Archive for September, 2010

A new play on Orson Welles, PEARLS BEFORE SWINE to open in Sydney, Australia

Saturday, September 11th, 2010

Citizen Kane has a reputation as being the "best film ever made," but less well known is its reputation for inspiring more people to become filmmakers than perhaps any other movie.   Interestingly enough, Welles career as stage actor never seemed to provide the same kind of inspiration for younger actors as it did to directors, probably because of the great influence Elia Kazan and the Actor's Studio had on the stage shortly after Welles left Broadway in the forties for Hollywood.  However, many incidents in Welles's  own life have provided fertile material for many films and plays.  Among the plays are Richard France’s  Obediently Yours, Orson Welles, Austin Pendleton's Orson's Shadow and Mark Jenkins's  Rosebud: The Lives of Orson Welles, with Christian McKay.  Now comes the latest play on Orson Welles,  Blake Erickson's Pearls Before Swine, an Evening with Orson Welles, which will open in Sydney, Australia on September 12, 2010. (See pictures at the Wellesnet Facebook page HERE.)

After seeing a promotional clip for the show,  I was intrigued enough to ask Blake Erickson to tell me a bit more about the production and how it all came about:

*****

LAWRENCE FRENCH: How did you first become interested in Orson Welles and did seeing Christian McKay in Me and Orson Welles have any influence on your doing the show?

BLAKE ERICKSON: Me And Orson Welles opening at about the same time as this show was quite a twist of fate. I was well into the process of writing the script before I even knew of the film. Having seen it, clearly Christian McKay is an actor of immense talent and I have huge respect for his portrayal;  similarly I enjoyed Zac Efron's performance, as well.  McKay certainly nailed it.  But his portrayal was set in a specific time and place, whereas mine is set much later, and at a different stage of his career.  The Welles in the film is filled with bravado and potential, and is yet to fully explore the consequences of his talent and ability. The Welles I play has experienced Hollywood, has been beaten around a lot more, and perhaps is a little more philosophical about his art and his own abilities.

You mentioned that you were asked to do the show, but was the idea of doing a one-man show on Orson Welles something you were already interested in before you were asked?

Orson Welles has always loomed large as a figure in my life, and as an actor I felt the reasons why I went into theatre were the same as his.  Not to draw any great similarities, as Welles was a genius, but this desire to create something that can inspire people was definitely common ground. When I first saw Citizen Kane as a teenager it was a revelation. Here was something so ahead of its time, and like Welles himself,  it is,  in word: prodigious.  However the idea that perhaps one day I would play Welles had seemed so incredibly distant.  How can you reproduce what he did?  How can anyone?  It turns out, only with a great deal of research and a certain level of ignorance -- the very things to which Welles credited the success of  Citizen Kane! So the show was an idea that was bubbling inside my head, until finally I was commissioned by the Sydney Fringe Festival to write and perform it.

What is the actual time frame of Welles's career that you cover in the show?

The play is set after the end of war;  he has completed Citizen Kane and has had The Magnificent Ambersons taken away from him, so he's become for a time this tragic character.  He goes out on the lecture circuit to make some money to fund future projects, and in his lecture he reflects on his life.

Are you also directing the play?

No, it's a complicated endeavor, certainly, and directing this would be too difficult for an actor flying solo. I've been extremely fortunate to be able to work with a director like Sarah Blackstone, who is one of those immensely talented people you have the fortune of working with from time to time.  She's a huge admirer of Welles's work, as well, so we've been kindred spirits throughout.

Since Welles's  career has been very well documented was there a particular area you wanted to show in the play that you felt may not have been that well known or written about?

Welles is internationally famous for his work, without question. So when you come to explore his life, that seems a logical starting point.  But I set the piece essentially in his 'lost years', immediately post-war, when he was out of Hollywood, and dabbling in various projects but essentially just trying to find his place in the world. Which is very typical of someone slightly younger, but Welles' childhood and teenage years were so action-packed it had to be pushed to his late-twenties and early-thirties.  Looking at those years, when he was rejected by a great many of his peers, when he found it difficult to work satisfactorily--I thought it would be fascinating to use that as a prism through which to look back on his career.  It is very much 'Welles on Welles', but an almost vulnerable Welles looking back on his fearless youth. That's not to say that I'm one of those people who believe he's a tragic figure, I think he created some extraordinary work in his later life.  But at this stage of his career, when he was 29 going on 30,  it was a difficult time for him.

As a stage actor, was Welles career in the Mercury Theatre inspiring to you?

His 'declaration of principles' for the Mercury Theatre is one of those things that has an almost sacred and emotional resonance!  When I came across what he'd written, it was a summation of everything.  And not just for me as an actor, but for actors everywhere.  We all sometimes have to make huge sacrifices to say what we want to say, and write what we want to write, and do what we want to do. Fortunately the stars can align and you can combine work with a great love, as has happened with this show. His philosophy, perhaps tempered with a slightly more conciliatory and democratic flavor remains in the modern theatre.  He definitely continues to inspire the way theatre works.

If the play is a compilation of Welles's written and spoken words, have you attempted to keep it mostly accurate, rather than trying to make a fictional re-creation of events in Welles’s life, as was the case with much of  Me and Orson Welles?

