I finally got to see "The Room" at the weekend. The way I've been summing it up to people is - not just the worst film ever made, but possibly the worst film it would ever be possible to make.
For anyone who doesn't know what I'm talking about, go to
Wikipedia and then maybe the reviews page on
IMDB or this
Times article.
Like most people who're aware of this film, I'd seen the
few short clips that were on the net. I'd laughed at the beyond-wooden acting, Tommy Wiseau's bizarre diction and slurred speech, the clumsy dialogue (one reviewer reckoned it unlikely that the script was ever actually written down). I had an idea in my head of this cheap and nasty melodrama, perhaps resembling a slightly less boob-heavy version of a Sky Movies late night "erotic thriller", with a horribly miscast (by himself) male lead; something the calibre of "Showgirls", but with Kyle McLachlan's part played by a stroke victim. Having now seen it, I realise I was well wide of the (oh, hai) mark. To make a comparison like that would be to damn it with faint derision.
Unlike any film I've seen to date, "The Room" manages to be rubbish at every conceivable level. Script, acting, cinematography/mise en scene, editing, sound/music, continuity - a big fat zero out of ten for every single one. It doesn't even get anything right *accidentally*. If you gathered the cream of filmmaking talent from around the world and told them to make the Worst Film Ever, they wouldn't have managed anything half as bad as "The Room". I'm not going to inventory all the fail (spoons, "I did NAHT!", Peter becoming Steven, "chocolate is the symbol of love", etc) as that would take forever and spoil your enjoyment if you haven't seen it yet. There are tons of reviews doing that as is. However, some of the basic things that Wiseau manages to cock up will make your jaw-drop. Two examples: Lisa fixing herself and Johnny "
scotchkas", and the fuzzy greenscreen
backdrop in the rooftop scenes - a film that can't make "pouring a drink" or "being outside" seem realistic is going to struggle to sustain dramatic tension.
Of all the adjectives used in the various reviews I've read of it, the one that stands out is "queasy". Part of that is the sheer discomfort is being kept in a constant state of amazed disbelief for an hour and a half - the howlers are so relentless that it almost hurts to watch. But there's also something quite unsettling in the idea that the film was made at all. As a filmmaker, Tommy Wiseau is most often compared to Ed Wood, the damaged alcoholic rehabilitated as a perma-grinned optimist by Burton and Depp in one of their mutual indulgathons, but to blame it all on his combination of hopeless naivety and grim determination almost seems to be letting the other people involved off the hook. I suppose out of work actors will do just about anything for money and we know no one behind the camera was around long enough to have much input (a bloke claiming to be from the second of the four different crews used during the shoot revealed that Wiseau tended to ignore everyone on set, as he wanted to - like his method actor heroes - stay in character.
Also, "The Room", despite the enjoyment many people get from it, remains an utterly charmless film. I don't really see 'good' and 'bad' as objective terms the way some people do and I don't subscribe to the whole "so bad it's good" philosophy beloved of dozy student ironists, leaving me immune to well-worn, camp, ill-judged guff like "Battlefield Earth" or Leonard Nimoy's "Ballad Of Bilbo Baggins". One of my favourite films is "
Liquid Sky", another 'midnight movie' cult oddity that receives praise for its sheer wrongness. But it's possible to argue that certain aspects of "Liquid Sky" are worthy of praise: Anne Carlisle's performance (playing both the female and male leads) has a certain woozy appeal; the bizarre, Fairlight-composed music stays with you; the special effects, while hardly mind-blowing, aren't *that* bad for a film made for half a million dollars (even accounting for inflation, that's a fraction of the $6 million "The Room" cost). At the very least, it's interesting as a No Wave period piece. "Liquid Sky" is a film I've grown fond of. "The Room" has none of that. It's not a wacky, high-concept film, nor a haun-kitted, micro-budget affair. It was made in 2003, but looks like it could be from any point in the 90s; the sets and costumes have a blandness that would shame any self-respecting pr0n director (if that's not an oxymoron). The comically overused shots of the Golden Gate Bridge and Alcatraz are the only things that suggest a location. It looks - and, thanks to dubbing, often sounds - as if it was recorded in a vacuum.
I need to see it again, as soon as possible.