: Kerahuginn
    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
  • comment
    • Author: Inerrace
    Orson Welles is alive and well and residing in the body of British actor Christian McKay! McKay is simply stunning here as Welles - the look, the eye-brow, the mannerisms, the bounce, the voice - never have i seen Welles, as a character, better done. Many have tried few have succeeded (although i have a soft spot for Vincent D'Onofrio's Welles-cameo in Ed Wood.

    The same can be said in general for Richard Linklater's film in terms of featuring Welles and using the whole "putting on a show" theatrical device. I didn't like Oliver Parker's Fade To Black with Danny Huston hamming Welles. RKO 281 was solid and Tim Robbins' Cradle Will Rock was a noble, if unsatisfyingly drear effort. Aided by McKay's towering achievement, a (mostly) superb supporting cast and a deft lightness Linklater has delivered his best film in years.

    To my mind he can be hit (Dazed & Confused, Before Sunrise) and miss (A Scanner Darkly, Fast Food Nation), but this is firmly in the hit category.

    Other non-Welles films, such as Kenneth Branagh's In The Bleak Mid-Winter, have failed in their attempts to have fun at "putting on a show" format because they are too in love with moments that have that "you just had to be there" element. Christopher Guest made a go of it in Waiting For Guffman, but then he was mocking the pretensions so many others embrace as part of the scene. Somehow McKay's (as Welles) enormous personality and Linklater's breezy "makes it look so easy" style make you feel like you are there in Me & Orson Welles and it works to great effect - tantalising the viewer with moments and flashes of the play to come without giving it to you until the right time. The 'Me' of the title really becomes the viewer. You are swept along me both filmmaker and Orson (and it really does feel like Orson. After a few moments i never doubted the Linklater had somehow resurrected Welles and saddled him with Zac Efron!) And this brings me the film's one real problem (and surely a marketing nightmare for the distributors!) Now i'm no Efron hater, i haven't seen any of the HSM movies, but he was fine in both Hairspray and 17 Again but here he has to register in a fantastic ensemble of actors and he simply doesn't. Admittedly he is hamstrung a little by the role. Since the story and Linklater's direction make the viewer feel like 'Me' observing Welles as he creates his legendary production of Julius Caesar and the Mercury theatre company it is easy to kind of forget about Efron's Richard, or at least to dismiss him as Welles so often does. He just makes no impression at all. He's not bad he's just not really significant.

    This leads to the inevitable problem that as we reach the films final act, once the play is done and Welles is off screen you feel like the movie is over. You've seen everything there is to see here, it is time to move along. But no, because Efron's story is unresolved so we get another 10 minutes of him and his ending. But you simply don't care. Once McKay/Welles had gone off with his supporting cast the movie was over, it just didn't know it! Amongst the supporting cast Claire Danes continues in display as easy charm, effortlessly likable and curiously beautiful in her quirky angular way. Zoe Kazan (last seen in Revolutionary Road) is a delight as the underused other woman in Efron's life (although if she'd been used more it would have meant more Efron, less Welles so maybe that's a blessing in disguise). James Tupper is excellent as Joseph Cotten, a great match for McKay's Welles. If they ever (God forbid) remake The Third Man they have the cast! Ben Chaplin is also marvellous as George Couloris. I'm constantly impressed by Chaplin and have no idea why he isn't a bigger name. Kelly Reilly doesn't have much to do but look gorgeous, which, naturally, she does with ease. Eddie Marsan seems miscast as John Houseman. I like Marsan but he didn't fit the bill for me here.

    Ultimately this is McKay's show. He gives an electrifying performance at the center of a movie that while it is about Welles efforts to put on Julius Caesar is a charming, funny and swift-paced joy; but unfortunately it also has to make space for Zac Efron and his own storyline and there-in lie the flaws.

    How you market this i don't know! I can't imagine Efron fans getting excited about a film set in the 1930s about the creation of an historic theatrical production staged by a man who's been dead for 25 years! And on the flipside i nearly didn't see it because i dismissed it, on first awareness, as a Zac Efron movie and so not for me. Only on a second invitation did i notice it was directed by Linklater (always interesting, if not always successful) which charged my want to see it.

    Ultimately though if you want to see it because you're an Efron fan, well go see it because your guy's in it and because you'll get to see something a bit different from what you're used it. And maybe you'll like it. If you're not an Efron fan, never fear, you can all but forget he's there and just enjoy Linklater at his breezy best and the best performance of Welles on screen since the great man departed this earth (and took possession of McKay!)
  • comment
    • Author: Grotilar
    I expected this film to be a slight disappointment, but I was quite wrong about that!! The reason I was worried was Zac Efron. I'm a huge fan of Orson Welles and got very excited when I heard a film about the Caesar production was being made, but I thought this was too big a step for Efron. However he proved himself more than capable, and gives a very strong performance as Richard Samuels - a teenager who finds romance everywhere in life and yearns to act in bigger productions than school plays... who chances on Orson Welles and manages to talk/sing his way into Caesar.

    Christain Mckay's performance as Orson Welles is equally impressive, as is Clare Danes as the ambitious yet charming Sonya Jones, and what's more the period (1930s New York) is captured brilliantly in the film, with great attention paid to language, location and costume.

    In short: very, VERY entertaining and should appeal to a wide demographic - including Zac fans and doubters alike!!
  • comment
    • Author: Oppebro
    Me and Orson Welles is a wonderful story of a young boy (Efron)whose only acting experience is in high school musicals (ha! See what they did there) who manages to get a small part in Orson Welles' (Adam McKay) 1937 production of Julius Caesar. The film follows the volatile relationship between Orson and his company. He is a madman, a selfish, arrogant user and an absolute genius. He knows how the politics of show-business and he knows people, and how to play them. However, for all his antics, he is powerfully charismatic and it seems generally accepted that he is a genius.

