Episode 130 - The Room (w/ Paul Scheer)

[DaltonMaltz 1119]

Paul Scheer returns this week to discuss the best worst movie of all time, “The Room.” He and Amy talk about the inscrutable details throughout the film, what it reveals about the gap between intention and fulfillment, and whether the characters represent facets of Tommy Wiseau’s unknowable brain. Plus, they discuss the true meaning behind the title and Paul shares his awe at working on a recreation of the set in “The Disaster Artist” before they dive into the questions “The Room” prompts about the nature of art.

[HoldenMartinson 221]

I've loved The Room for many years. It's the film that led me to other kitsch masterpieces--like Miami Connection, or Silent Night, Deadly Night Pt. II, or Killer Klowns from Outer Space. It's what led me to Paul's show, even. So, as one can imagine, The Room is responsible for a lot of joy in my life. Yet, pretty much nothing that The Room begat in my life that has ever matched Wiseau's wonderful, weird, semi-autobiographical passion project.

 

There's something that Amy touched on, something I reference a lot when trying to explain the joy of The Room--lots of bad movies get forgotten while The Room endures; lots of GOOD movies are forgotten while The Room endures. Remember Frost/Nixon, or War Horse, or Up in the Air? Probably not as well as The Room. Whether you support the idea of movies being so-bad-they're-good, you can't ignore the kind of cultural impact The Room has had. As a cult hit. As the subject of one of the best nonfiction books of the decade. As the inspiration for one of 2017's most anticipated releases, with every mildly likable actor from Hollywood among its cast. Do you think fucking Birdman will ever get this kind of treatment? Does anyone remember Edward Norton's character's name in that movie? Nope. But we all know Mark. We even know about the woman who ended up in a hospital on Guerrero Street. It's just a great story.

 

Lastly, I'll just reiterate what I said in the homework thread: The Room is the work of a legitimate artist. The Room is often described as "outsider art," but there's more honesty in The Room than almost any other film, of any kind. Tommy Wiseau threw every cent into crafting an uncompromising portrait into his childlike soul, and all that entails. The word that comes to mind is "un-sanitized." When most films are re-written, subject to studio notes, and edited and re-edited, filtered through a committee of comparatively more competent professionals, The Room is such a clear vision. Do I like that vision? Do I agree with Wiseau's politics? Maybe not. But it has a commitment that even Andy Kaufman would admire.

 

Maybe Wiseau would have made a film that looked and felt like everything else if he had any inkling of how to really make a film, but he didn't, and now we have a work of austerity that functions as much of a sandbox for interpretation as it is a cautionary tale for inept filmmaking. Moreover, when so many films and television series are so self-reflexive and self-effacing, The Room has a level of commitment that would give Andy Kaufman pause. It believes in itself. How many films are this unashamed of themselves? How many films are so stupidly confident? The best case scenario for a film to be this indulgent is Magnolia, which is a mess. Even PTA agrees the film needs an editor. Not The Room, though. There's nothing I would change about The Room. It's terrible and perfect, just like God intended.

 

110% yes. This is canon.

[LanceHunter 7]

I'm split on The Room. I agree that it is a great bad movie, and that it is the type of bad movie (a work filled with powerful, sincere emotion that misfires in so many weird and wonderful ways) that isn't just funny, but fascinating.

 

But then I look at the works of someone like Neil Breen, and every single one of his films is even more fascinating in the same way. So it can be weird to hear people talk about how The Room is some kind of singular accomplishment in bad films while Breen's works are basically unknown outside of deep bad-film-aficionado circles. It feels a bit like an accident of geography. In an alternate reality where Breen was in Los Angeles and Wiseau was in Las Vegas, I think it's entirely likely we would be listening to an episode about Double Down right now.

