"Me and Orson Welles"

[Glenn Anders]

Very true, gentlemen. In a numerical sense, the reviews have been positive. And for the people who put in so much hard work on ME AND ORSON WELLES, I think we may rejoice, whether or not a few of us disagree with the result. If the public accepts the general feeling the movie conveys, and becomes interested again in Orson Welles' life and body of work, books like those by Chris Feder, Joe McBride, Simon Callow, James Naremore and Clinton Heylin will thrive. And money generated by the film's success may stimulate the keepers of the keys to open the vault where that legendary negative of THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND is said to be kept.

And to the Literary Sociologist: Thank you for the sympathy. I would only add that, pondering the ironies of life in general at the moment, your puritanical certainty about my situation could not be more off base. Chronic pain in several vital parts of my body is the problem. I would rather drink Gin with Todd Baesen and his friend than take prescription pain killers, which fail to do more than numb the aches and make me goofy, without helping me be limber and able to breathe. The trouble is that I can no longer pay Todd's bar bills, which leaves me feeling guilty, and in practical terms, rather isolated.

But thanks for the thought.

Glenn

[Glenn Anders]

And let me be the first to report from Frisco, Mick LaSalle's Chronicle SFGate review of ME AND ORSON WELLES. Mick, usually considered a hard, even eccentric sell, gives the picture highest marks ("Wild Applause") and calls Christian McKay's rendering of Orson Welles, "The most exact and uncanny screen portrayal of an historical figure, ever." Now there's a blurb to match Larry French's in a New York Times Ad!

After a so-so review of its first showing from a national feed reporter for the Chronicle, I think that Todd and Larry may have had Mick out for a glass of Ovaltine before he rated ME AND ORSON WELLES, but I can only stand in wonder that LaSalle had a higher regard for McKay's performance than I did. He says his great fear is that McKay will be whip-sawed by INGLOURIOUS BESTERD's Christolph Waltz, and they will fall between two stools for the Best Supporting Actor Oscar.

Here, read it for yourself. All involved can frame this one:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 1AUH0F.DTL

Glenn

[tonyw]

Posting from a "Wikipedia" perspective, I'm sorry to hear about Glenn's condition but wish him every good thought concerning his mode of conviviality that reminds of the old University bar culture of long ago where alcoholic stimulation and good conversation complemented each other perfectly. I'm just sorry that geographical distance prevents a closer association that would make me enjoy even better the stimulating erudition that he frequently posts here. I will toast him tonight when I watch the second part of THE HUMAN CONDITION this evening.

[Alfred Willmore]

tonyw wrote

...conviviality that reminds of the old University bar culture of long ago where alcoholic stimulation and good conversation complemented each other perfectly. I'm just sorry that geographical distance prevents a closer association that would make me enjoy even better the stimulating erudition that he frequently posts here. I will toast him tonight...

Well I'd recommend that when wellesnetters visit San Francisco that they join Glenn and his friend Todd Baeson at the Ha-Ra-Club for one of Ha-Ra's terrible gimlets. You will really enjoy the conversation and conviviality.
Wilfred

[mido505]

I'm a little flush, lately, so if I make it out there I'll treat...

[Alan Brody]

Just saw it yesterday afternoon. 300 seat theatre, but only about 50 people for the 2:45 pm show. About 50 people waiting in line for the 5:15 show. Oldest audience I've seen in a movie theatre in quite some time, I was one of the few under 60. Didn't see any teenage Zac fans there at all. Maybe they were waiting for the 8 pm show, but somehow I doubt it. It is nice though, to see a good nostalgia piece that brings older folks out to the theatre once in a while, a rare phenomenon even in Welles's day, when he made The Magnificent Ambersons for a more mature demographic (and paid the price for it).

The movie itself is highly enjoyable, and Christian MacKay is as amazing as everyone says. After seeing this film, I think he should consider reviving his one-man Orson Welles show, Rosebud, if only to make some kind of video of it, if they haven't already. I'd really love to see it, especially after seeing this film. Zac exudes a nice combination of teen arrogance and sensitivity in a role that is unlikely to win him any new fans, but let's hope at least some of his existing fans turn out for it. Claire Danes and the others offer solid support across the board. Unfortunately I can't see this film doing much at the box office, but I'd be glad to be wrong. We're probably lucky to be able to see it at all, and if it wasn't such a mediocre year for movies, my guess is we wouldn't have. It seems to appeal only to those old enough to remember who Orson Welles was, but the crowd yesterday seemed to enjoy the film well enough.