    Christian McKay's performance here as Orson Welles is wonderfully broad as he goes through every one of Orson Welles persona's with equal relish. He is snappy and arrogant but at the same time warm enough to earn some affection so when he lets a character down, you feel just as played yourself. The rest of the cast were great too. Zac Efron does his best here to leap from Disney heartthrob to leading man, and I personally thought he was solid and likable, with just enough of a sparkle in his eye and just enough skill to keep it there.

    Overall this film has a charming story, which ends on such a high note I didn't know whether to smile or cry. It also boasts a very strong cast and most importantly a sweet disposition that stayed with me for a good half hour after the credits rolled.
  • comment
    • Author: Cobandis
    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
  • comment
    • Author: Beydar
    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.
  • comment
    • Author: Bloodfire
    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.
  • comment
    • Author: Jeronashe
    Me and Orson Welles (2008), directed by Richard Linklater, is a fantasy about a fantastic event--the famed Mercury Theatre production of "Julius Caesar," directed by Orson Welles in 1937.

    In the 21st Century, setting Shakespeare's plays in modern dress has become a cliché. More than 70 years ago, however, Welles' production, with its clear references to fascism, was bold and daring. It made theater history, and propelled Welles into the limelight.

    Teen heartthrob Zac Efron plays Richard Samuels, who is chosen by Welles for the small role of Lucius in the production. Zoe Kazan plays Gretta Adler, a young woman whom Richard meets in the New York Public Library. Claire Danes is Sonja Jones, Welles' assistant, who is rising in the theater world through a combination of intelligence, beauty, devotion to Welles, and her willingness to get into bed with anyone who can help her career.

    Effron is outgoing and attractive, Kazan is shy and attractive, and Danes again shows why she was able to captivate TV audiences in "My So-Called Life," and then move on to immense Hollywood success. (Those who know "My So-Called Life" can recognize some of the interesting techniques that Danes developed then, and has since perfected.)

    The highest honors in the film, however, belong to Christian McKay, who portrays Welles, and who stars as Brutus in the production. He has an uncanny resemblance to Welles, and his acting in the movie captures the qualities for which Welles was famous--incredible talent and incredible egotism.

    Me and Orson Welles is not a truly great or classic film, but it's not fluff, and it's a perfect choice if you want to see an interesting movie about interesting people. The production values are very high, the sets capture New York City in the 1930's, and the acting is wonderful.

    We saw this movie on a hotel flat-screen TV . It would probably work better on a large screen, but the small screen version worked well enough. It's definitely a movie worth finding and seeing.
  • comment
    • Author: Seevinev
    When I saw that Richard Linklater had a new film at the Toronto International Film Festival and that it took place during Orson Welles' run at the Mercury Theatre, I was very interested. Me and Orson Welles is based off a novel which creates a fictional character to be our entry point into the tumultuous world of Welles' troupe, attempting to get a performance of Julius Caesar out the gate. Young Richard Samuels finds and cons his way into a small part with the play, meeting the likes of Joseph Cotton, George Coulouris, and Welles all before Citizen Kane made them Hollywood players. Centering on a more specific period of time, not sprawling out to multiple plot lines like Robbins' opus, Me and Orson Welles is an authentic view of that time period, a veritable time capsule of Welles' ego before he had the film industry in the palm of his hand.

    I've never seen High School Musical or Hairspray, but just looking at Zac Efron you can't help but think nothing good could come of his casting. In my shocking surprise, he was actually quite good, and possibly perfect in the role. The entire film hinges on his believability as a cocky yet talented high schooler that talks his way onto a high profile performance while he should be taking pop quizzes. This teen is unafraid to speak his mind and truly believes that he deserves the same respect as anyone else on the project, even if that means standing up to the giant that is Orson Welles. He is a kid, though, and he's naïveté comes out at numerous times, mostly to humorous effect. Embroiled in a five dollar bet with Cotton and Norman Lloyd about who can sleep with secretary Sonja first, when Richard's chance finally happens, his shyness and awkwardness add a nice slapstick comedic feel. Efron actually has a good handle on his facial expressions, helping both effectively add to the comedy while also to the realism of the time period we are watching, as far as acting style went back then—over the top and hammy.

    This kid becomes a big part of Welles' life in the story. The master takes him under his wing to show the ropes of theatre, drama, and radio, grooming him with superfluities and compliments. What Richard doesn't yet realize is the cutthroat nature of the industry and how everyone will lie, cheat, and steal to get what he wants. The boy's relationships blossom with the actors and Sonja, allowing him to comfortably make a name for himself in Broadway with them. He just can't learn that sometimes you have to swallow your pride and give into someone who can't to appease them and further your own career. Richard is young though and he doesn't yet feel this is it for him, the end all be all. So, when some might think a brazen attitude and confidence could be a necessary trait in theatre, a man like Welles will have none of it. Why would a man like him want a mirror held up to his face? No, he is the leader and you will listen.

    It is a shame that whenever someone is called upon to play Orson Welles, it always ends up being a caricature or impersonation. It is true with Angus Macfadden in Cradle Will Rock and it is true here with newcomer Christian McKay, found in a one-man show doing the part and cast as a result. McKay is everything you'd think about with the legend, from the brash authoritative moods to the welcoming smiles charismatically pulling you in to do whatever he wants. Definitely more an embodiment of Welles himself than a performance of a character, you can't really fault him for it. A man that recognizable can only be done with impression and McKay does it to perfection.