 

After thinking this through, I'm gonna vote yes for The Room. It deserves the spot (and I'm not that kind of terrible hipster who begrudges the popular thing for being popular). It is legitimately amazing and influential in a way that is truly Canon-worthy. But I will say that it doesn't deserve to be in the canon for being the "best worst movie". That would be like voting Fast, Cheap, & Out of Control into the Canon because it is the "best documentary". I challenge anyone who enjoys The Room to check out Breen's Pass Thru or Double Down to expand your view of what is out there in the land of bad movies. It's not all Sharknado and Birdemic.

[bluesheep4 5]

Honestly, I was on board to put this into the canon just based on my prior thoughts on it, on the basis of it being so terrible that it is amazing, and could never be done again. But after hearing you guys talk more in-depth about it for an hour I'm even MORE on board. I've only seen it twice, and neither time did I think to more fully dissect it the way you did, and immediately I want to watch it more and decipher it. I desperately want this film in the canon, because like you said, there is seriously no other film like it, and there never will be, I think, and that makes this movie "great", maybe not in the sense of its "good", but "great" in the sense of grandeur.

 

This movie definitely belongs in the canon.

[MODOKbaby 15]

If this was the music canon I would definitely vote for Rebecca Black's "Friday". You have to celebrate the miracle that allowed this very small class of works to enter the world in all their pure, unfettered grotesque glory, acting as a funhouse mirror to these ubiquitous forms, like space aliens who have sampled only a few films or pop songs and are able to imitate their conventions without understanding the ways in which those conventions ostensibly convey humanity -- mechanisms we take for granted until we get a "Friday" or The Room that managed to bypass those unspoken fundamentals all the way to a finished product. (See also: The Shaggs.)

 

But where "Friday" is amazing and weird for every one of its 228 seconds, there are minutes that pass by in The Room that are merely banal. Having watched it several times (often with friends but never in a raucous theater), I still feel like there is a lot of tedium, a lot of waiting for another solid gold line reading or for a new kind of weirdness the punctuate the offkilter key it coasts on for the majority of its run time. I bet a lot of people discovered the film through YouTube clips like I did, and that may be the format The Room was always destined for; it's hard to argue that it isn't the most enjoyable package for its highlights. Though, in its defense, it does take the whole film for Lisa's mom's breast cancer to never be brought up again.

 

I would never say "just watch the YouTube clips" for any other film though, and the discussion on this episode makes a strong case for the macro of its message being as interesting as any of its isolated moments. I'm not sure Wiseau ever thought about his film in the exact terms discussed here, but I don't think that matters. I'm a big believer in artist intent only telling so much of the story, and I think its clear that much of Wiseau's particular worldview has permeated every facet of The Room, maybe in different ways than he had in mind.

 

In the end, I'm voting yes, because I do think this is a singular work, as miraculous in its gestation as "Friday" or The Shaggs even if it's not as thrilling moment to moment. Little things like Wiseau's reading of "what a story Mark" or Sestero's "people are very strange these days" are burned into my mind and will probably never leave.

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

I had to vote no on this movie, because it's . . . well . . . bad.

 

I do find the story behind The Room and Wiseau himself fascinating, and it is fun to discuss it and pick apart the many ways it fails to be coherent. It's also clearly become something of a cultural phenomenon, so in that sense I understand the impulse to make it Canon.

 

But that said, it's . . . bad. In no way could you define it as one of the "great films to live on forever." As a cultural curio, yes. But not one of the great films.

[Dale Cooper Black 340]

Great episode, nothing much to add. This movie must be watched. It belongs in the Canon for the same reason that pictures of war atrocities belong in history books.

 

On a side note, the pizza order was most definitely not ad-libbed, as evidenced in the clip below.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsnfLsyfsgk

[Buffyfan1992 6]

I initially watched The Room as a Film & Digita Media undergrad student during a Comedy genre class. That screening is the funniest one I have ever had as both an Undergrad and Graduate student. We all threw spoons at the screen and repeated lines together. All the rituals that people do when watching The Room in the movie theatres. Seeing The Room is the perfect example of experience Rabelais' Carnivalesque in the modern era. I'm voting yes for that community experience alone.