I think Glenn has a valid point, however, when he says they should have focused more on the historical aspect of the production itself. For me, the chief flaw of the film is that we don't get enough sense of why the Mercury Ceasar is considered such a legendary production, or of the anti-fascist context that made it such a cause-celebre at the time. This lack of political context does cause the film to seem a bit fluffy and insubstantial, as some critics have complained. We also don't get enough demonstration of why Welles was considered a theatrical genius instead of merely an egomaniacal but charismatic taskmaster, as he is presented here.

We do however, get one priceless scene of Welles's inspired charlatanry in a radio studio, when he does a program without rehearsing and astonishes his fellow actors by suddenly improvising a speech from Ambersons into the story. And we also get a lot of great behind-the-scenes moments of the Mercury at work, as well as some compelling recreations of the actual production of Ceasar, These things alone make the film well worth seeing, especially for Welles fans, although it is during the 'performance' scenes that the political context is more acutely missed.

Interesting that in Box Office Mojo's report for the film, the grade breakdown has as many 'F' grades as 'A' grades, an indication that the film polarizes viewers.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id ... welles.htm

I'd give it a 'B+' myself. In general, it's entertaining and well done, but if the producers were aiming for some of Zac's teen fan base, my guess is they've probably missed it.

[purplepines]

I saw it last night (Monday) at 5pm in Summit, NJ. Old crowd of about 10 people, I was certainly the youngest. I liked the film more than I thought I would, mostly because of production design and the pacing. And the Orson role was obviously done with lavish dedication. When it comes out for rental, I'll definitely indulge in one of my arguably stranger tendencies: watch it in black and white. And, Alan, regarding your opinion of this year's movies, I would say that if I enjoyed more than 10 in one year, it can't have been a bad year. Maybe my tastes are more wide ranging, but here's my list of favorites:

1 Taken
2 Coraline
3 The International
4 Duplicity
5 Food Inc
6 Moon
7 The Hurt Locker
8 In The Loop
9 The Taking of Pelham 123
10 District 9
11 Inglourious Basterds
12 9
13 The Informant!
14 Julie & Julia
15 A Serious Man
16 Fantastic Mr Fox
17 Up In the Air
18 Me and Orson Welles

My Top 5 At This Juncture:
1. A Serious Man
2. In The Loop
3. Moon
4. Up in the Air
5. Inglorious Basterds

[Alan Brody]

I agree The Hurt Locker is a very strong piece of work, and I'm glad it won the New York Critics award last night. I haven't seen Up In the Air yet, so you're right, I probably shouldn't proclaim the year mediocre until I've seen all the evidence (I was actually quoting one critic). I also thought the Tarentino was a lot of fun, but it looks like Chistopher Waltz, the guy that played the main nazi, is sweeping all of the critical awards for best supporting actor, so Christian McKay's Welles might not have much of a chance.

[Magentarose67]

Golden Globe nominations were announced earlier this week, and in a bit of a shock, Christian McKay was...snubbed :

http://www.goldenglobes.org/nominations/

It could be a long shot...but an Oscar nomination is perhaps less probable now. Here's hoping, though!

[ToddBaesen]

Christian McKay didn't even get nominated for a Golden Globe or a screen actors guild award.

Yet the people at Freestyle are thinking McKay will be nominated as Best Actor?

Jesus, the days that we have seen...

And what idiots run the PR departments in Hollywood.

I just hope this woman at Freestyle gets fired for her idiotic mistakes!

[Roger Ryan]

I saw ME AND ORSON WELLES yesterday afternoon and found it to be a very faithful adaption of the novel; many of the film's attributes and flaws can be traced straight back to the source material. I'm pleased that a film like this can still be made in today's culture/economy. Christian McKay's performance is indeed very good, but it is an interpretation of the fictional Welles found in the book: bombastic, manipulative and decidely cruel. This is appropriate for the drama to work as it is intended to, but not always necessary. I feel the same way about the overly randy interpretation of both Joseph Cotten and Norman Lloyd (the least commendable aspect of the novel for me). Fortunately, both McKay and director Linklater are skillful enough to give the character of Welles a bit more dimension than might have been found in the book. There is an undeniable charm about him and we thrill to his own exhilaration at creating something new.

I was troubled very little by the supposed lack of context for the staging of CAESAR as a critique on fascism. In fact, I think it works to the film's benefit to hold back on exactly what the play will look like until the climatic opening night sequence. When the lights come up on opening night with the characters all in costume, it hits the film viewer like it must have hit the audience: "My God, Welles is addressing current events in Europe!" The impact of this realization, along with the film's tremendous recreation of the staging itself, is representative of the magic Welles was going for; it's proof that the man had a truly startling master plan all along.