    As for the rest of the cast, everyone is great. Eddie Marsan is a stalwart and nice practical foil to Welles' mercurial genius; James Tupper knocks Joseph Cotton out of the park, playing a lothario that tries his best to shield Richard and help him stay in Welles' good graces; Leo Bill is a lot of fun as the improviser/comedian Lloyd; and Claire Danes likable as the object of everyone's affection Sonja. There is also Zoe Kazan as the writer Richard meets one day at a record shop. She is the one link he has to the real world, grounding him away from the chaos and narcissism the acting lifestyle brings. A real person, with goals and aspirations, her Gretta allows for the best relationship with Efron's character. It is a side-plot that one could say needed to be beefed up, but I actually think comprised just the right amount of time. Only coming back into the story every so often, it was a necessary juxtaposition to the craziness in the theatre, showing us the real Richard and not the act he put on to be a success.

    The story is slight even though there is a lot going on. I would even agree that Linklater has crafted such a tight piece it seems simpler than it is because he makes it so. Some instances are so good, the poet Sinner in the play slowly being surrounded by silhouetted actors onstage, that I can't get the image out of my head. That said I might blame the fact I love Cradle Will Rock so much that this one just doesn't quite compare. Me and Orson Welles is a great film, highly recommended, but to me nothing glaringly special. It's just one of those films that I can praise over and over again for its parts, but when I think of the whole, realize that it never fully resonated with me past being a well-made, well-acted piece of cinema.
  • comment
    • Author: Xanna
    Over a dozen actors have played Orson Welles on screen, attempting to nail mercury; a figure equal parts charming conjurer and driven dictator. The latest challenger is Christian McKay, a British stage actor. But McKay doesn't just 'play' the great genius. Rather, like some voodoo priest, he appears to have ensnared and bottled Welles' immortal soul, in order to resurrect every tyrannical tic and mellifluous mannerism of the man who, like Vincent Price in Theatre Of Blood, had the temerity to rewrite Shakespeare. So that's the Orson Welles bit of the title accounted for.

    Then there's "Me". Zac Efron's presumably here for the same reason Robert Pattinson was recently cast as Salvador Dali in Little Ashes: honey to the box office bee. In Richard Linklater's period piece he's a high schooler who lucks his way into Welles' famous 1937 production of Julius Caesar at the Mercury Theatre; a once-in-a-lifetime "opportunity to be sprayed by Orson's spit".

    Compared with his co-performers, especially shock-haired Leo Bill, who fits the 1930s like a bespoke blazer, Efron's is a face and sass out of time. His is a rite de passage without a passage, a coming-of-age story in which the cocky protagonist comes, but never attains wisdom. Thus the film demands an emotional investment in a character we can't care about. Adventureland tells a similar story much better. But McKay is this film's incredible, all-conquering ace.
  • comment
    • Author: Rainbearer
    Okay, start with one of the most interesting and influential characters in film. Make a film that has him in it.

    Take one of the most interesting and theatrical productions in theater, present it is as film and make the same film about its inception including chaos, the various seductions of the players and some presentation of his bellicose leadership.

    Hang the thing on a story of callow discovery and you may have something. But alas, this almost succeeds on every score and it makes us unhappy because from the first we expect something worthy. We expect to be immersed somehow. "Cradle will Rock" succeeded in that respect where this did not.

    One problem is there is no sense of the inner composition in Welles' mind. Sure we find he is oafish, appetite driven, needlessly obnoxious. But for each of these, there should be some window into what matters, what we came for. It sure wasn't hearing about a kid's screwups.

    The impression fostered throughout is that some combination of accident, unsophisticated audience and dedicated cast/crew made the production a success. I saw this with "Hamlet 2" and as bad as that was, it was better in key ways. Above all, it tried.

    Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
  • comment
    • Author: Honeirsil
    When thinking about this film, the one thing that comes to mind is the scene talking about the short story - where nothing happened. I was looking forward to this movie, after all the rave reviews about it, and though it was not the worst film I've ever seen, it's definitely nowhere near the top. I spent the entire thing bored, waiting for something that wasn't monotonous to happen, and it never did. Although well acted, I had little interest in the characters or plot lines. Perhaps it's due to a lack of knowledge or understanding of Orson Welles' career, on my part, but I would not recommend this to other people.
  • comment
    • Author: Zicelik
    From director Richard Linklater (Waking Life, School of Rock, A Scanner Darkly), I heard of this film not being rated very well by the critics, but there was a lot of praise for the actor playing the title role of the famous Citizen Kane and The Third Man star, so I had to watch. Basically set in 1937, Richard Samuels (High School Musical's Zac Efron) is the high school student who has a day trip in New York City, and there he meets and becomes friends with Gretta Adler (Zoe Kazan) and they both share of love for the creative arts. Richard also finds the Mercury Theatre and meets actor Orson Welles (BAFTA nominated Christian McKay), and after a quick improvisational audition he manages to get a part in his new play, a modern retelling of William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. He will acting alongside Orson, and other Mercury players such as Joseph Cotten (James Tupper) and George Coulouris (Ben Chaplin), and onlooking is producer John Houseman (Eddie Marsan), but of course Orson is the great unofficial dictator of the production. Whatever Orson wants he gets, he has the power to fire anyone and everyone and he wants the perfect show, but he doesn't believe in all conventions, and he does not have a fixed opening night. He realises that his name will be triumphed or ruined with the result of the show, and Richard acting the part of Lucius along with everyone else, including leading lady Sonja Jones (Claire Danes) aka The Ice Queen, is making sure he follows the "master". Sonja is the woman that all the men are afraid to ask out, being so close to Orson, but Richard takes up the challenge and seems to get rather far that they go out and get closer, but he cannot get away from the bluster of Orson. Eventually it comes to the opening night, Richard was originally fired but is allowed back for the opening night, and the audience give high praise for the production, but in the end Richard is forced to leave after finding out he was only required for the opening night, but he does gain a new girlfriend. Also starring Kelly Reilly as Muriel Brassler, Leo Bill as Norman Lloyd and Al Weaver as Sam Leve. Efron is obviously a little cheesy but he is alright in this, Danes does well with her time as well, but of course the one who steals the show is the magnificent uncanny looks and charismatic voice of McKay playing the established actor, the story is not bad, but you do feel it could have been a little better in some of the scripting and apart from McKay it all feels a little bland, not a terrible period drama. Okay!
  • comment
    • Author: Velan
    A showbiz-mad Jewish schoolkid from New Jersey lands a bit-role, almost by accident, in Orson Welles' chaotically-born but groundbreaking Broadway production in modern-dress of Julius Caesar in 1937. That's the premise of Robert Kaplow's 2003 novel, one of these uneasy conceits that blur fact and fantasy but which Orson himself, with his love of illusion and fakery, would probably have endorsed even if he does end up as the 'heavy'. Richard Samuels, our hero, is also the narrator, Holden Caulfield dramatised by Neil Simon if that idea grabs you. Salinger's just died so we'll never know what he thought of it either. Accordingly Richard is cute, self-obsessed, sexually reticent and a relentless comedian with a smartass reflex in most situations. While rehearsals press ahead under Orson's galvanising tyranny, egos clash and crises are wrestled with, Richard loses his virginity like clockwork to Sonja, the ambitious production assistant he's been fixated on for a whole week. Before taking him to bed she treats him to a teary cringe-making recital of her rackety emotional life, hatred of her mother etc etc and you long to stop wasting time with these bewhiskered routines and get back to the Mercury and originality. But it gets worse. Richard thinks he's found True Love and when he finds out that Orson shares Sonja's favours as a matter of course stops being a cute comic and gets all serious, wounded and self-righteous, almost coming to blows with the Boy Wonder over his marital infidelity as you would of course (who is this kid ?) Though they appear to make up afterwards, once opening-night has been triumphantly achieved Richard finds himself out on his ear. Disillusioned he must learn to lose before he can win and all the rest of it and giving the whole theatrical experience and Mr. Orson Welles the spiritual finger decides to be a writer instead, what a relief. At least he might have better luck with Gretta, his earnest little girl-friend who's just had a short-story published (thanks to his Mercury connection, it must be said). Out they go sweetly to embrace the Big Apple together as a symbolic bluebird flies up into the sky. You couldn't make it up could you ? Well someone did. And I hope it was meant as a parody.

    The movie, thankfully, gets us out of Richard's head and by employing a more slimline approach and eliminating some of the excesses (such as Sonja's maudlin confessional) makes for a reasonably buoyant entertainment despite some curious casting decisions. Richard is less irritating in transition but alas no more interesting since Zac Efron, who occupies his space, fails to transmit any discernible enthusiasm for anything around him. He's so cool he's not there. Sonja, who's twenty in the book, is played by a thirty-year-old actress who doesn't quite capture the image of the company's lust-object. Not that the Mercury boys seem too discriminating. They spend more time in locker-room conversations than the business in hand. Joe Cotten and Norman Lloyd are playfully offered as a dirty-minded double-act but George Coulouris, stiff-necked and warning of disaster, has morphed into Vittorio Gassman with a drawl out of Leslie Phillips. Impossible to swallow if you grew up watching the great veteran in forty years of pictures. But soft, who comes here, 'tis Christian McKay.

    McKay is himself a good deal older than Orson was at the time. But then Orson always seemed older than he was anyway. His actual precocious theatrical youth is a veiled object to most of the living world now, imagined through the prism of history and his later greater fame, something heard in radio-recordings or glimpsed in photos and the newsreel in which he earnestly 'apologised' for scaring America witless with his Men from Mars. It's still a stretch to consider that he was no older than James Dean got to be when he played Charles Foster Kane. And for AMBERSONS (his best film potentially, I always think, why don't today's movers and shakers club together to track down the missing footage once and for all ?) he declined to appear as Georgie Minafer, preferring to remain unseen as the 'father' of the production. McKay's about the age Orson was when he played Harry Lime, his best-loved part -an impish monster who can sucker anybody into submission because his talent, self-confidence and sheer cheek seem bigger than the world's. And this is exactly what McKay gives us in his splendidly convincing incarnation, he makes you smile with pleasure. And his moments on stage as Brutus are inspired. The Mercury Theatre's first hour of glory is impressively mounted and rendered, for all the fun and fooling. It gives the film stature and is worth remembering. The teenager-fantasy stuff is negligible and its pygmy-darting won't I think hurt Orson's reputation. He was a magnificent magical maverick - even when he failed - and the world was always more exciting because he was out there somewhere beavering away at his visions and it slumped when he finally left it.

    Two items of interest 1. I first came across the title-phrase fifty years ago in John Braine's novel Room at the Top when Joe Lampton joins the Thespians. 2. Though Holden Caulfield supposedly hated movies Salinger obviously named his hero from a picture-ad. William HOLDEN and Joan CAULFIELD in DEAR RUTH, Paramount, 1947.
  • comment
    • Author: Yahm
    I admire anyone who can sit through more than eight minutes of this stupid, pretentious movie. Everything about it screams "Look at me!", and when a movie's own pretensions can overshadow as flamboyant a character as Orson Welles, something is terribly wrong.