[bleary 333]

This feels like one of those votes that is less about the movie being discussed and more a vote on what the parameters of the Canon should be. Sometimes those votes infuriate me, but I'm really looking forward to seeing how this one turns out. So let's dive into it!

 

Is this a Canon of good movies? As sycasey 2.0 points out, The Room is bad. It would not belong in a Canon of exclusively well-made movies, so I can't blame anyone who votes no based on that.

 

Paul brought up in the episode that one should really see The Room among a group of friends, or in a theatre. Is this a Canon of movies, or of movie experiences? I have consistently felt that the movie should be judged on its own, separate from the experience. I voted no on The Tingler, because I think that if I need to be in a theatre with a seat giving me electric jolts in order to enjoy the movie, then it's not a successful movie. I voted yes on Rocky Horror Picture Show because I can appreciate the merits of that film watching it alone just as well as in a group or at a theatre. Now, I watched The Room for the first time alone, and if you're going to try to tell me I did it wrong, that argument won't work on me.

 

And then a common thing in Canon discussions on iffy movies is this "larger impact" topic. HoldenMartinson compared the impact of The Room to that of Frost/Nixon, War Horse, Up In the Air, and Birdman. Although it might not feel this way, all of those films were more widely seen than The Room, with the IMDb pages of those four movies having two times, three times, seven times, and ten times as many votes as The Room, respectively. The Disaster Artist will probably play in more theatres in its limited release week than The Room will ever play in, period. I had never heard of The Room until I moved to LA in 2009, and I have to assume that had I never lived in LA or NY, I wouldn't have heard of it until The Disaster Artist surfaced. So I have to say that I don't buy the "larger impact" argument. And certainly, no one is out there trying to make movies like this, for good reason. It can only happen by accident.

 

So in summary, it's a bad movie with relatively little greater societal impact, and you're not selling me on the communal experience aspect of it. For these reasons, I was a pretty firm no before listening to the episode.

 

And yet, against all my instincts, I think I'm going to vote yes.

 

The crux of the matter for me here is how much the artist's intention should be taken into account. This is something I've gone back and forth on. One of my knocks on Ghostbusters was the inconsistencies between the apparent intentions of the different actors/writers/director. Conversely, I argued for Top Gun on the merits of some deeper thematic threads which were just as likely not what Tony Scott intended. Any then of course there are headier filmmakers like Lynch, who certainly have at least one interpretation of their own work, but their work allows for many other interpretations as well. So in the end, I think I'm now going to fully take the side that discussions springing from a piece of art are always worthwhile, even when those discussions go vastly beyond the artist's intention.

 

Because let's face it: Tommy Wiseau did not set out to make a deconstructivist study of narrative film. Yet, he kinda made one anyway. To paraphrase Paul, by making every possible wrong choice, we can watch and think about whether those "choices" are choices at all, or whether they're just the prescribed ways of doing things, and should they be? We can think about plot: certainly there are plenty of movies with what we call plot holes, and there are abstract movies with an absence of plot, but this is something altogether different -- a script with more holes than plot, like a inverted swiss cheese. The off-center camerawork, the softcore-porn score, the inscrutable casting. And most of all, the line deliveries by Wiseau that are so bad in such a fascinating, irreplicable way. I'm not saying that a film should get points for defying convention when that's really a euphemism for it being terrible. But in this case, it's so terrible that it puts conventions on trial. It reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer fails to assemble a barbeque pit correctly and is hailed as an abstract artist. I'm not about to hail Tommy Wiseau as an abstract artist, but at the same time, I see some art in this failed barbeque pit of a movie.

 

So there it is, I'm voting yes.

