James Absolon explains how this Pope-themed film, despite its risky premise, works
Alex Pollard reviews Hollywood's biopic of the controversial Margaret Thatcher
Me and Orson Welles depicts the Mercury Theatre’s seminal 1937 production of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, directed by a 21 year-old Orson Welles. Told from the point of view of Richard Samuels (Zac Efron), a fictional school boy who is given a brief taste of what it is like to work under Welles (Christian McKay), the film goes behind the scenes at the theatre to look at just how far a genius can push people in the name of art.
Having successfully managed to avoid High School Musical and all his other work, I came to this film not really sure what to expect of Zac Efron, but he really was extremely well-suited to the role. Not only does he look like an old school movie star, he is clearly a talented performer when it comes to singing and dancing, so he feels in many ways like a throwback to the old style of movie star, as well as having a natural charm that bodes well for his post HSM-career.
Despite all this, however, Efron is rather outshone by Christian McKay as Welles. Rather than simply imitating the legendary director and actor, McKay gives an utterly captivating performance as he seems to physically transform himself and become Welles. He effortlessly conveys Welles’ charisma and charm, as well as believably showing flashes of his genius without ever overdoing it. He is the best thing about the film, and director Richard Linklater is clearly aware of this, allowing McKay to really stand out.
Really, it would be worth going to see the film just for McKay’s performance, but to sell it simply on that basis would really do the film a disservice. Claire Danes gives a perfectly fine, if slightly predictable, performance as Sonja. However, it is really the actors playing the rest of the cast of the play who give the film an appeal beyond McKay’s magnificent performance. Particular mention must go to the always-brilliant Eddie Marsan as John Houseman, the luminous Kelly Reilly as Muriel and the rather dashing James Tupper as Joseph Cotten.
Richard Linklater’s direction manages to make the production of a play seem exciting, while he draws out good performances from the cast. Many of the supporting cast are clearly having fun hamming it up as self-important actors, but their performances never go too far. The music helps to evoke the era nicely, often being used for comic effect. However, the film does have its flaws. Efron struggles at times with the more emotional scenes, and the character of Richard can seem a little unbelievable at times. The sub-plot with Gretta and the ending both feel rather contrived, although they are very touching.
While not the year’s most ground-breaking or brilliant film, Me and Orson Welles is a fun look at the theatre, while also raising some interesting questions about the idea of genius, and McKay’s performance as Welles is really not to be missed.
But however good McKay is, surely rather than watch a realistic imitation in a half-decent film it'd be better to see the real Orson Welles starring in one of his cinematic masterpieces?
But McKay's performance isn't the only good thing about this film. As well as being an interesting look behind the scenes at a theatre company on the cusp of doing something truly spectacular, it really does provoke questions about the nature of genius and what behaviour people will forgive because someone has been given that label. And watching this film doesn't stop you watching Welles's films at another time - it just offers a different perspective on him, before he was the iconic director he became.
And McKay's performance really is very good.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report