Landmark Theatres

No, I Haven’t Seen It Until Now: ‘The Room’ (2003)

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

After all these years, I finally took the time to watch Tommy Wiseau’s “The Room” from start to finish. I have viewed some of its most infamous scenes on You Tube from time to time, but upon learning it was going to be showing at the Landmark Theater in Westwood, my procrastination in viewing it came to an end.

When I interviewed director Jan Komasa and actor Bartosz Bielenia about their religious drama “Corpus Christi,” I wore the following t-shirt:

The two of them got a huge kick out of this shirt and encouraged me to check this cult classic on the silver screen with an audience. The way they saw it, this is the best way to experience this hopelessly bizarre motion picture as it had already become the next generation’s “Rocky Horror Picture Show.” Watching “The Room” just for the drama is not enough. It’s the audience participation which makes it all the more worthwhile as the most devoted fans are quick to seize the moment and celebrate this film’s most glaring mistakes with tremendous glee.

Wiseau, whose name is plastered over the opening credits, stars as Johnny, a man who is expecting to receive a big promotion at work and is madly in love with his girlfriend Lisa (Juliette Danielle). But at the same time, Lisa is having a torrid affair with Johnny’s best friend, Mark (Greg Sestero, who I went to junior high school with, believe it or not), and this leads to inadvertently hilarious sex scenes which almost had me believing Wiseau and company were actually trying to sell “The Room” to Cinemax as opposed to a major Hollywood studio. Let’s face it, these “love-making: scenes are so ridiculously staged and choreographed to where they make the average episodes of “Red Shoe Diaries” and “Beverly Hills Bordello” rise to the level of high art. Watching Wiseau and Sestero make out with Lisa also reminded me of what Robin Williams once said:

“Men can’t fake orgasms! Who wants to look that dumb?”

Into this tragic love triangle comes a variety of characters, many of whom forget to close the door to Johnny and Lisa’s apartment upon entering it. There is Lisa’s mother, Claudette (Carolyn Minnott), who is far more concerned with her daughter marrying Johnny for financial security than she is in her recent breast cancer diagnosis. Then there’s Denny (Philip Haldiman), a young college student who is supported financially and emotionally by Johnny and is quite smitten with Lisa (who isn’t?). And let us not leave out Michelle (Robyn Paris) and Mike (Scott Holmes), the couple whose love for chocolate provides this movie with its “9 ½ Weeks” moment.

What can I tell you? “The Room” is filled with gloriously hammy acting and terrible one-note performances. Certain scenes are clearly shot in front of a green screen, and many images of San Francisco float cross the screen for the sake of making this movie look like it takes place in more than one room. Certain camera moves look to be shot on a tripod in need of some serious tightening, and the movie suffers from a terrible editing job as scenes feel as though they are put into the wrong place. To all aspiring filmmakers out there, you may fear your debut feature will look a cinematic abomination, but whatever happens, there is no doubt it will look far more professional than Wiseau gave us here.

And yet, as terrible as “The Room” is, watching it provided me with the most enjoyable times I have ever had at a movie theater. I haven’t laughed this hard at a motion picture since “Deadpool 2,” and unintentional hilarity hasn’t felt this inspired for me since “Troll 2” or Tyler Perry’s “The Single Mom’s Club.” Any film which has me laughing so hard to where I get lightheaded and almost pass out will always hold a special place in my heart, and this one is honestly no exception.

Granted, there are many movies out there which are truly awful, but the worst are usually multi-millionaire dollar feature films which are made with nothing more than the thought of a potential franchise that can keep the money train rolling in for years. Those ones end up having more money spent on promotion than on the actual movie, and what we get is an overhyped event where the anticipation proves to be more exciting than the final cut. Those are movies made without heart, and it shows in an inescapably depressing way.

When it comes to “The Room,” however, it is a movie made with a lot of heart but not a lot of thought, and it shows its heart right on its sleeve without any shame. The screenplay introduces us to far too many characters it can possibly deal with, and several subplots are never brought to a satisfactory conclusion. All of this reminds me of one of my favorite guilty pleasures, “Star Trek V: The Final Frontier” which has many of the same problems but had a slightly higher budget regardless.

Wiseau remains an enigma years after “The Room” was released as many wonder about his past and present. He certainly has an unusual look which some might scoff at, but to others it shows a life lived long and hard. Regardless, his line readings of dialogue are ever so memorable even if they show how he emotes more than acts. “You’re tearing me apart Lisa” will never sound the same when uttered by another individual, and another’s denial of not hitting another will sound hollow in comparison. While harsh criticism is needed in situations like these, they are not worth the trouble here as they would simply take away from our enjoyment of this cinematic spectacle, regardless of how poorly realized it may be.

A lot of people who aspire to make a movie many times do so to leave their mark on the world. Wiseau’s path in making “The Room” is not all that different from what Rudy Rae Moore aspired to do when he made his first “Dolemite” movie. While the finished result did not merit a single Oscar nomination, it left its mark on those who were quick to watch it. The same goes with Wiseau who wanted “The Room” to be an epic of sorts. Well, his work is epic alright, but not for reasons he intended. Still, his film has given millions of moviegoers great joy even if it was of the unintentional kind. Perhaps making any kind of mark with a motion picture like that is better than letting it sink into the realm of streaming where it could easily get lost in an overcrowded cinematic ocean.

