If there was ever a film to be released in 2009 that felt like a film released in 1940, it would be "Me and Orson Welles". Now, I'm sure you'll say " Well, duh! The film takes place in that era, so how could it not possibly feel like the 1940's?" Yes, from a production side of things "Me and Orson Welles" has tremendous values, as it has seemingly captured the images and times of New York pre-World War II. But, my statement isn't based on the notion of capturing the 40's. No, it's based on the notion that Richard Linklater's film harkens back to the storytelling found in films from the 'golden age' of movies. What kind of stories are found from that time period? Easy, they're stories that seemingly float on cloud nine. Nothing bad really happens and nothing really important happens. To avoid generalization though, I'm not completely saying that films from that are era aren't important. Obviously films like "Citizen Kane", "Gone with the Wind", and "Casablanca" show the depth the time period has to offer, but if there was one phrase I could use to describe the era it would be "inconsequential fun".
Despite what may seem like a sour connotation to the aforementioned phrase, I must say that it is meant to be sweet. If there is one guarantee in my film life it's that if I pop in any film from the '40's, it's very likely that said film would be a pleasant, fun filled film that moves at a brisk pace with light aspirations, and more than likely, it would put a smile on my face. In respect to "Me and Orson Welles", it was a 1940's type of film for me. Throughout the film's dramatic lightness, I went along for the ride and had a smile from reel to reel. The film follows the life of Richard (Zac Efron), a bored student looking to make his big break as an actor. In what seems like a serendipitous venture to the Mercury Theatre, Richard happens to catch the eye of Orson Welles (Christan McKay), who in a weeks time is putting on his own rendition of Shakespeare's 'Julius Caesar'. Richard receives the part of Lucius and as the production crew nears it's performance date, Richard starts to pine for Welles assistant, Sonja (Claire Danes). Needless to say, both Richard and the production crew do a little bit of growing up with one another.
From the small description I offered, you could probably guess that the film is a coming of age film, but this aspect of the film is a rather weak component of Linklater's film. The same could be said with the love story that occurs between Richard and Sonja. This could be in part because of the slow boil chemistry found between Efron and Danes, but this is something I won't completely hold against the film. Aside from these life moments, the best part of Linklater's film is its depiction of the creation process, as well as the performance of Christian McKay as Orson Welles. Although I've never been part of a play or Broadway production,I imagine that with so many moving parts contingent on so many cues that it would be a chaotic experience. This particular aspect is in full bloom, as Linklater captures the hilarious breakdowns and triumphs of putting on a show. And when you toss in a megalomaniac persona like Orson Welles, the chaos becomes more enhanced.
Obviously when a film has a role that focuses on such a prominent and demanding figure like Orson Welles, you better have a damn good actor to fill his shoes. Thankfully for Richard Linklater, Christian McKay was more than willing to emulate Orson Welles. No, scratch that. He was willing to BE Orson Welles. Aside from the performance of Christoph Waltz in "Inglourious Basterds", there hasn't been a more charismatic and commanding performance than that of McKay's who lives up to the reputation of Welles. With his thunderous voice and ability to sweet talk his way into profundity, McKay delivers simply one of the best performances of the year. It's a performance that in many ways propels all of the film's great moments. I don't want to say McKay is the complete life of the film, but it definitely is the best part. Certainly the performance trumps Linklater's coming of age story, but the film as a whole is more than pleasant. Like the films from the 40's, it doesn't need to be a profound piece of work in order to justify its existence. Instead, it's a film built on mad cap fun with only a few strings attached. Whether it was the awkward laughs or Linklater's look at the chaotic construction of a play, I felt the film's light breeze carrying me from start to finish.
No comments:
Post a Comment