Me and Orson Welles / Christian McKay

[tonyw]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/jan20 ... -j25.shtml

This may be the wrong place for this but here is today's review from wsws.org.

Tony W.

[Glenn Anders]

Thank you, tonyw! You have come down "in the place you ought to be."

Shakespeare was no democrat, but neither was Orson Welles a fan of sentimentality, and so, in my opinion, Tracy Montry's review of ME AND ORSON WELLES is among the very most perceptive published so far. I'm sure that Christopher Welles Feder and historians of the period would agree. Despite the excellence of the performances, Christian McKay's in particular, and the visual mis-en-scene of ME AND ORSON WELLES, the screenplay's lightweight neglect of Welles' intent, and the lack of explication for the Fascist allusions in his production of Julius Caesar, robbed the film (and McKay's performance) of more than a long-shot chance at awards. In presenting Orson Welles purely as a cynical manipulator, and his major players simply as womanizers, buffoons, and shallow egotists, any profound empathy for events and people depicted in the film was destroyed.

[I would suggest, as I may have in the past, that in every serious play or film (and certain other projects) he attempted, Welles stressed the male dominant, fascistic or totalitarian bent which he saw throughout human development, and which he may have recognized and fought deeply within himself: "The Black Macbeth," The Cradle Will Rock, "The Modern Dress (better, Fascism-alarming) Julius Caesar, Danton's Death, The Five Kings, "The Heart of Darkness," CITIZEN KANE, THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, JOURNEY INTO FEAR, (GILDA), THE STRANGER, THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI, MACBETH, OTHELLO, (THE THIRD MAN), MR. ARKADIN, TOUCH OF EVIL, THE TRIAL, CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT, THE IMMORTAL STORY, THE DEEP, and THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND. Had ME AND ORSON WELLES been handled by better writers, as Tracy Montry remarks, that driving conviction would have been the key to Orson Welles' character, to humanizing him, and making us understand his complexity and why his players and audiences leapt to embrace his artistic visions. With the exception of F FOR FAKE, in which Welles gave himself over in gentle acceptance to Robert Graves, and in admiring bliss to Oja Kodar, can anyone think of a serious major work of Welles which does not stress the male-dominant "fascist" theme?]

After all, does not Tracy Montry do here what a critic is supposed to do? Point out the strengths of what is in an artistic work, provide informational context, and lament what is missing?

Because of tonyw's welcome addition to the discussion, in showing the (crucial?) relevance of the Fascist theme today , and because of some confusion about the general and public recognition of the Fascist theme in Welles' 1937 Julius Caesar, let me call your attention to the production's initial report in perhaps the most read (and looked at!) American publication of its period, LIFE Magazine, November 22, 1937, p. 84-86:

http://books.google.com/books?id=kz8EAA ... q=&f=false

A short paragraph begins: "Shakespeare in modern dress has long been familiar to U.S. audiences. Now to New York comes a production of Julius Caesar in which the Roman conqueror looks like Mussolini, wears fascist garb, gives the fascist salute. . . ."

The article is replete with five photographs. They show Welles' Mercury actors, in black military uniforms, "hailing Caesar" with outstretched hands; Caesar (Joe Holland), on way to his death, striking a pose for his wife, chin jutting up in Benito's inimitable style of bravado; Cassius enlisting the liberal, Brutus, in his assassination plot; Brutus administering "the unkindest cut of all" to Caesar; and Mark Antony rousing the Roman populace over the cruel butchery of their Dictator.

A caption for the first photo announces: "CAESAR RESEMBLES MUSSOLINI, GIVES THE FASCIST SALUTE." And the last photo caption tells us: "[Antony] arouses the fury of the mob, destroys the "liberals," and paves the way for a new Caesar to march triumphantly into the city with fascist banners and floodlights."

What must have struck Welles (and which does not evidently register upon us now, in our zombie-like torpor, advancing toward our own totalitarian, imperialistic disaster) was how Shakespeare's Julius Caesar provided a perfect template for what had happened in Europe, what might happen in America: Julius Caesar, a strong man, an admired hero to the people, has become first a legal consul (or president), then in time of stress, a dictator, and as the play begins, is considering the emasculation of the Senate, prior to having himself declared an Emperor and a God. He must be stopped! say the proletarians and their leader, Cassius. They engage the liberal Brutus and his Liberals in a plot against this Supreme Egotist, Julius Caesar, only to be themselves destroyed by a new strong man, Mark Antony, whose subsequent engagement in civil war will make Octavian (Augustus) the Emperor (and eventually the "god") Brutus and Cassius sought to thwart.

The struggle against the beginnings of tyranny has always been thus, or something like it, in every time and place.

Tracy Montry and Mido505 clear up for us our ignorance and confusion over Welles' emphasis and intent, point us in the direction of understanding the peril the American Republic finds itself in at the moment.

Orson Welles saw it so clearly. Why can't we?

Too bad the writers of ME AND ORSON WELLES did not. Christian McKay, at least, would have had his Academy Award Nomination, and maybe, an Oscar.

Glenn

[tonyw]

I've not yet seen this film so can not really comment to the extent that I would like since the monopoly dominance of screens by Kerasotes in this area and the poor choice in Family and Blockhead Video stores make it unlikely that it will ever appear on DVD here.

