Richard Samuels (Zac Efron) walks past shops on a busy city street
Film review

Me and Orson Welles

2008 · Directed by Richard Linklater · 1h 54m · MPA PG-13

In a sentenceChristian McKay makes sharing a stage with Orson Welles look like an unusually difficult form of employment

Richard Samuels (Zac Efron) is a young man drawn into the theatre around Orson Welles (Christian McKay). As a production of Julius Caesar takes shape, Richard finds himself in the company of Sonja Jones (Claire Danes), George Coulouris (Ben Chaplin) and John Houseman (Eddie Marsan). He wants a place in this company, but its dominant personality has priorities of his own. Romantic hopes complicate Richard’s introduction to professional theatre, where actors must work together even when one man commands most of the attention. The work on stage proceeds alongside his coming of age.

Plays from YouTube when you press play; nothing loads from them until then.

Fi1m review

Richard Linklater’s backstage comedy is worth an evening for Christian McKay’s commanding Orson Welles. The theatre scenes have an infectious enthusiasm for the work, though the young protagonist and his romantic education are considerably less absorbing.

Me and Orson Welles is an enjoyable backstage comedy with a rather ordinary young man at its centre. Richard Linklater gives the theatre scenes enough attention to make the work itself interesting, and Christian McKay supplies an appetite for attention that is often funny to watch. The coming-of-age story is less absorbing, especially when romance takes over. For anyone interested in actors and the difficult business of getting them to work together, there is still plenty here to enjoy.

Christian McKay’s Orson Welles has the confidence of someone who expects an interruption to be followed by an apology. The voice is persuasive, but his easy assumption of authority makes the performance work: being surrounded by other actors seems only reasonable to this man. We laughed at his self-importance, then caught ourselves wanting everyone else to get out of his way. That response explains the performance’s appeal, and also why the film struggles whenever it turns its attention elsewhere.

Richard Linklater handles the theatrical material with a welcome interest in how a performance is assembled. The staging of Julius Caesar has a precision of movement and rhythm that makes the company’s work worth watching in its own right. We are allowed to appreciate the actors doing their jobs, without needing every moment to deliver another lesson about ambition. Backstage dramas can become so occupied with personal grievances that they forget to make the production itself interesting; this one remembers.

Laurence Dorman’s production design is convincing in its period detail, though we sometimes notice how carefully everything has been arranged. Dick Pope’s cinematography contributes to that polish, with a clarity that suits the theatrical material but can make the surroundings feel a little too tidy. Nic Ede’s costumes belong comfortably within this carefully presented world. The craft is assured, even when the film could use a little more disorder around its performers.

Zac Efron’s Richard Samuels is the difficulty. He is an agreeable presence, but his relative blandness becomes conspicuous beside a performance that can command a scene so easily. The screenplay by Vincent Palmo Jr. and Holly Gent, adapted from Robert Kaplow’s novel, gives the young protagonist familiar problems without making his responses particularly distinctive. Claire Danes brings more ease to Sonja Jones, yet the romance never develops enough urgency to justify the attention it receives. We understand why a young observer is useful to this story, but he needs to become interesting company himself.

Sandra Adair’s editing cannot quite disguise how unevenly the film holds our interest. The slow start asks for patience, and the stretches away from the theatre can feel longer than their dramatic importance warrants. Michael J. McEvoy’s music fits the amiable tone without giving the romance much extra force. None of this makes the film a chore, but it does mean its pleasures arrive less regularly than we would like.

There is no need for a backstage comedy to provide a complete account of a famous man’s character. It does need to make the people around him worth following, and Richard Linklater only partly manages that. The theatrical intelligence is enough to sustain a qualified recommendation, particularly for those who enjoy watching performers negotiate an oversized ego. If rehearsals are your idea of a good evening, the slower stretches are worth sitting through.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

64
Positive
9
Mixed
4
Negative
2

Most critics find Me and Orson Welles an enjoyable backstage drama, with praise clustering around Christian McKay’s portrayal of Welles. His voice, charisma and forceful ego convince even several reviewers who find the surrounding film disappointing. The theatrical staging is another strength: the reviews credit its precision and attention to performance, while some admire the period detail. The warmer responses find charm and energy in familiar backstage conventions.