[ZacharyKasun 0]

I think you guys started to touch a little on how Trumpian of a figure Wiseau is. Essentially, Tommy is guy who, with the best and most sincere intentions, made something truly bad, and then has spent the rest of his career pretending he made something really good, and was in on the self-ironizing idea the whole time. Erstwhile, Wiseau has garnered as much money and fame from it as possible. (Indeed, I have purchased my very own pair of Tommy Wiseau underwear in order to meet the man.) Not to mention, like Trump, Wiseau remains an enigmatic figure who confabulates a lot of personal details. The reasons this movie appeals to me as a distillation of Americana/ the American dream (in all its hackneyed wonder), I think are similar to the reasons that Trump appealed to his voters. The movie shows us a San Francisco and America that are two-dimensional and lack any subtlety. And its this reductionist view that makes the movie so surreal and fun to watch. The Trump campaign did a similar thing by reducing America to a club of liberal elites, violent "inner-city" youth, and good earnest middle-class folk who are being threatened by the other two. The result has been equally as entertaining, but in a far far far far far far far more horrific and grotesque way (because it's real life). As a cultural phenomenon and perhaps a portent (and just because it's so damn enjoyable to see every time) I'm a definite yes.

 

PS: Sorry for getting all political up in here.

[rstaat 1]

Long time listener, first time voter…because I’m a hard no on The Room (I have a feeling I’ll be in the minority). I’ve never been able to subscribe to the “it’s so bad it’s good” philosophy when it comes to film, The Room is just bad.

 

I saw it for the first time around 08 or 09. A friend let my band borrow it before leaving on a month long tour, and he definitely had hyped up it up for us. Throughout this month, my friends would bring it into whatever friends or strangers house/hotel room we were staying and everyone would have a laugh. I think we watched it 15 or 20 times in 30 days. By the end of the month, my fellow band mates were quoting along and I’d be asleep which I found to be the better choice.

 

 

Has The Room made a cultural impact and become a cult classic? Sure. Do I enjoy it? Not at all.

[PhilipKrusto 5]

I believe The Canon should not have bad movies put into it, but this is the exception. Call it an indulgence pick but when I first heard about this movie seven years ago I have been fascinated by it. The Room is a rabbit hole to Tommy's Wonderland and I love the cultural experience it has become.

 

A big YES from me.

[HoldenMartinson 221]

And then a common thing in Canon discussions on iffy movies is this "larger impact" topic. HoldenMartinson compared the impact of The Room to that of Frost/Nixon, War Horse, Up In the Air, and Birdman. Although it might not feel this way, all of those films were more widely seen than The Room, with the IMDb pages of those four movies having two times, three times, seven times, and ten times as many votes as The Room, respectively. The Disaster Artist will probably play in more theatres in its limited release week than The Room will ever play in, period. I had never heard of The Room until I moved to LA in 2009, and I have to assume that had I never lived in LA or NY, I wouldn't have heard of it until The Disaster Artist surfaced. So I have to say that I don't buy the "larger impact" argument. And certainly, no one is out there trying to make movies like this, for good reason. It can only happen by accident.

I mean, I've never even been to L.A., nor did I have anyone introduce it to me by anyone, nor did it arise in my life because of Franco's film. It's been a cult hit for a long time. If you're a pop culture nerd--not even a film person, even--chances are, you've at least heard of The Room.

 

Moreover, a film isn't significant because of IMDB or when you moved to whatever part of the U.S. My point wasn't that The Room had been seen more widely than those other films; it was that The Room is still growing, despite being 14 years old, while movies released in the last ten years that were mainstream have been somewhat forgotten. No one is hosting Frost/Nixon parties with their friends on a regular basis. No one is saying, "Have you seen War Horse? It's going to BLOW YOUR MIND." If anything, the fact that The Disaster Artist is getting made kinda proves my point towards the impact of The Room. The Room isn't as widely seen, yet it's significant enough to a passionate pocket of people that a major motion picture, based on an already very successful book, is being released and is a legitimate awards contender.