However, I'd like to comment on Cotten's autobiography. He showed the first draft to Welles who was appalled at the fact that inaccuracies occurred and that his old friend was repeating rumors he should have known were untrue. I believe Welles sent the first draft back with a list of corrections and both got lost resulting in a very impoverished show-biz, second version.

Any film that subordinates the historical and political resonance of Welles's original JULIUS CAESAR stage production is suspect in my mind and suggests that Linklater may have been better employed directing another version of BEFORE SUNSET with that romantic couple Ethan Hawke and Julie Delphy. However, I may be wrong but the stills that appear of the production in THE ORSON WELLES STORY that I ran for my class last Thursday clearly indicate the intention behind this production.

[ToddBaesen]

The Isle of Man Today celebrates Christian McKay's BAFTA nomination:

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/Orson-We ... 6011415.jp

Meanwhile, at a screening of The Last Station today, I met Jan Wahl, the KCBS movie critic who put ME AND ORSON WELLES at the top of her ten best list. She told me she thought it was "very stupid" that Christian McKay had been listed as "Best Actor" on the screening copies send to Academy members and wondered why he hadn't been nominated for the Screen Actors Guild or Golden Globe awards.

Incidentally, Christopher Plummer, who Welles originally asked to play Prince Hal in Chimes at Midnight, delivers a beautiful performance as Leo Tolstoy in The Last Station.
I also saw Plummer play John Barrymore from the front row when he brought his one-man play Barrymore to San Francisco. Wouldn't it be fabulous if Christian McKay did his one-man play about Orson Welles in a few selected cities in America?

[RayKelly]

McKay's awards snub, like the poor box office gross, is a result of one of the worst marketing campaigns I have seen.

Jan Wahl and others are right that McKay should have been touted for best supporting actor on the screeners. The screeners were very important for MAOW since most voters have not seen the film (based on Todd's estimate that less than 180,000 people nationwide paid to see the film).

I think the biggest mistake was the slow roll out. It should have opened wide on a Friday with Zac Efron doing the rounds on Good Morning America, Conan, Letterman. For me, McKay was the best part of the film, but I would have milked Efron's star power for everything it had.

[Alan Brody]

That's a good point, Ray. Why bother getting Zac Efron in the first place if you're going to wind up marketing it like an art film? Of course, without Zac it probably wouldn't have been made in the first place.

Yes Todd, that would be fabulous if McKay reprised his OW show, but considering how the film bombed, that's very unlikely now. I'd settle for having him perform it privately and have Linklater film it, a'la the Robert Altman/Phillip Baker Hall film of Secret Honor.

[ToddBaesen]

Alan:

What a fabulous idea.

Richard Linklater filming Christian McKay in his one man play of ROSEBUD. In fact it would be so cheap and easy to do, it might make an exciting extra disc on the DVD release of ME AND ORSON WELLES!

[ToddBaesen]

Looking over todays Academy nominations, the big "snub" is of course that Christian McKay did not get nominated for Me and Orson Welles, but really, it isn't a snub... Mr. McKay was simply in a film the was poorly distributed, and like an Orson Welles movie, made very little money. It's like saying why wasn't Falstaff nominated for any Academy Awards in 1967. Looking back, that is obviously quite a legitimate question, but at the time nobody in the Academy had even seen Falstaff! So the answer is not that the film or the performances were bad, but that the movies in question were simply not seen by Academy members.

As as perfect example, Me and Orson Welles did make more money in it's brief run than The Messenger, yet somehow Woody Harrelson got nominated for that film, (which I haven't seen), but Mr. McKay did not.

So, the answer, lies not in the stars, but what a inexperienced PR firm screwed up, big time, by dividing the vote for Mr. McKay between "Best Actor" and "Best Supporting Actor."

We will never know how close Mr. McKay came to a nomination, but I'll bet it was probably only a handful of votes... probably caused by the Academy members who voted for him as "Best Actor.

[Alan Brody]

Too bad about the Oscar snub. Sean Axmaker listed McKay is one he would have voted for.
http://movies.msn.com/oscars/snubs/?GT1=28101&mpc=2&

Richard Linklater filming Christian McKay in his one man play of ROSEBUD. In fact it would be so cheap and easy to do

Sure, if they can make Paranormal Activity for 15K, they could at least raise that for a video of Rosebud.

[RayKelly]

http://www.wellesnet.com/isle-of-man-me-and-orson-welles/

The Isle of Man government pumped £60 million into a number of film projects through the island's Media Development Fund between 2007 and 2016. But the return on investment was only £32 million, prompting calls in the legislature for an inquiry.

Those investments included co-funding Me and Orson Welles, starring Zac Efron and Christian McKay, which cost the Manx government more than £9 million.

Despite favorable reviews, Richard Linklater's Me and Orson Welles was a box office bomb in 2008, costing US $25 million to make and earning just a little more than US$2 million at the box office worldwide, according to Box Office Mojo.

[Wich2]

My late friend Arthur Anderson enjoyed speaking with author Robert Kaplow, and wished the project well overall.

However, his late wife Alice, former actor and casting agent, loathed the whole thing! She saw Arthur's good-faith recounting of his time with Orson, as having been mercilessly twisted in the heavy fictionalization/sensationalizing of the piece.

- Craig