    It's just one "Look at me!" moment after another. "Look at me! I'm the real 1930s New York City!" (that's the cheesy, heavily sepia-ed Hollywood backlot set talking) Then: "Look at me! I'm Zac Efron, making a REAL MOVIE! and I can play a mean drum roll! and sing a Wheaties jingle! and flirt with an ugly girl!" Then: "Look at me! I may be an unknown British stage actor, but I *AM* Orson Welles!"

    That's when I gagged and ejected the DVD. I'll spare myself yet another appearance of the persistently obnoxious Claire Danes.

    Viewers who think this movie is an authentic look at Welles, or an authentic look at Depression-era New York theatre, or an authentic ANYTHING, have had their minds crippled by watching way too much phony Hollywood garbage - which is exactly what this movie is.
  • comment
    • Author: JoJosho
    The great Orson Welles (1915-1985) is mostly famous as the director of the legendary Citizen Kane, and as the writer, actor and producer of the remarkable radio adaptation of War of the Worlds, which caused panic in the United States in 1938, when many people thought it was a real broadcast which announced the extraterrestrial invasion.But before all that, Welles founded the theater company Mercury in 1937, where he started to tune his acclaimed style.And very few things show it better than his ingenious adaptation of Julius Caesar, William Shakespeare's iconic work, in which he moved the action to Mussolini's fascist Italy.The film Me and Orson Welles weaves reality and fiction in order to tell us the adventures from Welles and his company during the preparation of that staging.The result is interesting and very entertaining, but not perfect.

    Me and Orson Welles is not a biography of Welles or a serious analysis of his innovative version of Julius Caesar, but it should have may been like that.I liked this film pretty much, because the performances are good and the screenplay is always very interesting.But the plot covers so many interesting stuff that I did not feel it deepened on it as much as I would have liked.However, despite that, the film is very good, because it has various positive elements.

    Claire Danes brings conviction and enthusiasm to her character, at the same time she adapts herself very well to the movie's style.Zac Efron brings a decent performance; however, he gets darkened on various occasions by Danes and specially, Christian McKay, who steals the show as Welles.The force from his performance and his overwhelming presence make him the central figure from the movie, even when he does not appear on scene.

    Before watching Me and Orson Welles, I had the slight awe that director Richard Linklater's melancholic and vanguard style was not going to fit very well on a period film (as it had happened in The Newton Boys); however, it fortunately resulted to be very compatible in here, because it keeps a naughty wink to classic Hollywood conventions without loosing the dynamism and structure required to attract modern audiences.So, I think this movie deserves a safe recommendation, because even though it is not great, I enjoyed it pretty much.
  • comment
    • Author: Chi
    Richard Linklater's "Me and Orson Welles" reminds us what a young whirlwind Orson Welles was well before Citizen Kane and RKO. His film time travels us to post depression era New York where young upstart Welles was reshaping the face of theater. However, Welles' daughter reportingly enjoyed the film, as did I, but felt at times it lowers the beginning stages of Welles' career to a lackluster episode of "Sex and the City" Here's the man who created the grand-daddy of media hoaxes, directed films that re-directed the path of world cinema, was a fantastic magician, I can go on. Do we really care about a life triangle Welles is in? The actor playing Welles is pre-Citizrn Kane Welles bought to life. It is not a party-time mimic like in "Ed Wood", but a performance that picks up all the facial expressions, mannerisms, large laugh that we all admire in Orson Welles. I can see why Welles' other daughter refuses to see the film. It was also fun to see represented here, other members of Welles' Mercury Theatre- Joseph Cotten, George Coulouris, Norman Lloyd.
  • comment
    • Author: Iell
    A good, decent film.

    Too colour-coordinated for my taste...;-)

    Now, everyone's raving about the Orson Welles' character and its portrayal by Christian McKay. Well I have a different opinion. He annoyed me. It was too much, too big, too cocky, too shallow ... No-one is larger than life. That's called loud and arrogant in the real world, even vicious. Over-acting of a non-likable character whom we are supposed to revere because of his name...I'd rather watch a real baddie like Christoph Waltz's Hans Landa.

    If that's what theatre is like or about then OK, all neurotics gather at that place. Better than pills or the shrink, probably...

    Does great art only come from despotic behaviour by megalomaniacs?? Theatre is not THAT important...I happen to think that the way you treat people is important, and I don't like disrespect - but that's just me. (For Orson Welles is surely not supposed to be a baddie? I guess I got it all wrong...*shrug*)

    So I was always trying to overcome that dislike, which did not keep me from enjoying some of the rest of the performances and characters, Greta was the most real next to Richard, maybe she was the least neurotic ...:-)

    The dialogues were good, a nice film, but nothing life altering, definitely NOT a Must-See in my opinion, only if you like....(see review title)
  • comment
    • Author: Thofyn
    It's 1937 and the young Orson Welles is beginning to make a name for himself in both radio and the theater. His Mercury theater is putting on Shakespeare's 'Julius Caesar' and 18 year old Richard Samuels (Zac Efron) manages to get a bit part as Lucius in Welles' new fangled production in modern dress.

