#Then I had my first relationship at like. Fourteen? Which was genuinely comedically bad

[butchratchettruther]

Thinking about how comedically bad nearly all of my partners have been

[cryptoriawebb]

My thoughts on “The Disaster Artist”

Oh, hai Tumblr

I won’t lie, I originally planned to review The Room before writing my reaction to the Disaster Artist. The more I thought about it, though, the more I didn’t feel I could do so, seriously. We all know it’s a bad movie. We know it’s quite possibly the worst movie ever made in the history of bad movies. We also know it stands apart from other bad films, in that it’s so bad it’s actually entertaining. Enjoyable. Dare I say “classic?” It’s the kind of movie you laugh and cringe and come away from quoting the rest of the night. The kind of movie you go into knowing full-well how awful it is and enjoying yourself, anyway.

I’ve seen a lot of bad movies, and The Room may very well be the only one I came away from with a smile on my face and laughter in my heart. I’d heard about and seen clips from it over the last couple of years, but I didn’t expect the full experience to be so…what it was. I’d honestly watch it again, I would. It’s something you want to share with others and be a part of, yourself. I joked with my friends that it might very well be “the Eighth Wonder of the World” but there is some loose-knit truth in that. It is a wonder. Fourteen years and still, people flock to it. They probably always will.

Where to begin my thoughts on The Disaster Artist. I was really impressed. I didn’t know what to expect going in—most everyone these days knows of Tommy Wiseau and his disasterpiece, The Room. If they haven’t seen it, they’ve at least heard of it, and if they haven’t heard of it, then they probably know someone who does.

There were so so many ways this movie could have gone wrong—everything from the humor to the narrative to Wiseau’s portrayal. I haven’t seen James Franco in a movie for some time, and I go up and down with his performances. I was a bit nervous when I heard he’d be portraying Wiseau, but the trailer looked promising (and admittedly I do find Franco attractive) so I figured I’d at least give him the benefit of doubt. Plus, I really wanted to see both Franco brothers on-screen, together. They didn’t disappoint! Nor did they read on-screen as brothers at all. Which is something I wondered about—if an audience member going into a movie knowing the co-stars were siblings would see them as such, regardless of the role. I didn’t, and I’m really fortunate I didn’t because these two gave quite the performance. Especially James.

Don’t get me wrong, Dave did a fantastic job as well; I genuinely felt his empathy and frustration towards his relationship with Wiseau and his career and the chaotic whirlwind around him. I’ve never read The Disaster Artist but I am definitely thinking about doing so, now.

James though, wow. I’ve never seen him in a role like this, ever. The dedication and commitment to this performance and this man practically oozed from him on-screen. He didn’t entirely look like Tommy Wiseau but he didn’t have to; everything else was spot-on. Biopics (can I call this a biopic?) can be tricky things: sometimes you feel for the person from whom the characters draw inspiration, sometimes you don’t. Sometimes you understand their pain and passion, sometimes you don’t. This movie, however? I really felt for both Wiseau and Sestero. They read like real people chasing after dreams they didn’t quite know how to reach but wanted to, desperately. That’s a feeling I myself know well and I was pleasantly surprised by how strongly that part of me resonated with the film. Nothing felt cliché or threadbare; it was all very real…and real is not something I see often from Hollywood, these days. I mean, the first trailer on its own looked promising but trailers can be so deceiving, I didn’t want to get my hopes up beyond a certain point.

Thinking about it, I’m wondering if I in part felt that passion from the film because Franco’s own bled into it. From what I’ve seen, he was pretty invested in adapting not only the book but telling Wiseau’s story. If that was the case, it worked. It worked really well (what is that called? Method acting? Haha…)

This movie also had a fair amount of humor sprinkled in through the drama, particularly scenes involving filming The Room. Now, that could be because I’d just watched the movie for the first time, before, so everything was fresh in my head and the jokes and concerns from the “crew” as Wiseau dragged them through the process reflected thoughts my friends and I shared while watching it.  I can’t tell you how hard we all laughed during the “sex scenes.” Or, of course, the scene in the trailer.

I want to give a shout out to Seth Rogan, here. While not a major character in the film (I’d say more like “moderate”), nor in the most comedic role I’ve ever seen, he managed to be quite funny. Maybe that stems from the environment happening around him, the grounded and skeptic “wtf” voice pinned against Wiseau’s erratic eccentricities.

