What is there to say about Tommy Wiseau’s directorial debut besides every other review of it being completely and UDD3RLY wrong? One of the first reviews I read for this film was that “The thing that really makes the film work is how real it feels.” Going into the work with the idea of raw reality in mind, I was shocked to find the acting stale, the shots uninspired, the cuts lacking continuity, and an overall lack of inertia from start to end. The moment a scene would start moving, a jarring cut or tangential plot point would arise, stopping any momentum in its tracks. In fact, I cannot stress enough how UNREAL this film feels—like a suffocating fever dream you can’t wake up from.
That’s one of the most frustrating parts of this film: the fact that so many people seemed to see something I was incapable of seeing. Another avid review from frequent moviegoer Kajal Laltoparsad read “I loved and enjoyed the storyline... It's not everyday you find a movie so close to reality and of topics many shudder to mention.” To be completely honest, I found the usage of many overused tropes to actually be trite and diluted. How many films include love triangles, suicide, football, disease, drug busts, violence, birthday parties, and one-too-many sex scenes? Too many to count.
I don’t want my review of this film to be strictly about the disjuncture between other online reviews and my review, but it is simply something I can’t overlook. The commendations about the storytelling weren’t the only positive points according to the internet. Many found the acting performances to be Oscar-worthy and life-changing. Huh?! Lisa, played by Mrs. FIRSTNAME FIRSTNAME Juliette Danielle, gave the audience nothing with her acting, which is shocking, considering the fact that the infamous Roger Ebert film blog said her performance was “emotionally sumptuous.” I beg your pardon? I would hardly argue a bland delivery of “Leave your stupid comments in your pocket” to be realistic, let alone “emotionally sumptuous.” What’s even more shocking is the relentless sympathy given to our main female character in the tabloids. Lisa seemed to be the arbiter of chaos and mischief, not “astonish[ing] with her raw honesty,” as the Roger Ebert film blog continued to declare. The reviews constantly paint her as a victim, but to me, it seemed like she was the only one causing problems. She sleeps around and weaponizes sex to get in the way of pre-existing friendships, all for her own benefit.
There was definitely something I was missing during this initial viewing that leads me to believe it deserves another watch. The provided exposition on the Roger Ebert blog read: “After being abducted seven years ago, a young woman is held captive in a sparsely furnished and cramped suburban garden shed along with her now-kindergarten-aged son.” I guess I know where this could be applied, but I never looked at it this way. Lisa’s apartment is, without a doubt, sparsely furnished. There’s an eerie feeling with every background, framed photo being of a spoon. I can also see how Danny, the boy in their building, could be Lisa’s son, though I never thought of it like that. Furthermore, while it does seem like quite an elaborate metaphor, the setting of San Francisco could very well be seen as a suburban garden shed, given its demographic of left-leaning, outdoorsy environmentalists. Perhaps, there is more of a mystery to this film than what meets the eye.
With all this in mind, The Room deserves a rewatch from me. Not only do I need to learn to see the gut-wrenching beauty everyone is raving about, but I also need to figure out who Brie Larson and Jacob Tremblay are. Expect an updated review.