[pomattovich 75]

How fortuitous that THE ROOM was up for debate this week. I've just now come from a sold out screening of it. It was my first time seeing it and it truly left me flabbergasted. I put it off for this long because I typically don't enjoy watching bad movies for bad movie's sake. SHARKNADO does far too much winking to ever be actually funny, BIRDEMIC just bored me to tears, and while I enjoy MIAMI CONNECTION in fits and starts, it still feels a bit long at 80 minutes. The only reason I attended THE ROOM tonight was because I thought that I had to do some homework before I saw THE DISASTER ARTIST, which I was already eager to see, and thought seeing the source would provide me with the proper context. While I never bothered to watch it at home all these years, I had heard that a live experience was really the way to go and would help milk the laughs out of it. But considering I saw this at an Alamo Drafthouse, the crowd was surprisingly quiet and respectful, aside from a few key lines. So while I did laugh a lot, the evening provided me with a chance to focus more closely on it than I intended, and I was rather fascinated by it.

 

What separates this film from all the other "best worst movies" out there, is its sincerity. That comes across instantly. I had heard tell of Tommy Wiseau's intensity and determination, but I was genuinely shocked by how that affected his entire film. I agree with Amy that these actors are not (all) as bad as their reputations might suggest. Not a single one of them seems to be in on the joke, and to deliver some of these lines in with a serious demeanor is no easy task. The amateurish production values and absurd plot developments provide some fine laughs throughout the film, but what kept me glued to the screen was the dialogue and delivery. I couldn't wait to hear the next exchange. It's true that this would be hard to recreate without knowingly making fun of it. As soon as someone becomes aware that people are amused by it, you start playing for laughs. But somehow this entire movie plays out without ever breaking or becoming a farce. This is something that even the most ludicrous soft core pornography can't accomplishment. (I used to have to watch a lot of it when my job required me to cut ads for Skinemax when I worked at HBO. Honest.) Wiseau clearly had a vision, and I rather admire him for committing to it. But, should this be entered into The Canon? I'm not entirely sure.

 

My initial thought was NO. Paul Scheer compared the cult fervor of this to THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW. While I agree that this has gained an impressive following in a relatively short amount of time, ROCKY HORROR still had a 30 year head start. If the rabid fan base was still in awe of THE ROOM in a couple of decades (Franco's film will likely ensure that it will be) then I would say my vote would be an easy YES. Another thing holding me back is that this is a lot of people's favorite "bad movie." I agree that if it were the best of the worst then it would be worth having in The Canon as a baseline, but if that were to happen, I don't think we could ever include another schlocky movie into The Canon again. Films like THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW, EVIL DEAD 2, and (sigh) RE-ANIMATOR have their own artistic merits, but at least part of the reason we love films like that is that they were made on a micro budget, with sometimes shoddy effects, and less than stellar performances. In that respect, THE ROOM isn't all that different from other films that already have Canon representation. Do we really need another one? Maybe... But what about the people who prefer MIAMI CONNECTION? Is this really a matter of taste? Should we vote in the most popular "bad movie?" The one that might be the most "of the moment" due to a coinciding companion film? And does THE ROOM say enough on its own that the context of THE DISASTER ARTIST won't help complete the picture? We have ED WOOD in The Canon but didn't even consider GLEN OR GLENDA or PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE. But perhaps the reason that THE ROOM should be let into The Canon is because maybe, just maybe, it's not actually a bad movie at all.

 