    There isn't much to the plot of 'Me and Orson Welles'. Richard falls for Sonja Jones (Claire Danes), Orson's production assistant who has no guilt in sleeping her way to the top. She ultimately achieves her goal in getting a date with David O. Selznick, the famous Hollywood producer who two years later will produce 'Gone With the Wind'. But along the way, she has a momentary fling with Richard who naively believes that their relationship might turn into something. After Richard realizes that Orson is bedding Sonja, he takes Joseph Cotton's advice to "fight for her" and ends up getting on Orson's bad side by accusing him of being an adulterer. Orson, the egomaniac that he is, will not tolerate any dissent from any members of his cast, let alone a neophyte 18 year old, and promptly fires Richard. But since opening night is right on the horizon, Orson has to momentarily eat crow and flatter Richard so he'll return to the show. Once opening night has come and gone, Richard learns that Orson has dispensed with him for good. Richard decides that perhaps he was never meant to be an actor and exits gracefully with a young woman who he had met earlier, an aspiring writer who he had helped get published through the assistance and good graces of ex-lover Sonja.

    What makes 'Me and Orson Welles' so enjoyable is Christian McKay's performance as the narcissistic thespian. McKay is in his late 30s and looks more like the Orson Welles of the mid to late 40s than the young wunderkind of 1937. Nonetheless, if you can overlook the age discrepancy, you'll be amazed at just how believable McKay is at portraying Welles when he was just starting out.

    McKay pulls out all the stops, showing us what a 'character' Orson Welles was. He was a man who was bursting with creative ideas, always experimenting until he got things right. But the path to perfection was fraught with miscues and the scenes of all the flubbed rehearsals are quite amusing. McKay is brilliant especially when he shows Welles manipulating his actors so that they will bend to his will. It's made clear from the beginning, Welles always had to be in control. But occasionally, if you did oppose him, he would be flexible enough to consider contrary ideas (he's willing to incorporate suggestions that he initially rejects from Norman Lloyd who plays Cinna the Poet in Julius Caesar).

    McKay also does a great job in showing what a great actor Welles was. Particularly impressive is the scene in which McKay has Welles 'improvising' during the radio broadcast. And don't forget how McKay/Welles handles Shakespeare in the final scenes where 'Julius Caesar' is finally put on; the tremendous raves from the audience are wholly justified. Screenwriter Holly Gent Palmo must be complimented on presenting the many nuances of Welles' larger-than-life character. I loved how the 'sprinkler incident' is foreshadowed by Welles' gut conviction that an earlier calamity can somehow prevent the occurrence of a later and more devastating catastrophe.

    While it's admirable that Zac Efron chose to advance his career by getting involved in a more sophisticated production such as 'Me and Orson Welles' (as opposed to earlier 'low-brow' efforts such as '17 Again' or 'High School Musical'), he doesn't quite have the experience to be totally convincing as the naïve and impressionable Richard. Equally forgettable is Claire Danes who is saddled with the non-descript part of the social-climbing Sonja. Much more to my liking is Ben Chaplin as George Coulouris playing Mark Antony. Chaplin obviously is a classically trained actor who shows his range as both tragedian and comedian (he's great as Antony on stage but also as Coulouris who has stage fright before tackling the part).

    'Me and Orson Welles' is basically a showcase for Christian McKay who has had experience in playing Orson Welles before in a one-man show. If your preference is for great performances as well as theatrical history, then check out this entertaining new indie dramedy.
  • comment
    • Author: Mr.Bean
    It's little wonder that Awesome Orson, that mercurial, self-destructive titan continues to excite and energise independent movie makers like Tim Robbins (who dealt with Welles in the exceptional Cradle Will Rock) and Richard Linklater. Fiercely individualistic at a time of rigorous studio control, Welles was cut down by jealous rivals, blinkered bean counters and a virulent strain of egomania that prevented him playing the Hollywood game. Like Robbins, who charted the remarkable story of Welles' 1937 musical of a similar name, Linklater focuses on the great man's theatrical work - in this case the update of Julius Caesar that transplanted Shakespeare's work to Fascist Italy and proved the making of its director.

    When a new project dealing with the Welles legend emerges, the first thing you want to know is: 'Who's playing Orson?' Who can hope to inhabit the character, with those instantly recognisable mannerisms, the peculiar speech patterns, that snub nose, that booming voice? At least 31 actors have taken on the challenge in TV and film, including Angus Macfadyen in Cradle Will Rock, Jean Guerin in Heavenly Creatures and Vincent D'Onofrio (dubbed by Maurice LaMarche) in Tim Burton's Ed Wood. Here it's RSC alumnus Christian McKay, in his feature debut. Having played Orson in the solo show Rosebud, at Edinburgh and off Broadway, McKay has had years to hone the characterisation, to transcend mimicry and caricature and tap into the very essence of the man.

    He is absolutely phenomenal.

    Whether seducing his players via sweetly-spoken flattery or heaping opprobrium on them, slotting cherished sections of The Magnificent Ambersons into a radio serial or lamenting his amorphous, shallow nature, McKay IS Welles. He twinkles, yells, guffaws, postures and roars. And in that one moment of heartbreaking self-awareness, his Welles reveals a compulsive need to play the chameleon, saying: "If people can't find you, they can't dislike you." It's a remarkable characterisation - and whenever McKay is on screen, the film radiates excitement. Sadly, that's not the whole story.

    The movie is pegged as a coming-of-age tale, unfolding against the backdrop of Welles' legendary Caesar. Our coming-of-ager is Zac Efron, fresh from the High School Musical films. He's cast as a 17-year-old drama student who blags a way into Orson's latest show, where he finds romance with ambitious production assistant Claire Danes. At the same time, he has half an eye on aspiring playwright Zoe Kazan, who hangs around the local museum, staring at an urn. Though Efron is quite good, these conventional, unconvincing, essentially uninteresting romantic elements are given equal billing with the Welles material, leading to dips in quality and a general listlessness whenever Orson - sorry, Christian - is off-screen. That said, the scenes where Welles' influence bleeds into the behaviour of impressionable Efron are amusing and well-handled.