Reservations centre on the conventional coming-of-age story, uneven pace and a romance that some find unconvincing. The spread is fairly wide, from enthusiastic approval to complaints of blandness, though McKay remains a point of agreement. Zac Efron divides opinion more sharply: Digital Spy welcomes a change of pace for him, while Variety finds him miscast. Other reviews fault the writing of his role, suggesting that the young protagonist has too little to do beside the commanding Welles.

Empire
31 January 2008 · Kim Newman
80*

Kim Newman praises the film as a satisfying and exhilarating backstage drama. He singles out Christian McKay’s uncanny, charismatic portrayal of Orson Welles.

Read the full review →
Evening Standard
10 April 2012
75*

The critic finds the film entertaining and says it handles its serious intent well, despite lacking the depth to explore Welles’s self-destruction. Christian McKay’s restrained, convincing portrayal of Welles is singled out for praise.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
30 April 2010 · Rob Mackie
75*

Mackie finds the film enjoyable and praises Christian McKay’s portrayal of Orson Welles. He singles out McKay’s convincing resemblance, voice, charisma and ego.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
22 November 2009 · David Denby
75*

Denby finds the film spirited and charming, though its coming-of-age plot is conventional. He especially praises Christian McKay’s portrayal of Welles and the theatrical intelligence behind the production scenes.

Read the full review →
IndieWire
24 November 2009 · Jeff Reichert
70*

Reichert finds the film winning and praises Linklater’s ability to revive familiar backstage-comedy conventions through careful execution. He particularly applauds the precise, rhythmic staging of the film’s abridged opening-night performance of Julius Caesar.

Read the full review →
The Hollywood Reporter
6 September 2008 · festival review · Kirk Honeycutt
70*

Honeycutt finds the film appealing but aimed at a niche art-house audience, with a slow start. He particularly praises Christian McKay’s uncanny performance as the young Orson Welles.

Read the full review →

Straight answers AI written, from our review

Is Me and Orson Welles worth watching?
Me and Orson Welles is worth watching for its theatre scenes and Christian McKay’s commanding Welles; we score it 72 out of 100. We recommend it particularly to anyone interested in rehearsals and actors at work, though the slow start and Zac Efron’s less absorbing romantic education require some patience.
How long is Me and Orson Welles, and what is it rated?
Me and Orson Welles runs 1h 54m and is rated PG-13 by the MPA in the US. It is a drama and history film.
Where can I watch Me and Orson Welles in the US?
Me and Orson Welles is not on any streaming or rental service in the US at the moment. Availability is checked daily.
How does Me and Orson Welles compare to Topsy-Turvy?
Me and Orson Welles is an enjoyable backstage companion to Topsy-Turvy, but we recommend the latter more strongly for its absorbing ensemble and emotional reach. Both attend to rehearsal, professional vanity and the practical work of performance; McKay’s Welles dominates his film, while Topsy-Turvy makes the people around its central figure more rewarding company.
Is Me and Orson Welles based on a true story or a book?
Me and Orson Welles is adapted from Robert Kaplow’s novel, with a screenplay by Vincent Palmo Jr. and Holly Gent, rather than presented as a straightforward factual account. No familiarity with the book is needed to follow Richard Samuels’s introduction to professional theatre, though we cannot judge the adaptation’s fidelity to it.
What should I watch after Me and Orson Welles?
After Me and Orson Welles, try Topsy-Turvy (1999, Fi1m 88): For patient attention to rehearsal, professional vanity and the practical work behind performance. Then The Dresser (1983, Fi1m 80): The supporting labour behind a commanding actor receives its overdue share of attention; and Stage Door (1937, Fi1m 85): Aspiring actresses share lodgings, sharp dialogue and the difficulty of finding work.

Cast

If you liked this, try…

  1. Topsy-Turvy (1999, Fi1m 88)For patient attention to rehearsal, professional vanity and the practical work behind performance.

  2. Day for Night (1973) · not on Fi1m yetAnother company struggles to finish its work while private lives keep interrupting.

  3. The Dresser (1983, Fi1m 80)The supporting labour behind a commanding actor receives its overdue share of attention.

  4. Stage Door (1937, Fi1m 85)Aspiring actresses share lodgings, sharp dialogue and the difficulty of finding work.

  5. The Disciple (2020) · not on Fi1m yetA quieter, sterner account of artistic ambition and devotion to a demanding tradition.