There probably isn't a whole lot to say about this film that hasn't been said already. There's no point in trying to justify its merits and deem it a good film, because that is inherently false. It is not a good film. However, is it a bad film? From a film-making perspective, yes. Truly awful. From an audience perspective, I say no. It has garnered a cult following in the fourteen years since its release that is unrivaled. I believe its subversion of mainstream standards is what draws people to it. It is a form of paracinema, which takes all the elements that don't feature in mainstream cinema and puts them all into a film (pornography and avant-garde art films are categories of paracinema). From the sounds of it, going to midnight screenings of The Room is unparalleled in its fan interaction, maybe seen with The Rocky Horror Picture Show also. It is a bad film, but it is also re-watchable. That in itself is almost an oxymoron. One usually is revolted by bad films, meaning they are both technically bad and bad for an audience. The Room transgresses this. Its film-making merits are almost non-existent, but you cannot say you didn't enjoy watching it. It is a rare film in that it is both good and bad.
The film centers on a love triangle between Johnny (Tommy Wiseau), his fiance Lisa (Juliette Danielle) and his best friend Mark (Greg Sestero). Lisa falls out of love with Johnny and in love with Mark. That is what happens. That's it.
From the film's opening theme, I was almost duped into believing it could be a technically good film. A nice piece of music plays as the scene is set. San Francisco has always been particularly good for films, with Vertigo and Bullitt being two examples of films where the city is almost a character. It doesn't take long for The Room's technical aspects to become truly awful, though. The dialogue, for the most part is atrocious and wooden and doesn't sound like human dialogue. But Wiseau created a quotable script (You're tearing me apart, Lisa!) and that is something most screenwriters find difficult. Those moments are few and far between, though. Just look at a brief scene in a flower shop where Johnny buys roses for Lisa: he greets a dog, introduces himself to someone who supposedly knows him well and asks how much the flowers will be while holding the exact change required for said flowers. Another scene where Lisa talks with her mother about marriage comes to mind. The dialogue doesn't fit. It doesn't flow in a pattern that human conversation flows. For the film that it desperately tried to be (psychological drama), it has to rely on superb dialogue and great acting, but it has neither of those qualities.
People laugh AT this film, not WITH this film, and that is an important distinction. Wiseau believed he was making an Oscar-worthy psychological drama, whereas today people watch it as a black comedy. There are no intentional laughs in the film. You laugh at the absurdity of it, in almost the same manner you laugh at satire. You laugh at it and ridicule it. You enjoy its ridiculous nature. There are a lot of sex scenes in this film (I think 7). For a roughly 90 minute film that is a ridiculous number. You laugh and scoff at this.
The actors here tried, they really did. While you can't ask any more of people than they try, it is hard to watch at some points here. In the scene with Danny on the roof and the man to whom he owes money, it is borderline impossible to watch as Lisa and Johnny and Lisa's Mother talk to Danny about what's just happened. Wiseau is (supposedly) a trained actor, and he should know what distinguishes bad acting from good. Overacting has never been good, nor will it ever be good. Performances are meant to bring you to another world in a realistic manner, and when the performers overact, you can't commit to believing you're in another world. The performers have now failed. That is probably where The Room falls down hardest. It struggles to put you in the character's shoes.
Look, I could go on and on for hours about how this is a bad film on a technical aspect, but everyone knows that. Everyone knows the ridiculous dialogue and the overacting and whatnot. This film is outstandingly bad. The "Citizen Kane of bad movies" is a common sobriquet it receives. However, it is also a champion of a film. It is a champion of free speech and freedom of expression. Wiseau had a dream to make a film and he did. It is an atrocious film, but he did. Film and cinema is about dreams and whisking the audience away to a different world for roughly two hours. It is meant to be an escape from our daily lives. Making this film was Tommy Wiseau's dream, and he realised his dream. No matter how bad this film is, that is admirable. THAT is why you should watch this.
By Cathal McGuinness