Bravo to Paul Scheer, who made a greater case for THE ROOM than he did for GHOSTBUSTERS. I had heard him talk about THE ROOM on his own podcast, How Did This Get Made, but that was strictly devoted to what a bizarre mess it was. Hearing him and Amy talk about it now for over an hour with such intrigue and reverence actually made me respect the film a lot more, and I had already been surprisingly quite taken with it. I do think that the cult worship and comedic value aside, THE ROOM actually tells us a lot about independent filmmaking. Mistakes were clearly made along the way of the production, but one doesn't expect a film that goes through so many trials to ever see the light of day, let alone become beloved in some circles. I complimented the film for its sincerity, and I do believe that there are actually a lot more terrible films made than we know that have a similar devoted cast and crew who believe they're spinning gold, even if their final product can only evoke laughter. The difference is that most of those films are never seen, outside of an occasional showcasing at a film school. So THE ROOM's success story may be enough to tip it through into The Canon. I'm so conflicted! TOMMY, YOU'RE TEARING ME APART! Before I started writing my comment, I made an initial vote on the page and I selected... NO. I still feel that my own personal relationship with this film is still too new and fresh to call it a definitive and essential example of bad cinema. However, spending this time letting my thoughts out and thinking it over, I think I might change my vote to a YES. I don't know it this is still MY bad movie, but it belongs to a greater legacy now. I would have a better idea of my thoughts once I saw it again, and the fact that I do want to see it again, (sooner rather than later), is incredibly surprising to me. Earlier tonight, I barely wanted to see it a first time, but I'm very glad I did. I do believe that THE ROOM has things to teach us, especially if Tommy Wiseau never makes another breakout classic ever again. This film might very well be... The One. And so, (and I can't believe that I'm doing this), I'm changing my vote from a respectful NO... to a somewhat enthusiastic YES. Tommy Wiseau may never win the Oscar he so desperately wants, but getting THE ROOM into The Canon is an honor in and of itself.

[Louisjab 50]

Hard no for me.

 

I love the movie, and I enjoy watching it from time to time. But this is a terrible movie, whose appeal seems more a product of a movie of this kind being produced at all than from the movie itself. I don't see the point of including it with classics. I wouldn't recommend a friend interested in cinema to see it. And I'm not worried, movies like that don't die. Canon or not, this is a movie that people will remember for a while.

 

However, it is possible that its only redeeming quality is that it doesn't have any redeeming quality. After all, the canon is, in some way, for unforgettable movies, and this is an unforgettable movie. Still no, though.

[MegadethOfSuperman 15]

This episode had a truly funny and thoughtful discussion. Rarely does that happen when talking about the greats. The movie itself is a blast to watch and always makes me more curious as to what happened and why. Personally I respect Wiseau's passion to keep his movie strictly tied to his vision. And yes, he's a legendary and enigmatic character due to his cryptic and guarded nature - but he's also an asshole in a lot of stories and interviews. Which brings me to my favorite part of the episode - Paul and Amy poking fun at Kubrick at and Fincher. I think any movie that can inspire this much conversation and have it vary between curiosity, reverence, distaste, hilarity, and even cause you to rethink what makes a movie canon-worthy, is worth canonization. But like Amy said early on the episode, I'm not even sure if I believe what I'm positing as far as theory goes. I vote yes not because of the movie, but because of the importance of the conversation it inspires.

[FrancisBabin 11]

Slam dunk yes for me.

 

I've never subscribed to the theory that The Canon needs to be strictly populated by the greatest films of all time or even the best films of specific genres. To me The Canon is and has always been a grouping of the most important pieces of cinema. They can be culturally significant, highly influential, groundbreaking and yes, even the best worst movie. This is why I voted yes for Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Cannibal Holocaust, Top Gun and now The Room.

 

Wiseau's accidental masterpiece will be discussed, analyzed, mocked and celebrated for years to come and that's certainly not the case for many films currently in The Canon.

[FictionIsntReal 79]

Paul Scheer made a surprisingly good argument for including the worst movie in the Canon, almost as a counterexample showing what not to do, but I'm not sure it's actually worse than the films listed here, or countless movies which have appeared on MST3K. It's a relatively popular "midnight movie" now, but it could be very well be displaced by something else in the future and you always say this canon is for "all time".

 

I saw it with a group of people accompained by Rifftrax and still couldn't even look at the screen at times. The story behind the film and how someone like Tommy Wisseau was able to create it despite all the reasons why it should have never happened is somewhat interesting, but without having seen The Disaster Artist I would still rather rewatch Ed Wood than see that. I would never rewatch The Room, once was too many times already.

