James Franco won the 2018 Golden Globe for Best Actor in a Musical/Comedy, for his role as Actor-Director-Writer-Producer Tommy Wiseau, in The Disaster Artist.
For those in the dark, The Disaster Artist follows Tommy Wiseau as he directs, writes, produces, and stars in what MANY consider the worst movie of all time (debatable, but we’ll get to that in just a minute), The Room.
First things first – if you haven’t watched The Room, you absolutely must. Rent it, buy it, do what you will (nothing illegal, of course), but watch the movie. The 2003 film was a critical and commercial flop, but like a few rare movies, it did one thing that made it memorable – it was so bad, it was good!
The Room would go on to become a cult classic, and join the list of movies that are so-bad-they’re-good, like Manos: The Hands of Fate and Plan 9 from Outer Space.
But Wait!
There’s a curious trend here, one that warrants a closer look. The Room and Plan 9 from Outer Space, were WIDELY panned as the worst movies of their time, and perhaps even ALL time. Directors Tommy Wiseau and Ed Wood, respectively, are still remembered for the two movies.
But movies about the making of these two movies, AKA The Disaster Artist (The Room) and Ed Wood (Plan 9 from Outer Space), were critically acclaimed.
James Franco won the Golden Globe for his role as Tommy Wiseau in The Disaster Artist, Martin Landau won an Academy award for Best Supporting Actor in his role as actor Bela Lugosi in Ed Wood.
So what gives? Do, we as humans, just love to watch people fail? Or is there something more here?
The Tale of the Bright-Eyed Optimist
First, both The Disaster Artist, and Ed Wood (with the titular Wood being portrayed by Johnny Depp), have protagonists who are eternal optimists, assured beyond a doubt of their vision, confident that their ideas and execution are advisable, and even daresay, good.
In Ed Wood, despite repeatedly delivering flops and facing constant rejection and humiliation from studios, Depp’s Wood remains optimistic and confident about his vision.
The relatability factor is strong for many, as far as the protagonist goes. Who hasn’t, in their life, been absolutely confident about an idea, only to have it backfire in the most glorious way possible?
Misery Sells, But Only If It Has Good Production Value
Say what you want about The Room and Plan 9 From Outer Space, but the two movies are so bad they’re good. The absolute unbelievable nature of the movies comes from the fact that we wonder how anyone could have seen this movie, or seen a specific take, or the delivery of a dialogue, and said, “Good! That’s the one we’ll take. Keep that one in the movie.”
The Disaster Artist, and Ed Wood were critical hits. Unlike the movies they were based on, these movies used an engaging narrative, relatable characters, and direction that wasn’t just, “Shoot it! Cut it! We’re Done! Let’s wrap up!”
Another example, Miss Lovely, from 2012 is probably India’s closest equivalent to the likes of The Disaster Artist and Ed Wood ie: a movie about people making a movie.
Miss Lovely follows the Duggal brothers, two filmmaker brothers reminiscent of the Ramsay Brothers, as they direct a slew of C-grade movies with themes of horror, and the occasional suggestive scene thrown in for cheap thrills.
The movie starring Nawazuddin Siddiqui received two awards at the 61st National Film Awards, and was screened at the 2012 Cannes film festival.
Good or Bad, We Want Entertainment
What drives millions to watch reality TV? Why do we tune in every night at the same time to watch Bigg Boss? Does the lonely housewife really want to keep up with the Kardashians? Does anyone know the point of Jersey Shore (if so, PLEASE tell me)?
The reasons for the successes of these shows, are the same reasons some movies qualify for the so-bad-they’re-good category. Because they’re entertaining.
And that’s also the reason some movies, no matter how good, will fail to gain the same popularity. Because they fail to entertain.
For an Indian example, let’s look at one of India’s most popular “good-bad movies” (or is it bad-good movies?)Gunda, by Kanti Shah.
Gunda violates nearly every single rule of filmmaking, multiple scenes shot from the same angle are cut together, little context is provided, the dialogues are delivered like the actors are reading them for the first time in their lives, the overacting is overwhelming, and the under-direction is, well, underwhelming.
But is it entertaining? By god, yes! As of writing this article, Gunda has a 7.5 rating on IMDB, with 8,723 people having reviewed it.
Ignore everything you think you know about filmmaking (like the directors of these movies), about sequencing (watch Gunda for the best example of this), editing (what’s that?), narrative (because there is none), about realistic sets (realism matlab?!), and good taste.
And there you have it. We love bad movies because despite all the conventional lacunae, they’re highly entertaining.
Ignore the slight twinge of pain you may feel about what a good movie looks like, and sit back with a tub of popcorn, because movies that are so-bad-they’re-good are here to stay, and could even lead to other award-winning films, a la James Franco.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)