Ultimately, what makes ME AND ORSON WELLES succeed is that Linklater deftly supports the true theme of the film throughout: art and drama need to be reinvented in the present tense for them to remain vital. Like the bird that is released from the museum interior during the final scene, great drama cannot remain under glass. It has to be freed from the restraint of the past and lived in the moment. Welles' radically altered vision of CAESAR is, of course, a shining example of this. There is a great moment where McKay, as Welles, asks himself "How am I ever going to top this?" Linklater holds on McKay's face long enough for the viewer to see the wheels start to turn behind the eyes as young Welles is already planning for the future. This is mirrored by the Zac Efron character and his girlfriend leaving the museum together, cautiously optimistic about their own futures. We share their excitement for a moment until Linklater's God's-eye camera brings about a sense of sadness: looking down on the tiny people of New York, 1937 we are reminded that all of this is over and in the past. It is now up to us to reinvent.

[Glenn Anders]

A most fair assessment, Roger. And Alan's, too. [Todd 's explanation reminded me why he is Mr. French's equivalent of Charles Foster Kane's Inquirer's caption editor: "This one . . . no THIS ONE!" [We wuz robbed.]

I would grant you everything you say, Roger, in your review, except for two points . . . make that three:

ME AND ORSON WELLES does seem an accurate adaptation of the novel, and most of its virtues derive from the author's depiction of youthful idealism, and the production team's by-the-numbers copy of the Mercury Players' Julius Caesar, so far as that will take the film. Christian McKay's Orson Welles works well dramatically and beautifully up to the handling of his dismissal of the hero. The gratuitous callousness with which that act is staged at the moment of the Mercury Theater's initial success and greatest theatrical triumph robbed me, and I thought the film, of the personal joy and satisfaction that we and the characters should have had in their accomplishment. It left me feeling that Welles not only had warts (fair enough) but that he was not a serious artist. Simply a kind of shallow technical manipulator. Very much like a conventional, insincere, trendy theater or movie director of today.

I would make note, too, that a New Jersey critic pointed out, as do you, that the depictions of Joseph Cotten and Norman LLoyd, rather than suggesting the serious actors they were, present them simply as caricatures whomped up for requirements of the script. He stresses that Norman Lloyd, another Jersey lad, is still alive, still working without any help from the creators of ME AND ORSON WELLES, but when Lloyd passes in a relatively short time, he will remain in the minds of many not familiar with his work the clown and Harpo Marx womanizer shown in the picture. No matter how much of a good sport Lloyd may be in praising the picture today, he has been misrepresented and slandered, something no living artist should allow to go unchallenged. Further, the critic points out that Lloyd had married in the previous summer (of 1936) the woman, Peggy Lloyd he would be with, by all accounts, in a hugely successful union for over the next seventy years. No trivial feat, in the theater or without.

In other words, not only is ME AND ORSON WELLES insensitive toward the dead (Orson Welles, Joseph Cotten, et. al) but toward the living. A much more serious and inexcusable liberty, one beyond the realm of artistic license.

Finally, Roger, I hope as you do that moviegoers unfamiliar with the impact of Welles' Julius Caesar will feel the theatrical landmark production's significance, if not in the crassness of today, then in its own times, momentous as those were.

I did not come away with that feeling. It's pleasant diversions to one side, I felt even after a second viewing that I had attended a casually entertaining embalment, the recreation of a memorable community theater pageant, perhaps.

This is my last word on the subject. It's all but history.

Glenn

[Roger Ryan]

As to what I wanted to see, I would agree that the betrayal of Efron's character robs the viewer of some joy and it is historically inaccurate since Arthur Anderson was not fired from the production. However, according to the way the drama must unfold (in accordance to Mr. Kaplow's original, albeit fictional, storyline), Richard Samuels can not be allowed to continue performing with the Mercury. His has his two weeks in the heady world of Wellesian stagecraft and is banished, persumably wiser for the experience. It's a theme that Welles himself returned to again and again and is not completely dissimilar to how the character of "Orson Welles" treats the character of "Marc Blitzstein" in Welles' own screenplay for THE CRADLE WILL ROCK. Does it reflect poorly on Welles the man? Yes. Was it the best creative choice for the novel? I would have preferred it go a different route to take Samuels out of the picture, but it is an option and the film simply follows suit.

One has to accept that this is a fictional film (even though it is based on actual events) and we're watching characters and not accurate interpretations of the actual people involved. Having said that, I will stress again that I didn't find the behavior of the characters of Cotten and Lloyd to be good drama. This portrayal was the weakest aspect of the novel and, unfortunately, it has been carried over into the film version.

[Alan Brody]

I understand what you guys are saying about the Welles character's two-facedness at the end, but maybe he thought that kind of hard lesson was ultimately the best thing for the kid, and it is an effective plot twist (I could hear it catch many people off guard in the theatre where I saw it). Besides, Zac's character needed a big scene at the end, and I think he did pretty well with it.