[BenjaminCornelius-Bates 16]

This was the first time I watched this movie. I have no idea how idea how I did not catch this in college, but it is right in that hole where I graduated and where I moved on in life to a different phase. I want to start with a thing I did with my college buddies where we wrote a top 25 list of our favorite movies but we were all allowed a "guilty pleasure;" a film that was not actually good, but fit that weird area of so-bad-it's-good genre. Mine, in my collegiate top 25, was the PWSA' Mortal Kombat from 1995, the first time I saw a film on its opening, which included people yelling and chanting and throwing things at the screen. It was one of the best experiences I have ever had in a theatre.

 

That is a winding way to ask what matters most: is the film good/important, the experience of the film, or its impact on culture important? Many have already addressed that in the forums already. I think bleary's point about it still being discussed compared to other films like War Horse is a really great point; I would throw Plan 9 From Outer Space in that same category. As The Room is an indulgence pick, does it meet any criteria to be in the Canon?

 

The only point I want to throw into the mix, something that was touched on in the podcast, is one of sincerity. Or maybe earnestness. I voted for The Tingler because it hit all the right marks for me as a piece of excellent schlock, with sincere performances making the schlock so much better. But where the Tingler is not particularly discussed today (maybe the gimmick is), The Room, I feel is still a part of the conversation in the so-bad-it-is-good category.I feel torn, but I just landed on the side of yes. That line, that Thin Blue Canon Line (pun from last week!), can be a dubious thing, but if my experience of a film is something that I enjoy, makes me think (often WTF), and leaves me questioning the very art form itself (oh god those football scenes), how can I deny its entry into the Canon?

 

I cannot wait to see The Disaster Artist now that I have seen the disaster.

[bleary 333]

I mean, I've never even been to L.A., nor did I have anyone introduce it to me by anyone, nor did it arise in my life because of Franco's film. It's been a cult hit for a long time. If you're a pop culture nerd--not even a film person, even--chances are, you've at least heard of The Room.

 

I mean, that's fine that you're combatting my anecdotal evidence with your anecdotal evidence. I introduced the IMDb numbers in an attempt to give a quantification to the claims you're making, but if you have another way to quantify them, I'd like to hear it. I wasn't trying to cherry-pick numbers; I genuinely disagree with your suppositions and want to see some proof one way or another.

 

Also, you know as well as I do that being the subject of watching parties or having something mindblowing is not actual evidence that a particular movie has priority in the hierarchy of greater consciousness. I'm not discounting your personal experiences, I'm just saying that experiences vary and I wonder which of us would get the "results not typical" disclaimer.

[Dale Cooper Black 340]

You're tearing me apart, HoldenMartinson and bleary!

[vitalogst 1]

I do not believe that The Room should be included into any list of movies that are considered great for one obvious reason, it isn't. It isn't a great movie. It's a fun movie, it's an interesting movie, it has a rich back story and heraldry, but that doesn't change the fact that it as a whole is a failure of a film. It fails entirely at its intention, as opposed to the other bad movies listed. This isn't a film by some genius that choose to make the film this way, and had pure intention behind it, this is a film that ended up bad due to the total and complete incompetence of the film maker at its helm. I think the main question is, would anyone use The Room as a teaching tool for what to do right in their own films? Is there anything in The Room that another filmmaker would want to ape in the hopes of elevating their own piece of art? The answer to that has to be a definitive no, which then eliminates it from being a "Canon" worthy film. Tommy Wisseau is not David Lynch. David Lynch makes films that feel similar to this film, bizarre characters, elements that feel like they don't add up to a finished product, but David Lynch is able to do that with intention and understanding. Tommy Wisseau did not make these decisions in the same way as DL, or with the same intention behind his film. David Lynch is a director that has created a legion of copycat and followers based on his use of angle, narrative, lighting, score, story telling and more, because DL, while being a director that rubs many the wrong way, has true intention that he succeeds at executing. Tommy Wisseau fails completely at executing his ideas. Because TW tried to make a great film, and failed, it can't be considered a great film worthy of being considered with the others. If TW intention was to make the best worst film, it would be an incredible feat, but he didn't and this film should not be looked upon as a triumph of art. At best it's a bad film that audiences have found a way to enjoy, only by subverting the intention of the filmmakers and taking away their viewpoint, and supplanting with their own. Do not put this film in the Canon, even if the popular vote is for it, and attempt to keep any semblance of actual authority as a gatekeeper of good taste and understanding of great film. Don't pretend to make a podcast about knowing the difference between great art and bad art and then ignore those rules, if you want to be taken seriously. If you don't care about actually having a legitimacy to your claims, just change the name of the podcast to, "Movies we like and think that are fun for people to watch and we don't really care about whether they're truly good or relevant or purposeful." As that would be more apt.