Also, I had no idea Efron was in the movie. At all. Not until I saw him out of character costume did I realize I’d witnessed him threatening the hell out of “Denny.” Honestly, I really loved how many recognizable actors played such small roles compared to what I usually see them in. This is especially true for the opening of the film.

I’m sure the actors featured received some pointers from Franco/the screenwriter; the way it was shot and how they spoke indicated memorized lines as opposed to interview response. That said, I’d like to think there was some individual honesty and truth in their introduction. I really do think it was the perfect opening, not only to The Room and Tommy Wiseau but the impact they both made. It may not seem like it at first but step back and think about this: how many bad movies gain such infamous status among superstars/well known Hollywood personas? Aesthetically, the scene was lovely as well. Sometimes all you need is flat lighting and a black backdrop to garner attention. An interesting choice, too, to go the ‘non-fiction’ route; normally I only see that in documentaries. I definitely think it added to the film as opposed to hurt it. I will say at first I wasn’t sure if these actors were playing characters or not—I figured by the time Kevin Smith showed up, they weren’t (super glad to see him included, by the way. He would be the kind of guy to talk to about a movie like this!)

Also loved the throwback to Malcolm in the Middle and Bryan Cranston. I know it was in there for a reason but the nostalgic in me still associates Cranston with that show. He’ll always be Hal to me and it was kind of nice to see, on-screen…even if it was a source of conflict for Dave/Greg and a could-have-been turning point in his own career. That hurt, that scene. I wanted so badly for Greg to take that chance, as someone who is very self-motivated and ambitious and can, at times, feel anchored by certain relationships. That said, I understand loyalty to friends and how tough it can be on the heart. On the one hand, you feel for them, maybe even hurt for them. On the other...you see the disaster before the train derails and it’s so hard not to leap off the tracks. I admire Greg’s decision, I do. It shows what kind of guy he is, I think, and more importantly, what kind of friend. I couldn’t help but wonder what his life might be life if he had taken that job…if he’s happy, being a part of this legacy or if there’s something more he wanted, out of reach, because.

Jumping tone for a minute here, my favorite part of the movie by far was the shot-for-shot remake scenes of The Room. Not only were the lines on par, but costume and direction, down to the smallest gesture: like heads tilting back or the way a character smiled. Most of these scenes weren’t even part of the narrative—they weren’t included during the “screening” part of the movie. You’ve really got to love something to take that much time and effort, and pay such attention to detail.

Maybe it’s just me but I feel all of this really speaks to not only the impression The Room has made on the world but also Wiseau’s own self-view. Like…that he marches to his own beat, or seems to, and these actors, however famous they are, aren’t untouchable. He can be like them and achieve what they did. Which is funny because—and I was talking about this to my friends—he kind of did. Everything in the movie, what he said and aspired to be, as Franco or otherwise, came true. He did achieve his dream, and his movie put him on an unforgettable map. Hollywood actors watch and talk about The Room (from the interviews I’ve seen, anyway.)  It’s become a phenomena, a movie so bad it’s actually good; even I’d watch it again and I can’t say that about any other bad movies I’ve seen.

One last thing: make sure you stay until the end of the credits. If you haven’t heard why, just take my word for it~

[seyaryminamoto]

I always felt Azula's breakdown, while making sense from a broader narrative perspective (especially if you view her as a dark mirror to Zuko, who easily could have gone down a similar path), was disgustingly rushed. She went from Evil But Calculating to Evil and Crazy in the space of two episodes, instead of say, a subtle arc that has her steadily slip into it, as she grows more egomaniacal and self absorbed. Instead, it felt like Bryke was running out of ideas, and they just shoved it along

In a way, I think you’re right because I’m dead sure Bryke never meant for Azula to be as layered and complex as she comes off in the show. I mean, yes, they say she’s a very interesting villain but from what I could gather, they think Zaheer is super interesting too. Not great criteria in general, if you ask me…

As a curious example of how Bryke actually characterize Azula… these are the episodes that feature Azula, that were written by the creators: The Drill, The Guru, Sozin’s Comet Parts 1, 3 and 4.

While Azula is of course rather cold-blooded through all of Book 2, there are quirks to her personality that come through in all other episodes. In those Book 2 episodes they wrote, we see an Azula who’s following fit with her attitude from her first episode: we see her cold, conniving, virtually flawless. Yet this comes after episodes like the Chase, where she makes jokes at her brother’s expenses, or Appa’s Lost Days, where she makes a seriously bad pun. It comes after we see sides of her character that may have been unexpected, such as her conflictive relationship with her mother (she even seemed scared when Ursa wanted to have a serious talk with her). So we had indeed an initial product who was the flawless and cold Azula from episodes 2x01 and 2x03, but as the show progressed, she showed other sides of herself. Not in the episodes helmed by Bryke, though. Gotta wonder why (*cough* their perception of Azula is that of a static villain *cough*).

