Director: James Franco Starring: James Franco, Dave Franco, Seth Rogen Studio: A24 Genre(s): Comedy Rated: R (For language throughout and some sexuality/nudity) |
The term “it’s so bad it’s good” is one that has been
debated and contested for years. Some
would argue that awfulness can be its own form of entertainment, while others
would argue that it takes a special kind of bad to rise above and find its way
back to be being entertaining (thus creating the entertainment equivalent of
‘The Horseshoe Theory’). Tommy Wiseau’s
“The Room” is considering one of the greatest films ever made. Unlike “Citizen Kane” or “The Godfather”
though, its greatness comes from the fact that the movie is terrible. Laughably so, yes, but also in scope and
passion. It is a movie so sincere in its
efforts to be good, that its wide misfiring’s become all the greater the longer
it goes on. And much like how “Lawrence
of Arabia” is so great it inspired people to want to learn more about David
Lean, “The Room” is so terrible it makes people want to learn more about Tommy
Wiseau.
Wiseau is an enigmatic figure though, one who has a lot of
money (which no one knows how he got), and is so private he doesn’t even tell
people how old he is. The closest thing
the world had gotten to knowing the man personally is through a book written by
his best friend Greg Sestero, which is now the subject of James Franco’s “The
Disaster Artist.” In a way, that makes
this movie and “The Room” perfect companion pieces, as they are both projects
from directors who wanted to direct their own dream movie. In both cases the men directed, starred, and
produced the film (though Wiseau took it a step further and also wrote the
screenplay). They both wanted to make
memorable movies. The difference comes
in the fact that one made a movie where pretty much everything is done
completely right, where the other made a movie where everything is done
completely wrong.
What is fascinating for me is that in both cases the men
behind the movies were completely sincere in their efforts, which begs the question:
What happened? The answer may be a
simpler one than most would want to accept, but after seeing “The Disaster
Artist” I can only conclude that Tommy Wiseau (played by Franco himself) just
simply wasn’t very good at what he wanted to do. He has no experience as a director, his
acting sucks, and he talks with a strange accent that (regardless what he
claims) is certainly not from New Orleans.
What stands out about him with Greg (David Franco) is that Wiseau has
passion and fearlessness. This is a man
who believes in pursuing things regardless of the consequences (even if it
means driving over 300 miles to visit the crash site of James Dean). When enough producers and directors tell him
that he will never in a million years have a career in Hollywood, Wiseau gets
to work on writing a script.
He figures if Hollywood won’t fund him he’ll have to fund
himself, and thus goes on the journey to make his masterpiece. It’s pretty clear early on he is not a film
maker. Because he doesn’t understand the
difference between 35mm film and HD digital cameras, he decides to shoot in
both. He builds an exact replica of an
ally that is right outside their building (and which he has permits to legally
shoot on should he choose to). When it
comes time for Wiseau to act in his own scenes, he can’t remember his lines,
thus requiring multiple takes, until throwing a water bottle finally gets him
to remember them long after the rest of the cast and crew had (it should also
be noted that this is all done for what is unquestionably one of the worst
delivered lines in the actual movie).
The chaos on set is undeniable, and this is one of the rare times that
chaos has been so perfectly recreated.
While “The Disaster Artist” is usually funny, at one point
you cringe a little bit, because the frustration of actors, camera men, and
everyone else working on the set is eventually felt by us, as Wiseau becomes
more and more demanding for a movie we all know isn’t very good. Wiseau is not portrayed as a boogie man
though. True, he is a character unto
himself, and one that most will find hard to relate to (or even like very
much), but he is human. The most
conflicting scene comes when “The Room” is finally ready to be shown to an
audience for the first time, and we’re torn between laughing because the movie
is so bad, and crying as a shocked Tommy Wiseau sits in the middle of that
audience, caught completely off guard at the reaction his passion project
receives.
In this moment we are shown a man who did this thing not only
because he wanted to do it, but also to be accepted and loved. The laughter is a sign that people still
don’t understand him. Worse, they may
hate him more. This is probably where
“The Disaster Artist” succeeds where “The Room” ultimately failed. Both movies are about the same character
essentially. In both movies we follow a
man who is successful only in his own mind, goes on a journey that he feels is
important, only for the journey to end in failure. Where they differ is that Wiseau meets with a
bleak ending in “The Room,” where in “The Disaster Artist” he has triumphed in
a very personal way. That may be the key
reason on why one movie is worth watching and the other worth making fun of. I suppose we’ll have to see which is the
movie we’ll be watching more ten years down the line (thus opening up the
debate once again on whether or not quality matters for long term success).
|
|
 |
| CONSUMER ADVICE |
Parents, there is lots of language throughout, as well as some brief nudity involving the filming of a (awkward) sex scene. Recommended for ages 17 and up.
|