    Shot at the Gaiety Theatre, Douglas, in the Isle of Man, Me and Orson Welles does a good job of transmitting both the stress and euphoria of life on the stage. Observer critic Philip French said of the film's Caesar: "Never before have I seen a theatrical production so brilliantly re-created". But while the film does capture the thrill of opening night and the gobsmacking ingenuity of Welles' staging, the acting in that play-within-a-film isn't as impressive - with the notable exception of McKay's Welles-doing-Brutus. In the film too, the rest of the cast appear pretty lacklustre when up against McKay. Ben Chaplin provides moments of pathos and truth as George Coulouris (who went on to play Thatcher in Citizen Kane), but his performance is often just peculiar, while Eddie Marsan appears miscast as Welles' regular backer John Houseman, and Leo Bill is a touch one-note. At least James Tupper gives a fair approximation of the young Joseph Cotten, playing him as an incorrigible skirt-chaser.

    The film has a decent period atmosphere, its lively score packed with familiar period tunes. And though there's a torrent of clumsy and distracting '30s pop culture references in the first 10 minutes, the writers are thereafter more discriminating and inventive, incorporating a clever nod to The Third Man - with the character of Cotten emerging from the shadows - and an incredibly moving scene with Welles that foreshadows the ruination of his second masterpiece, The Magnificent Ambersons.

    The movie is a long way from being perfect, hampered as it is by a conventional romantic subplot that eats up too much screen time. But at its best it's dazzling and in Christian McKay's Orson Welles it boasts one of the best performances of the last 10 years.
  • comment
    • Author: Tiainar
    I wish this 2009 indie focused far more on the most charismatic person in the cast. Foreboding with a glaring certainty and a penchant for spewing venom at anyone he deems unworthy of his attention, Christian McKay makes the young Orson Welles come alive as the intimidating megalomaniac he had to have been to create a masterpiece like "Citizen Kane". In 1937, he was only 22 when he mounted a contemporary version of Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" with his legendary troupe, the Mercury Theater, which showcased his prodigious theatrical genius, and his idiosyncratic blend of swagger and insight transcended the backstage chaos that would yield a stage triumph. Welles was the type of man who would shower his cast with hyperbolic praise and then just as suddenly, crush them with harsh criticism.

    However, director Richard Linklater ("Dazed and Confused"), definitely not a specialist in period pieces, chooses to focus on the fictional character of 17-year-old Richard Samuels to carry the plot as he witnesses Welles' genius firsthand as a protégé-turned-actor. Filmmaker Cameron Crowe tried the same perspective shift in 2000's "Almost Famous", but the device doesn't work as well this time. It's not that teen heartthrob Zac Efron is bad in the role. In fact, he brings an enthusiastic sincerity to his comparatively shallow role, but the dominance of McKay's towering performance provides an imbalance that is difficult to ignore. Holly Gent Palmo and Vince Palmo's screenplay focuses on Richard's brush with greatness during the process of making art, and cineastes will enjoy the likes of Joseph Cotten, John Houseman and George Colouris portrayed with relish and surprising accuracy by James Tupper, Eddie Marsan and Ben Chaplin, respectively.

    Of course, there are women to complicate matters among the troupe, and Mercury production manager Sonja Jones is both a beguiling and ambitious presence that endlessly fascinates the actors swirling around her. Needless to say, Richard is smitten, but she has plans of her own to consider. Claire Danes gives a smart, incisive performance as Sonja, giving her more depth than one would expect from the story. Zoe Kazan bookends the movie as an aspiring writer who believes she has found a kindred artistic spirit in Richard. Laurence Dorman's production design and Dick Pope's cinematography deserve mention as the combination evokes the film's period setting with conviction. But this is McKay's movie all the way and well worth seeing for his astonishing turn.
  • comment
    • Author: Forcestalker
    It is very rare that when I get to the end of a film I immediately want to go back and watch it over again. Me & Orson Welles is one of those films.

    Christian McKay does a terrific Orson Welles, he really seems to embody all the smallest mannerisms which made Orson so unique, and respectfully does so without just doing an Orson Welles impression. Definitely my favourite portrayal of Welles.

    Efron is unusually bearable in this film and shows promise of becoming a decent actor. I loved the atmosphere inside the Mercury Theatre and the whole "waiting for Orson" thing that they had to do.

    Overall I would call this a must see for all Welles fans and Linklater fans. Very absorbing and enjoyable. 8/10
  • comment
    • Author: Doath
    My father was born in Montclair, New Jersey in 1928. He grew up in New York City, a near contemporary of the young hero in ME AND ORSON WELLES.

    The funny thing is, the New York my old man told me about was not at all like the New York in this movie. Times were hard. People were out of work. My dad used to tell me about seeing Woody Guthrie sitting in a bar, with a sign on his guitar that said THIS MACHINE KILLS FASCISTS. And he talked about street demonstrations protesting Hitler's crimes against the Jews in Europe, and lynchings in the American south, and even Communists marching against fascism under the banner "Stalin is Our Leader -- We Shall Not Be Moved." None of this is very interesting today, I know. But the point is, Orson Welles' production of JULIUS CAESAR, which this movie purports to represent, was very much a political statement and very much influenced by what was happening in the world (and in the streets of New York) at the time. The real Orson Welles confronted history head on, while it was happening, by showing Fascist terror on the stage. But the movie ME AND ORSON WELLES tap dances away from history with a coy giggle, whistling a snappy show tune.