[Glenn Anders]

Okay, now that the picture IS history, I think, just another word or two about ME AND ORSON WELLES: I have no real disagreement with the additional points either of you make, Roger and Alan.

I just reason what is obvious now. The approach which the makers of ME AND ORSON WELLES took was both bad business and bad art. The film's basic commercial problem was that audiences, on a whole, had no reason other than the presence of Zac Efron to see this exploration of "life on the wicked, wicked stage." The novel had decent sales, but it was not one of the most sought after youth novels of the last decade. Shakespeare is generally box office poison, and the 1937 Mercury Julius Caesar has faded into theatrical history for Americans today, if they were ever aware of it. And so, we are left with the "word of mouth" that Zac Efron did okay but wasn't allowed to sing or dance much, nor did he really dominate the picture. The new guy nobody ever heard of, Christian McKay, the actor playing this Orson Welles character, stole the picture, in both the hearts and minds of critics and ordinary theater goers alike. (I'm speaking now of the latter who actually saw ME AND ORSON WELLES.) But, in the picture, after a big build up, and a lot of power and charm from this McKay fellow, "Orson Welles" turned out to be not only a jerk but a cruel, vindictive, cowardly jerk, at that!

[If Welles' "kiss off" had been handled less archly, as you suggest, Alan, it would not have left such a bad taste. It appears to have been determined by the Director's whim to stage an homage to THE THIRD MAN, a precious touch which I noticed only on a second viewing, one which only a minority of viewers would get at all. And I agree with you, Roger, that both Cotten and Lloyd were misused historically and dramatically.]

And so, the young picture-going audience who turned out was left with several mixed messages. There was this guy, who later got fat and did wine commercials, who once put on a play in New York, and he was really a bum of the first order. A stereotype is reinforced. And then, if you are young: Don't trust older people (even those ancients five years older than yourself). And, oh yeah, don't take chances! Maybe you could get that girl in the music store without all the public humiliation of being dumped by these snooty Mercury Theater people. It's not what you can do, it's who you know. In the words of that nasty bit of wisdom from my own youth, thinking of Claire Danes' character, "It's not [even] who you know but who you . . . ." Much better to play it safe. If you really "try to do something" -- not sure what -- you still get old and fat, and have to do drunken wine commercials!

Put to one side the atrocious ending which left Welles without a curtain line, and Zac Efron's character without any clear or realistic future, the picture's artistic problem is that it had to make us feel the importance of the effort to stage Julius Caesar enough to enthrall the characters and ordinary joes like most of us. It did not. Such failures, of course, are not limited to little indie films with budgets of under a paltry fifteen million. Take the example of NINE, costing the Weinsteins upwards of $85,000,000. That fiilm, which I saw by accident Monday afternoon (and liked better than the critics), has the very same problem. Today's mass audiences have little knowledge of, or respect for, supreme Cinema Maestro Federico Fellini, who -- unlike Welles -- died pretty much at the top of his acclaim. Many filmgoers will not know who Fellini is. For all the razzmatazz and dazzling musical numbers (which do a fair job of illustrating Fellini's accomplishments, without laboriously identifying them), a person in Elkhart, Indiana, is still being asked to see a film set in the 1960's, in a foreign culture filled with excess, and identify with, indeed empathize with, a self-indulgent, neurotic, wife-cheating, woman-chasing, fabulist director named Guido Contini, who is trying to make some kind of Italian movie. Daniel Day-Lewis, thought to be among the handful of great movie actors of the World, assisted by six or seven of the great beauties and finest actresses of International Cinema, could not bring it off for critics or audiences in 1,900 theaters nationwide last weekend. [The venues are being cut immediately to 900.]

For the record, Christian McKay and his little band do a much better job with their fifteen million. So, the producers of ME AND ORSON WELLES will lose only five million. The Weinsteins, even if they engineer an Oscar Nomination, will probably lose 40 million. The problem is that, in both cases, backers will be less likely to take a chance on such an artistic project, in future. But the Weinsteins probably can come up with another 85 million, if they need it!

Clearly, to me, the director and writers of ME AND ORSON WELLES, following their own message, played it safe. My oft expressed point, repeated to much, I know, is that they might, within their modest budget, have created a Great Film, something that NINE, given its mixed elements, could never have been.. The creators of ME AND ORSON WELLES settled for a modest profit, which they may not get. They, too, will probably grow old and fat, and have to do god knows what.

We are left with ME AND JULIET, a nice little picture, like scores of other nice little pictures released this year.

Happy Hogmanay!

Glenn