One of the things that people tend to forget about Orson Welles is how young he was during his most celebrated era. It's striking to watch the press conference he gave immediately after the War of the Worlds broadcast - he looks like he's about 16.  The way that Welles was established in the recent film was obviously older than he really was, and I felt that was a shame.  I find it incredibly engaging that at the time the film is set  he was just 22 years old. He was a kid. As impossible as it is to imagine Orson Welles as a 'kid'.  He was a human being with doubts and flaws, and not just a looming yet brilliant figure.  So with that in mind, I wanted to stick as strictly to the truth as possible. Now, some anecdotes were too delicious to sacrifice for the sake of historical accuracy, so fans of his 'Frozen Peas' tirade in particular will enjoy the imagining of a script editing session at CBS.  Also for the purposes of establishing a cohesive narrative I've written certain sections to act as bridges between his words,  but his own words comprise 85% to 90% of the entire piece.  And I think that's exactly the way he would have wanted it.

And final thoughts you'd care to make about Orson Welles?

I really hope at the end of this, that the public knows Orson Welles a little better as a person and not just a caricature. He was a man who constructed his own myth through hard work and the occasional exaggeration, so it's sometimes difficult to see the woods for the trees. I also hope that those people who know the work and the man may experience what it might be like if we still had him with us. I was born the year of his death, and I'll never have an opportunity to see him live.  As he says in my show, the desire to create art is equivalent to being able to 'touch creation'. I hope I've done him proud.

*****

Orson Welles answers a new McCarthy Clone, Glenn Beck with his 1947 “Voice of Freedom” show

Wednesday, September 1st, 2010

VOICE OF FREEDOM – recorded in June, 1947

The people is everybody. This grand, mind-staggering "we"—yes, it is all of us—all and every one of us. A government dedicated to the sanctity of the unpopular, a reputation thoughtfully attuned to the unimportant vote, which guards as national treasures the minorities.

We the people, where are we headed now?

Backwards.

_______________________

I interrupt Orson Welles to offer my own thoughts of what Mr. Welles wrote over 50 years ago:

"Jesus, the days I have seen..."

And how true Orson Welles words were -- way back in 1947!

Or William Shakespeare's against the Puritans in England, in 1598 when he wrote HENRY IV.

Just witness the recent rally in Washington, D.C.  held by Glenn Beck.

Now, I must ask how anyone who has actually read the American Constitution, (except for Glenn Beck) can possibly believe it condones in any way, shape or form what he said in his recent rally in our Nations Capitol?

Mr. Beck is nothing less than this era's Joesph McCarthy and Beck's so-called hero, Orson Welles would be the first person to call him the George Wallace of this era.

Likewise, the the founding fathers of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin (who Welles played) and all the others would certainly be happy to denounce the idiotic ideas of Mr. Beck and his notion of America as a "Christian Nation."

Maybe I'm wrong, but my own reading of the Constitution makes me feel that I can safely be of any any religion, or none at all, as I choose, in America.  But perhaps I'm wrong about this... Maybe Glenn Beck and I can fight it out in the Supreme Court.  But, seriously, everyone in there right mind knows America was a nation founded on the concept of religious freedom.  To call this country a "Christian Nation" makes me feel Mr. Beck is nothing less than what I think Orson Welles would call him: A FASCIST!  His thoughts go against everything that the founders  of the Constitution were against. Many of Mr. Beck's followers have suggested that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it and see how often the framers used the words "God," or "Creator," or "Jesus," or "Lord."

Well, go ahead. Give the Constitution a look. Orson Welles clearly knew what it contained when he recited it for a recording in the dark Watergate era of President Richard Nixon. Except for ONE notable instance, no "Christian" words ever appear in the U.S. Constitution.  In fact, the original Constitution bars any religious test to hold any federal office in the United States. Which means a Jew, a Catholic, a Buddist or a Muslim can serve as the President of the United States of America. So even if President Obama is a Muslim (which clearly, he is not), he could still serve as President.

Now,  I return you to the words of wisdom written by the great Orson Welles:

_______________________

We have become the pilots of suicide. Fearful, perversely fearful of our scheduled but rejected greatness: when the ideal dies so dies the civilization, which was supported by it. It may be that this ideal of ours is only hibernating. But there are no signs of a spring. The Roosevelt Democratic Party was not a political party—it was a way of life for most of us who work for a living—the good cheer for most Americans born into darkness.

...That way has become a conspiracy: we stand accused of every black brand of disloyalty. We are no longer spokesmen because we cannot speak. Not one of us is small or casual enough to escape attention.

Ours was an argument, which carried its own eloquence. They kicked us off the air, the old, old interests of aggregated wealth. It is radio and this strange new medium of radio silence that is the subject. The Truman doctrine was not handed down by some tablets of the law. FDR won his campaigns—all of them—on the air. Freedom of assembly: airtime was our meeting hall and we are now denied its use; a killing censorship or else collaborate (or else.) It was all very pleasant and urbane.

Free speech has been politely and unobtrusively murdered—we had nothing to lose but our microphones. Your obedient servant as a result of his efforts as a radio commentator has been successfully muffled now even in his old profession of radio actor. Not that he hasn't had some offers. The radio you know is always available if you'll promise never to use the radio to say anything. A big, big manufacturer of breakfast food, for instance, sent out a feeler lately. Five broadcasts a week at big, big money might be mine if I would undertake to deal exclusively with (what I must take to be unconscious irony) the 'human interest side' of the news. There was an even longer string than that attached to it. The proposed contract covered not only airtime, but also all my waking time. Every public utterance was to be checked for content with a special board of advertising agency ideologists. In a word, they were putting up a heap of dough to buy outright a man's long-term opinion!  …It’s more than possible that radio is happier without me, but I can speak for my fellow spokesmen and I do. They were most necessary debaters. The debate was most necessary. Now the debate is closed. It must be opened. And now thank you and until the next time—until our American radio is free again…

I remain as always — obediently yours,

ORSON WELLES