    Of course, some will say it's only meant to be a "nostalgic tribute" to Orson Welles. But think about what those words actually mean. How can a movie be "nostalgic" for a past it deliberately refuses to confront? Even though Welles and his colleagues insisted on bringing politics onto the stage? And how exactly can you pay "tribute" to an artist by refusing to put what he actually did into any sort of historical context?

    Now I have to say I enjoyed watching this movie, ME AND ORSON WELLES. It's fun catching the great Shakespeare quotations, and watching the ham actors play . . . well, ham actors. And the play within-the-play, JULIUS CAESAR, really is staged and acted in an electrifying way. But for anyone who doesn't know the real historical context of this production, much of the point will be lost. And the sad thing is that the film makers know this, and in their cynical calculation simply assume it's safer not to mention unpleasant subjects long forgotten.

    Oh, and by the way, what's the deal with Claire Danes' character? One of the clowns in the theater company calls her "the ice queen" but within twenty minutes it's clear she's slept with everyone on the set. And the "sensitive" young hero cheerfully takes a five dollar bet that he can sleep with her next! This is touching young love? Sure, and Depression Era New York was full of happy, well-dressed white people singing show tunes -- not horrible disturbing Communists and Jewish refugees and Negroes from Harlem and even -- gasp! -- homosexuals.

    In real life those people were Orson Welles' audience. And his collaborators. And they are the ones who inspired his production of JULIUS CAESAR.

    So next time, let's try not to airbrush them out of the picture, okay?
  • comment
    • Author: Anyshoun
    Linklater taking on Orson Welles? Sign me up. The only thing really unfortunate about this movie is the title, the only justification of which I can tell is that the lead character is so young and brash that he thinks of himself before Orson Welles but ironically thinks so in grammatically incorrect terms. However, this not being backed up by an explanation, it may also just simply be a grammatically bad title. I do not know, all I know is that it's unfortunate.

    Anyway, onto the actual movie itself. Orson Welles being a particularly iconic figure, not only for Citizen Kane but also for the independent film industry as a brash, young, intelligent egoist willing to stand up to the biggest of institutions, it is not surprising that independent filmmakers love to take him on. Here the story is something like Orson meeting Orson, where a younger, brash, slightly less intelligent egoist has his ten seconds of fame working side-by-side with Welles on the stage, and in the process making a dizzying, delightful, sexy ride of it, until the brakes are hit hard and bloody noses are bounced off a few dashboards.

    Zac Efron plays Richard, a bored high school student who wants to be an actor (!). Or a writer (!). Or an artist (!). Or whatever, he ultimately has to admit, allows him to participate in the world where creativity meets fame. Strolling across the city one day after a very Linklaterian meeting with cute and reserved Gretta (Zoe Kazan), he manages to act as such an attention whore that he gets under the radar of none other than 37 year old Orson Welles (Christian McKay), currently producing his Nazi-themed version of Julius Caesar. Taken on board, Richard got game, but ultimately his own needy desire for recognition (and of course the always fun issue of a girl (Claire Danes)) eventually brings Orson Welles and Richard into conflict. And I mean c'mon, he's going up against Orson Welles! Actor to actor, of course, Richard doesn't stand a chance. Actor to actor otherwise, Zac Efron and Christian McKay are perfectly matched, McKay for his spot-on presentation of Welles' cigar-chewing egotism and Efron for having to hold the brunt of the movie on his back basically being the exact type of youth that once upon a time was Richard and these days is more recognized as that friend-whore on Facebook. It is like the matching of Amy Adams to Meryl Streep in Julie & Julia (what is it with these ampersands?!), where one plays a recognized historical figure to aplomb, and the other perfectly nails the navel-gazing millennial everyone despises, but it is to the actor's credit that such a vapid character ultimately ends up being engaging. To Efron's credit, he may not be perfectly embodying Orson Welles, but he is perfectly embodying the part of all of us that wants to be Orson Welles.

    The rest of it, really, is all Linklater. Ultimately the shy and awkward girl is the right way to go, the intellectual discussions say more about the characters' own perspectives than about the story's themes, bright-eyed youth looks to the future despite being shackled by its own overeducated situation in too-much-free-time. Meanwhile, it is shot well, beautifully lit, drily humorous, and manages to make you feel a little sorry for Richard once he loses, even though the character deserves it. This is helped mostly by the fact that he doesn't really lose "What's Most Important" and he didn't know what he wanted in the first place. Great execution of a familiar theme.

    Now. It is "Orson Welles and I"! --PolarisDiB
  • Cast overview, first billed only:
    Christian McKay Christian McKay - Orson Welles
    Zac Efron Zac Efron - Richard Samuels
    Zoe Kazan Zoe Kazan - Gretta Adler
    Megan Maczko Megan Maczko - Evelyn Allen
    Simon Lee Phillips Simon Lee Phillips - Walter Ash
    Patrick Kennedy Patrick Kennedy - Grover Burgess
    Shane James Bordas Shane James Bordas - Conspirator
    Alessandro Giuggioli Alessandro Giuggioli - Conspirator
    Harry Macqueen Harry Macqueen - Conspirator
    Rhodri Orders Rhodri Orders - Conspirator
    James Tupper James Tupper - Joseph Cotten
    Thomas Arnold Thomas Arnold - George Duthie
    Aidan McArdle Aidan McArdle - Martin Gabel
    Simon Nehan Simon Nehan - Joe Holland
    Claire Danes Claire Danes - Sonja Jones
    All rights reserved © 2017-2024 hd.thomson-multimedia.com