The Room: The Movie. Triple-threat (actor/writer/director)
Tommy Wiseau made his cinematic debut in 2003 with the
The Room (see
trailer and
various scenes),
"a blend between a
softcore porn flick and a Tennessee Williams stageplay." Wiseau ("who's not just one of the most unusual
looking and
sounding-with
an unidentifiable Eastern European accent-leading men ever to
grace the screen, but a narcissist nonpareil whose movie makes
Vincent Gallo's "The Brown Bunny" seem
the apotheosis of cinematic self-restraint...may be something of a first: A movie that
prompts most of its viewers to ask for their money back-before even
30 minutes have passed." -
Variety),
allegedly raised $6 million outside Hollywood to cover production and marketing costs of the self-described "black comedy about love, passion, betrayal and lies" (see
various rough dress rehersals).
Audience members, including comedian
David Cross, have been
"marveling at the bizarre editing, bad bluescreen, uncomfortably explicit
sex scenes and, of course, the enigma of Wiseau himself" as the film
played monthly for years in Los Angeles. Available on
DVD, diehard "roomies"
swear by the
theatrical experience,
shout out their own commentary,
hurl spoons at the screen and singalong to the
soundtrack. Some call it
"The Rocky Horror of the New Millenium" and stage
"Room"
parties. If you look at the
marketing campaign or
survived a screening you might see The Room as
"a seminar on how
NOT to make a movie." [Inspired by
Boing Boing]
posted by boost ventilator
on Jun 1, 2006 -
28 comments
I don't know what "independent film" means. At a time when the
Weinsteins are trying to extricate themselves from Disney, it seems an appropriate question to ask. There are Indie films (non-industry money) that are
supposed to imitate fancy hollywood films, there are new studios being opened outside of LA by Wealthy Christians in Denver hoping to convert through
CS Lewis movies and there are
Garden State,
Lost in Translation,
Eternal Sunshine etc. which are like other Hollywood films: have stars, and studio money but are marketed as "Independent Films." What makes these independent? Finally, and seemingly too infrequently, there are privately financed and self-distributed unusual films like
Assisted Living which despite their
obvious merits and the
critic's adoration are presumably ignored by the studios, blasted by the brain-numbing
EW and distributed instead by the two young first-time
filmmakers
Why can't we see more non-hollywood and non-hollywood espousing independent ART on the screen? Why do we let every other multi-million dollar romantic comedy be sold to us as "indy" just because it has a quirky soundtrack or aesthetic sensibility. What can we do about it? I'm going to the movies. You?
posted by tallbuildings
on Apr 15, 2005 -
30 comments
