All You Can Say for “The Room” (2003) is that It is a Film (Part II of II)

(Continues from Part I)

Purportedly, there are film schools that use this movie as a case study in film-making. One can see why, because this movie’s list of not-to-dos can easily fill an entire semester.

Consider:

1. If a character learns she has cancer, it’s a pretty serious thing. A film should follow-up on such stories rather than treating it as a throwaway line.
2. A normal human response to a guy telling a story about a girl being beaten up is not laughter. It’s also not normal to respond to such laughter with “you can say that again.” A film should depict humans as humans.
3. Audience can retain enough memory in the course of thirty minutes to remember an unpleasantly vivid sex scene that had a close up of an unattractive ass. A film should not use the same cut to depict a separate bedroom scene.
4. An audience needs context when a new character appears. A film should take the time to name and explain a character who randomly shows up.
5. A normal conversation involves a person finishing a sentence before the next person starts speaking. A film should ensure that there’s dialogue between actors, not overlapping reading of lines.

And on and on the list goes.

Tommy Wiseau produced, wrote, directed, and starred in “The Room,” because when you finance your own movie, you can do whatever you want. The movie reportedly cost millions to make, which goes to show that, much like with other things in life, whatever you lack in talent, you can make up for in money.

This film in a normal viewing is an unwatchable bore. The only way you can get through it is to treat it as an experience, yelling at the characters on screen and cheering on the ridiculousness.

But as unpleasant as it is, I insist that any person who’s remotely interested in Hollywood go watch this film. Because only in Hollywood can a crap like this lead to stardom for Greg Sestero and a Golden Globe appearance for Tommy Wiseau.