While Wiseau is in intent on making us believe he always meant for “The Room” to be a dark comedy, it is clear he wanted this film to be something else. But whatever the case, it is a memorable motion picture which will never be easily forgotten, and you don’t want anyone to forget what you did, you know? Besides, the term “male bonding” will never sound the same ever again.

One other thing; I was reminded of the following dialogue between Teasle and Trautman from “First Blood” in which they talked about capturing John Rambo:

Teasle: “Are you telling me that 200 of our men against your boy is a no-win situation for us?”

Trautman: “You send that many, don’t forget one thing.”

Teasle: “What?”

Trautman: “A good supply of body bags.”

Well, when it comes to “The Room,” I say don’t forget this: a good supply of plastic spoons!

WRITER’S NOTE: I am not going to bother giving this movie a star rating. Seriously, what’s the point?

William Friedkin Talks About ‘Killer Joe’ at Landmark Theatres

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

Killer Joe movie poster

Oscar winning director William Friedkin made a special appearance at Landmark Theatres in West Los Angeles on August 3, 2012 to talk about his film “Killer Joe.” He appeared in front of a sold-out audience who had just finished watching it, and Friedkin ended up paraphrasing a review from the Los Angeles Times by saying, “Welcome to the abyss!”

This remark was in reference to the fact that “Killer Joe” has already earned a bit of notoriety after receiving an NC-17 rating from the MPAA for what they described as “graphic disturbing content involving violence and sexuality, and a scene of brutality.”

At the start of this Q&A, Friedkin went over the three things a director needs to consider before they begin working on a project:

  1. Choose the material you want to do. Friedkin said this is very important as you will have to “live with it for a year.”
  2. Cast the film with the right actors. Friedkin said if anything goes wrong with the movie, it won’t matter how good the cast is because odds are the director has chosen the wrong actors for it.
  3. You need to create an atmosphere where the actors are comfortable enough to do the work. Friedkin remarked this is 75% of what a director does, and that the remaining 25% has the same person figuring out how to put their movie together.

When it came to casting “Killer Joe,” Friedkin said he went to actors Emile Hirsch and Thomas Haden Church first as he was familiar with their work. These days, Friedkin says he continues to watch “old movies” as they continue to inspire him, and he doesn’t watch new movies much.

Friedkin also admitted he has “never seen any of Matthew McConaughey’s films” before casting him here, and he originally wanted someone “more grubby” and with “a more evil look.” However, after watching McConaughey being interviewed by Charlie Rose where he was just being himself, he realized someone like McConaughey would be more interesting as opposed to what some would call a “more obvious choice.”

McConaughey, however, read and hated the script to “Killer Joe” and that he “wanted to take a bath with a wire brush” after reading it. Regardless, McConaughey read the script again because he couldn’t get it out of his head, and he told Friedkin he found it “absurd and hilarious in a dark way.”

Friedkin also admitted he knew nothing about Juno Temple before casting her as Dottie. He was originally going to go with one of three beautiful actresses for this role, but he ended up watching an audition tape Temple put together in which she read the script along with her 10-year old brother who played the part of Joe, the cold blooded cop and contract killer played by McConaughey. Friedkin said he loved what he saw but that he was worried about her “thick British accent.” He ended up asking the cast to tell Temple when she was speaking in a way which didn’t sound like she was from Texas. From what we saw onscreen, the cast helped Temple out big time.

In talking about Gina Gershon (the mention of her name got the audience to applaud loudly), Friedkin said she was not his first choice for the role of Sharla. When it came to casting this particular role, Friedkin said he saved this question for last when interviewing prospective actresses, “Can you handle the sex and violence that is presented in this script?” It should go without saying Gershon could, and Friedkin described her as being “courageous” in playing Sharla. She is asked to portray some of the hardest things any actor is asked to do, and I don’t just mean the scene involving her and that piece of fried chicken.

“Killer Joe” marks the second film Friedkin has made from a play written by Tracy Letts whose “Bug” he turned into a film back in 2006. Friedkin said he and Letts “share the same worldview” as they both “see the absurdity of the many facets in life.” Their projects, as Friedkin sees it, deal with people “stuck in their realities and willing to do anything to get out of them,” and that neither of them is “fond of violence.”

Still, Friedkin said he did not expect the NC-17 rating the MPAA gave “Killer Joe,” but he thinks it is somewhat correct as he was not targeting young teenagers for this movie as they are more impressionable. Both he and LD Entertainment, which is distributing the film, fought the MPAA over the rating, and in trying to get it down to an R, they ended up cutting not scenes but instead frames of footage. This, however, was not enough, so Friedkin and LD Entertainment ended up appealing the decision. Friedkin joked how they “narrowly” lost the appeal (13 to nothing) and that he felt he “had to destroy the movie in order to save it.” But after all the fights he had over movies like “The Exorcist,” Friedkin declared he is “too old to get down on my knees and change the picture” for them.

When asked what the tone on set was, Friedkin described it as “light” because he and the actors already knew what was in the script. Friedkin also said he only does “one or two takes these days” when making a movie as opposed to the “15 or 20” he did when he was younger and “praying for miracles.” These days, he looks for spontaneity in his actors, and he finds the first take they give him is often the “most spontaneous” of all.

Whatever you end up thinking about “Killer Joe,” it is clear Friedkin is still a masterful filmmaker who has not lost his touch. The characters may be beyond redemption, but he is quick to point out we are all sinners, and this is an inescapably true fact. After all these years, Friedkin continues to challenge his audience, and we should be thankful for this in a time where most filmmakers choose to play it safe and to their own detriment.