[bleary 333]

You're tearing me apart, HoldenMartinson and bleary!

We're not even disagreeing on Canon-worthiness, since we both voted yes! I guess I'm just surprised that so many people here seem to think The Room has a wide following and a large cultural footprint, and I just don't see it!

 

But if all we have are anecdotes, I'd like to invite everyone to share their own. When did you first hear about The Room and how?

 

Like I said before, I only learned of its existence in 2009 when I saw a flyer advertising a showing of it around LA somewhere. When I found out that the Landmark Regent in Westwood did regular monthly screenings of it, I initially thought that that meant it must be a good movie. I don't know how long it took me to figure out its actual reputation, but I know that despite walking by its poster on Broxton Ave regularly for 7 years, I never had a friend bring it up to me until early 2016, after The Disaster Artist had started filming. So kudos to everyone who had friends who clued them in early!

[jjulius 16]

Yes from me.

 

Tommy Wiseau may have invented the 21st century shared cinematic universe. When the Flash appeared in Batman v Superman, it reminded me of Lisa's mother's part in The Room. She talks about her personal problems, then goes away; into her own story, that we don't get to see. (Perhaps Tommy wanted to make a spin-off in which her story is explored. Probably not.) Lisa's mother, the drug dealer, the couple who come in to have sex; all of them have their own story in the Roomiverse. A story that's not necessarily relevant to the main plot, but it's still going on. Just like in real life. Not everyone you meet is relevant for you; most people are side characters who just walk in and out of your life story. You sometimes wonder how they ended up, but you usually don't care enough to find out. Still: they all have their own story. Where most movies try to remove everything that's not clearly relevant, The Room keeps all those things in, suggesting a world far bigger than The Room.

[rfmempin 11]

To the people claiming that a larger cultural significance: this movie is only 14 YEARS OLD. Popular screenings may die out in the near future. There's no indication that this movie's inspired any other filmmakers stylistically. An impending movie on the topic isn't enough.

 

If you're voting in a movie (primarily based on its cultural impact) when it's so young, then more deference should be given to much older movies that we're still watching. It's not fair to discredit The Tingler for its current lack of shocking seats (despite it's footprint on so many B horror movies), yet give so much credit to a movie because the director tours around with it.

 

While I do enjoy The Room, and love Amy's point that it shows you all of the rules/boundaries of filmmaking you typically don't think about otherwise, I do think we've gotten too wrapped in Paul's passion. There's no symbolic meaning to anything, and Kubrick had reasons for making off-kilter scenes, Wiseau did not (Barry Lyndon has an eerie vibe to indicate these characters transgress the genre they've been placed in). And yes I agree that a director's intent generally doesn't matter, but it does matter when there's no other possible interpretation.

 

I think people should think about how much of the value of this movie exists outside of it: the screenings, the mystery surrounding Wiseau, Wiseau's intense earnestness, etc. If intent doesn't matter, than why are we lending so much importance to these things?