Book 3 is largely NOT written by Bryke, some people may think that’s good, some may think it’s bad. What I think? It explains why the most interesting aspects of Azula’s characterization shine during this season. Her social awkwardness, her strange, tug-of-war relationship with Zuko (one moment she’s helping him, the next she’s insulting him, and so on), many of the complexities about her are far more clear in this season.

Thing is… as you well said, if Bryke always wanted her to be clearly mentally ill, and to be coded as that, they could have used those episodes of Book 3 and instead of exploring her more humane sides, her other complexities, they could have explored her mental instability. They didn’t. And so, it can result in what happened to you: her downfall can feel rushed and forced.

I honestly like it fine the way it is, even if I’m not happy at all about how Azula ended up (as I’ve said many times, my problem isn’t that I thought her downfall made no sense, but merely that she was set up to fall from the start and never given an opportunity to have a different destiny than to lose against her brother). I like the way the other writers developed her because it genuinely makes her character more real, and not just another evil villain with mental issues. But I do understand your problem fairly well. While the fans said she’s a psycho or a sociopath through all the show, there’s really no signs of mental illness per se until the last episodes. Her ability to lie so well always struck me as a sign of how absurdly in control she is of herself, not of how much of a sociopath she is.

All this is why, while I know people always will say Azula was mentally ill, and the show and comics insist that she is, I’ve always thought her breakdown isn’t really caused by a specific illness. Someone once wrote an essay about her breakdown, where they explained why most diagnosis don’t even match with the symptoms she displayed. I don’t have the link right now, but in short, it said that for a fourteen-year-old girl who came from such an environment, her breakdown can simply be a matter of circumstance and not a product of a major mental illness. Yes, clearly her mind was not alright, but it also may not have been caused by the kind of diseases most people are using to label her.

I’m not by any means a professional, but I think this is what makes most sense, not just because of the diagnosis, but because of what you’ve said too. Had she been suffering from serious mental illnesses from the get-go, there should have been actual signs of it, other than “she’s a great liar”. And this as well is why I think her breakdown is what it is, a breakdown. Breakdowns definitely can be the consequence of something bigger, but they can also be something that happens to people who lose control of their very minds when their circumstances become really harsh. At least, that’s what I think.

I can be wrong, but I do think you’re right to say they should have taken her mental illnesses more seriously if that was what they were. They’re handling a very serious topic in a very simplistic way, in show and comics. Mental illness isn’t something that manifests itself out of nowhere.

They never did write Azula as too megalomaniac through the show though (with the finale being the only possible exception), and while some of her actions came off as selfish, she always was working for her father and her nation, not for her own advancement and ambitions. When the finale arrives, her father betrays her, and even then she’s talking about how she means to become a great leader for the Fire Nation. She’s simply not a conventional villain, and I appreciate that quite a lot, or else she’d be a lot less interesting to me. But with all this in mind, the show didn’t do a great job at convincing me that she’s evil and needs to go down. 

And that’s really where Bryke and Yang have failed for me. They’re not writing her the way the show developed her: no actual jokes initiated by her (the few comedic scenes featuring her in the comics really aren’t like those the show gave us), many of her complexities are left untouched (makes a ton of friends out of nowhere, yet back in the day she couldn’t seem to do it without using her title to achieve it, according to The Beach, so an explanation would’ve been nice?), always seems to be using Zuko for her own ends without ever doing anything selflessly for him (which she did in the show, namely in Book 3). They’re trying very hard to sell the Evil and Crazy idea, when the “crazy” really wasn’t part of her character until the last leg of the show. They’re leaving aside everything else that made Azula who she is, and not even treating the matter of mental illness with the seriousness it deserves.

They really could have done better. In a way, I’m glad they didn’t because I love the sides of Azula that come to light in Book 3, but at the same time, I think their perception of Azula is stuck in that of Book 2′s initial Azula, just, with mental illnesses sparkled in whenever it suits the story, as it has been in all comics featuring her. And honestly, the complexities she shows in Book 3 could have been explored while delving into her mental instability from early on, too. It wouldn’t have been impossible.