Zac Efron Versus Orson Welles

A couple of weeks ago I had covered what turned out to be a brief interview session with the cast (Zac Efron, Claire Danes) and director (Richard Linklater)of the movie Me and Orson Welles.  I talked with the group about how they would like their career to be remembered and, more importantly, how they would like their recently released Welles inspired film to be reviewed.  Since the movie is centered around the impending opening of Orson Welles’ 1937 play Julius Caesar, I thought this would be an appropriate way to link the actors to their actual work.  While they did mention pushing boundaries and staying ahead of the times, they also didn’t seem to have thought much about this question before I had asked it (Obviously none of them were expecting to be done any time soon) and in a way seemed more concerned with self-approval of their work; at least this was the impression Linklater gave off.  Well, after opening weekend I hope that these sentiments are still enjoyed.

The overarching plot of the film is fairly straight forward depicting The Mercury Theatre in all its struggles to put together an opening night as Orson Welles pisses off one person after another whilst defending his theatrical principle and individual dogma.  On the other hand, young Richard (Efron) manages to entangle himself in the bustle by fudging his own adeptness at playing the ukulele, develop artificial feelings towards a self-concerned assistant (Danes), and go toe to toe with Orson himself.

The acting itself was something that I found to be somewhat inconsistent.  Christian McKay gives an outstanding performance portraying the multiple layers that make up the man including an arrogant brute, a self-affirming womanizer, a theatrical renegade, and an entertainment genius.  However, this was only to be expected since McKay has played the character for a few years now and for this reason I find it difficult to bring myself to award more critical acclaim than he has already been presented with.  On the other hand, I found Efron’s character to lack a certain depth that left me wanting more from his performance.  Some people are suggesting his imminent leap from Disney heartthrob to respected leading man, but I would have expected a little more with such inferences – being likeable and an audience schmoozer can only take a character so far.

The true essence of the movie, however, lies in the messages it tries to convey.  For one, the combination of the story and the acting exposes just about every characters insecurities and doubts.  Despite each character at some point or another feeling vulnerable, the play ultimately makes it to opening night.  Is this implying that working past one’s insecurities is necessary to achieve success or is it a more straightforward suggestion in that everyone, no matter who they are, possesses certain some sort of anxiety in their life?  The characters also discuss the moral high ground on a couple of occasions, specifically in reference to telling Welles when he is wrong.  Apparently this is something that one simply does not do and, thus, the conflict between saving personal pride versus submitting oneself to the superciliousness of another for the purpose of maintaining his or her position.  While I could go on debating the different routes of each decision and the importance of personal preservation I will restrain myself, but merely suggest the importance of such a question.  And finally towards the end of the film, after Richard has been to the top of his performing career and his love life and then quickly let back down, he notes an important theme, especially for the younger generation; “It’s an exciting time because the best is all ahead of us”.  Personally, I found this to be a very relatable premise – connecting 1930’s attitudes to 2009/10 attitudes for young people – at a time when it is most essential to remember such an outlook.